Army Corps of Engineers will manage the
design and construction stages lor EPA.
Private contractors will perform the work
at a site under Federal or State
Government supervision.
An important part ol the Superhmd
program is to encourage voluntary cleanup
by private industries and individuals when
they are responsible tor releases. In lad.
since the full extent of the problem has
become understood, industry has spent
millions of dollars for cleanups, as well as
for the upgrading of existing facilities.
Additionally, industrial research and
development have resulted in signilicant
advancers in technologies to control
hazardous wastes.
Working with the local community is a
key aspect of every Superfund response. At
each site, officials responsible tor technical
work ensure that the concerns ot local
citizens and officials are taken into
account in the development of solutions
and that information about the site is
widely distributed,
The Limits The Trust Fund is large, but the cost of
of responding to a hazardous substance
Superfund release is usually large too. and there are
many sites and spills in need of attention.
Consequently, while CERCLA authorizes
the Federal Government to respond to
releases of hazardous substances, it does
not require the government to respond to
every release. At present, private parties
handle about 90 percent of all releases that
would otherwise require a removal action.
In addition, CERGLA specifies that
Superfund money can be spent only under
carefully prescribed conditions.
• A Superfund-financed response mnv not
be taken if EPA determines that the owner,
operator, or other responsible party is
undertaking an appropriate cleanup.
• Removals are taken only to bring a
release of hazardous substances under
control; they are not intended to eliminate
every long-term problem.
• Response under Superfund is not
authorized in specified situations lhat may
be covered by other laws (e.g., for certain
releases of source, by-product, or special
nuclear material from a nuclear incident).
• Remedial-action costs nmsl be shared In'
a Slate in (he design and construction
phases. States must contribute to percent
on sites that were privately on ned al the
time of disposal of hazardous substances
and al least ,10 percenl on sites Ilia! were
publicly owned. The State must also
finance operation and mainlenanie costs.
except (or an initial period, when K/'A will
share in the cosl lo eerlilv lhat the remedy
actually functions as planned.
Because remedial actions may Lie
confronted by complex problems that are
expensive to resolve, they are subject to
further conditions. Technical measures can
be selected only after evaluation of all
feasible alternatives on the basis of
economic, engineering and environmental
factors. The NCP explains how to
determine the extent of cleanup that is
appropriate and most cost-effective for a
particular site. In addition:
• The law requires that, wherever
possible, the remedy selected should avoid
the costly step of excavating hazardous
wastes and transporting them off the site
for disposal elsewhere.
• The benefits to be derived from
continued work on a remedial action at a
site must be weighed against the benefits
of working at other sites in the nation. A
project could be delayed or terminated to
allow funds to be shifted where they are
most needed.
The intent of these conditions is to
derive the maximum benefit from
Superfund tor the nation as a whole.
The Superfund program, in sum, is a
coordinated effort of the Federal. State,
and local governments, private industry,
and citizens. The problems are widespread
and often will require time to resolve. But
the Superfund program is a significant part
of our national response to one of the
major environmental challenges of the
decade.
This leaflet provides an overview of Superfund. For
further information, please contact an EPA Regional
Office or call the national information number listed
on the back page of this leaflet. The toll-free number
of the National Response Center is also provided for
citizens to report releases into the environment of oil
and hazardous substances.
EPA Superfund Offices
Region 1
|olin F. Kennedv lildg.
Doston. MA 02203
(1)17] 223-1934
Region 2
20 "Federal I'la/a
Xe\v York. NY 10278
(2 12] 21)4-21)47
Region ;i
lilb and Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia. PA 19100
(215] 597-8132
Region 4
345 Conrlland St.. X'F.
Allan!,i. CA 30305
(404| 881-3454
Region 5
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 00004
(312) 800-7579
Region 0
1201 Klin St.
Diillii.s. TX 75270
(2141 707-4075
Region 7
72li MiniH'snla Avenue
Kansas City. KS 1)1)101
(8 Hi) 374-7275
Region 8
1800 Lincoln SI.
Denver. CO 802(1.")
(303] 203-157(1
Region !)
2 15 Fremont SI.
San Francisco. CA (14 105
(415) 074-7400
Region 10
1200 (itli Ave.
Seattle. \VA (1810!
(200] 442-10(10
Superfund/RCKA Hotline (800) 424-9340
for information on programs
National Response Center (800) 424-8802
to report releases of oil and hazardous substances
v
-------
Why
Super-fund
Is Needed
For two and one half decades, hundreds
of tons of toxic wastes were dumped
into an unfinished canal built by William
T. Love in Niagara Falls, New York. The
canal was covered when it was full; houses
and a school were later built near and
above the canal. In the late 1970s, alarmed
by unusual health symptoms, residents of
the Love Canal area called the attention of
government officials to hazardous
substances rising to the surface, seeping
into basements, and migrating from the
site.
On April 21, 1980, a fire of unknown
origin broke out at an inactive waste
treatment facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey.
The site was littered with some 20,000
leaking and corroded drums containing
pesticides, explosives, radioactive wastes,
acids, and other hazardous substances. A
cloud of toxic gases skirted
heavily-populated areas one-quarter mile
from the site. Significant quantities of
contaminated water from fire-fighting ran
off into the Elizabeth River.
On February 26, 1979, a freight train
derailed near Youngstown, Florida,
puncturing a tank car containing 90,000
pounds of chlorine gas, releasing a
chlorine cloud. Eight motorists on a nearby
highway were killed, 183 other people
were injured, and 3,500 residents within a
7.5-mile radius were evacuated. Other
derailed tank cars contained a variety of
toxic and flammable substances.
These examples and many others
demonstrate that the careless disposal of
hazardous wastes in the past, and the
continuing threat of releases of hazardous
substances to the environment, are serious
problems that the nation must deal with
promptly.
As a key part of the nation's overall
response to these hazardous substance
problems, Congress enacted in 1980 the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). The new law provided the
needed authority and trust fund (the
"Superfund") so that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and State Governments can now respond
to hazardous substance emergencies and
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites where
longer term remedies are needed. EPA is
responsible for managing this cleanup
program under the Superfund law, but
calls on 130 other Federal agencies such as
the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the Department of Health and
Human Services, and the Army Corps of
Engineers, for assistance in their respective
areas of expertise.
Until CERCLA was passed, the Federal
Government lacked the general authority to
clean up hazardous waste sites or to
respond to spills of hazardous substances
onto land or into the air or non-navigable
waters. Congress had addressed hazardous
waste problems before, but Federal
responsibilities were mostly regulatory.
• The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRAJ, passed in 1976 and
reauthorized in 1984, established a
regulatory system to track hazardous
wastes from the time they are generated to
their final disposal. RCRA also requires
safe and secure procedures to be used in
treating, storing, and transporting
hazardous wastes. RCRA is designed to
prevent the creation of new Love Canals; it
does not, however, authorize the Federal
Government to respond directly to the
problems at uncontrolled hazardous waste
disposal sites already in existence, such as
at the Love Canal.
• The Clean Water Act and its
predecessors enable the Federal
Government to take action when oil or
certain hazardous substances are
discharged into navigable waterways. Rut
these laws do not authorize the
government to act when hazardous
substances are released elsewhere in the
environment, threatening to contaminate
groundwater or to emit dangerous fumes,
as happened in the Youngstown, Florida,
freight derailment.
These and other environmental laws,
such as the Clean Air Act, authorize the
Federal Government to take legal action to
compel individuals or
companies—generators, transporters, or
disposers of hazardous substances—to
clean up problems for which they are
responsible. When a dump site is old and
abandoned, however, it may be impossible
to find anyone responsible for the
problem, or anyone able to afford the cost
of a cleanup. Moreover, many releases of
hazardous substances demand prompt
attention to avert serious damage. There
often is not enough time for legal
proceedings before action must be taken.
Some States had established their own
programs for responding to spills or
cleaning up uncontrolled waste disposal
sites. Like the Federal Government,
however, State Governments often lacked
the funds and the legal authority needed to
deal fully with the problem.
In 1980, Congress, therefore, enacted
CERCLA to establish a program to
spearhead both Federal and State efforts to
respond to releases of hazardous
substances into the environment.
The CERCLA authorizes the Federal
Superfund Government to respond directly to releases
Law (or threatened releases) of hazardous
substances and pollutants or contaminants
that may endanger public health or
environment. Costs are to be covered by a
Trust Fund, approximately 87 percent of
which is financed by taxes on the
manufacture or import of certain chemicals
and petroleum; the remainder comes from
general revenues. The fund will have
brought in about $1.6 billion over the first
5 years of the program. The Federal
Government, however, generally can take
actipn to recover its cleanup costs from
those subsequently identified as
responsible for the release. Anyone liable
for a release who fails to take ordered
actions is (under specified conditions)
liable for punitive damages equal to three
times the government's response costs.
How the The guidelines and procedures that the
Superfund Federal Government must follow in
Program implementing the Superfund law are
Works spelled out in a regulation known as the
National Contingency Plan (NCP).
Responses and cleanups under the
Superfund program must be tailored to the
specific needs of each site or each release
of hazardous substances. EPA's strong
enforcement effort seeks to ensure that
private responsible parties finance cleanup
actions when possible. Direct government
action, when called for, can take the
following forms:
• Removal actions, when a prompt
response is needed to prevent harm to
public health or welfare or the
environment. Removals may be ordered,
for example, to avert fires or explosions, to
prevent exposure to acutely toxic
substances, or to .protect a drinking water
supply from contamination. Actions may
include the installation of security fencing,
the construction of physical barriers to
control a discharge, or the removal of
hazardous substances off the site. Removal
actions may also be taken when an
expedited, but not necessarily immediate,
response is needed. These are intended to
minimize increases in danger or exposure
that would otherwise occur if response
were delayed. Ordinarily, each removal is
limited by law to- 6 months and a total
cost of $1 million. Removals can be taken
at sites on EPA's National Priorities List
(NPLJ sites as well as non-NPL sites,.
• Remedial actions, which are
longer-term and usually more expensive,
are aimed at permanent remedies. They
may be taken only at sites on the NPL.
Identifying the nation's uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites is an ongoing
process. After publishing two preliminary
lists, EPA proposed the first NPL,| consisting
of 406 sites, in September 1983. fly March
1985, the list had grown to 540 sites, with
an additional 272 in the( proposed category
awaiting a decision on listing, for a total
of 812 sites. The NPL; may eventually
include as many as 2,200 sites.
A remedial action may include the
removal of drums containing wastes from
the site; the installation of a clay "cap"
over the site; the construction of ditches
and dikes to control surface water or
drains, liners, and grout "cur* -ins" fo
control ground water; the provision of an
alternate water supply; or the temporary or
permanent relocation of residents.
The primary responsibility for carrying
out the Superfund program has been
assigned to EPA. The Coast Guard,
however, responds to spills that occur in
coastal areas. Other Federal agencies
provide assistance as necessary during a
response. States are encouraged to take
responsibility for an increasing number o
Superfund-financed remedial actions.
Under the law, State Governments may
plan and manage responses under
agreement with the Federal Government.
In remedial actions for which the Federal
Government has lead responsibility, the
------- |