Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Washington, DC 20460
Publication 9200.1-12-3
PB93-963254
January 1993
Superfund
&EPA Superfund Progress
/
Fall/Winter 1992
Focus: Environmental Response Training Program
Promoting Local Involvement in Superfund
Superfund Progress Report
-------
vvEPA
Superfund Progress
Fall/Winter 1992
Table of Contents
Focus: Superfund Training
Superfund Training Program: Teaching the ABCs
of Hazardous Materials Emergencies 1
Professional Students: ERTP Courses Keep Them
at the Head of Their Class 4
All Dressed Up For Hazardous Materials Training 6
A Guide to EPA-Approved Hazardous
Materials Training 7
Promoting Local Involvement
Superfund Continues to Listen To Concerned
Citizens 8
Reimbursements Foster Superfund-Local
Government Partnership 10
Superfund Progress Report
Enforcement Program Enjoys a Banner
Year in FY 1992 12
Completed Cleanups More Than Double in FY 1992 14
-------
Focus: Superfund Training
Superfund Training Program: Teaching the
ABCs of Hazardous Materials Emergencies
s
Ohio.
cene: A recent training exercise at U.S.
EPA's Superfund Environmental Re-
sponse Training Center in Cincinnati,
Two workers clad in cumbersome "moon suit"
protective gear cautiously enter a pitch-black,
abandoned "warehouse." Their fogged face-
plates restrict their vision, and the flashlights
they carry scarcely illuminate the gloom. One
worker stands on a pile of powdered "chemi-
cal" (actually it's 'flour); the other stands next to
spilled "acid" (vinegar). Barrels of simulated
chemicals, alcohols, acids, and radioactive
material—some corroded and leaking—are
stacked around them, hidden invthe darkness.
The workers are looking for a combustible gas
indicator (CGI), a $1,500 instrument they left
behind after its batteries rah out. Slightly
smaller than a shoe box, the CGI detects dan-
gerous levels of gases or, vapors that, under
certain conditions, might explode. They should
have gotten another CGI before re-entering the
"warehouse," but. they didn't. A hand emerges
from the darkness and taps the taller of the pair
on the shoulder.
"You've entered a vaporous environment
with no CGI. There's been an explosion, and
you're down," instructor Morgan Button
tells the worker. Turning to .the "downed"
worker's partner, Button tells him to call for
help. The worker radios his command post
to report the situation and to ask for help.
As they await rescue in the dark, an alarm
bell signals that about five minute's worth of
air remains in the downed worker's tank,
Soon, two more workers in moon suits •
arrive to take their '.'injured" colleague to
safety.
"I normally don't try to kill anybody in this
exercise," Button later explains. .But entering
a confined space without the CGI is too
serious a mistake to ignore. He makes the
point forcefully now, so that, when the
threats are real, the students won't forget
the CGI again.
The "explosion" in the "warehouse" sig-
nalled the end of a simulated response to a
.report of abandoned chemical1 drums. The
exercise came toward the end of a recent 40-
hour Hazardous Materials Incident Response
Operations course held by the U.S. EPA's
Superfund Environmental Response Training
Program (ERTP). The course is one of many
offered by the training program, which is part
of Superfund's Environmental Response Team
(ERT) headquartered in Edison, New Jersey.
(For more information about the ERT, see the
Summer 1992 issue of Superfund Progress.)
Hazardous Materials Instruction
More than just a hazardous waste clean-
up program, Superfund also is a
training program. EPA will spend
between $6 million and $7 million in FY 1993 on
the ERTP alone. And while ERTP's curriculum
stresses Superfund, many courses have wider
applications to the entire issue of hazardous
materials cleanup.
"We have a menu of 13 courses, and overall we
present 240 to 250 training sessions a year,"
says ERT Operations Section Chief Bruce
Students training in mock warehouse exercise
-------
Focus: Superfund Training
Potoka, who is in charge of the program. Most
of the 6,000 participants in ERTP courses each
year come from federal, state, or local agencies.
They pay no tuition for the one- to five-day
courses. Employees of private industry also
can attend, on a space
available basis; they must .^——i^——
pay between $250 and
$350 per course. About
35,000 students from all
50 States have taken
ERTP courses since the
program's inception.
(Call 513/569-7537 for a
course catalog.)
About 35,000 students
from 50 States have
taken Superfund's
ERTP courses so far.
Students who successfully complete an ERTP
course can earn credits to advance their profes-
sional careers. American Council on Education
(ACE) college credits, Continuing Education
Units, and American Board of Industrial
Hygiene (ABIH) certifica-
—^——-^—^— tion maintenance credits
may be awarded.
"We're delivering state-
of-the-art training to people who can't pay for
it, or who don't have easy access to it," Potoka
explains. Hence the no-tuition policy for
public-sector students.
To make training even more accessible, ERTP
takes its courses to each of EPA's 10 Regions at
least once a year. The Regional Offices deter-
mine their training needs, and can request
additional sessions to meet demand. Or, they
can decide against offering courses with little
relevance to local conditions. For example
Region 1, which encompasses the six New
England states, has little use for the radiation
safety course because radioactive materials are
not a problem there. But this course is in
constant demand by EPA's Region 8 office in
Denver, which must deal with radiation from
old uranium mines and other sources.
Courses combine lectures, class problem-
solving, and role-playing exercises emphasiz-
ing the hands-on use of actual equipment such
as Geiger counters to detect radiation. ERTP
provides all equipment including detection
instruments and personnel protection gear
from chemical splash suits to self-contained
breathing apparatus. The typical class size is
about 30 participants.
Fully half of the 6,000 students who take ERTP
training each year sign up for the five-day
hazardous material operations course. The
Occupational Health and Safety Administra-
tion (OSHA) requires at least 40 hours of safety
training for anyone working at hazardous
waste sites. "This requirement may affect most
of the blue-collar work force," Potoka notes.
That fact and the routine turnover among state
and federal workers creates an almost limitless
demand for health and safety training.
Besides its regularly
offered courses, ERTP
provides specialized
hazardous materials, or
hazmat, training to federal
agencies such as the
™"^~~™^^^~" Bureau of Reclamation
and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). When the Bureau of
Reclamation was called in to reclaim a
Superfund site full of asbestos mine tailings, the
Bureau sought specialized safety training from
ERTP. BLM personnel have been sent to ERTP
to learn how to enter and work safely in illegal
dumping sites and clandestine drug labs found
on federal land administered by the Bureau.
ERTP also has taken its training courses over-
seas. In May 1992 the program held two first-
responder courses for Hungary's national fire
department. (The first responder course is
designed to train firefighters, police officers,
and emergency medical technicians in how to
recognize, evaluate, and control incidents of
actual or potential releases of hazardous
materials.) Nine Hungarians who had partici-
pated in the hazardous materials response
operations course in late 1991 served as assis-
tants to the ERTP trainers.
In 1990 and 1991, ERTP trainers traveled to
Panama, where they held first-responder
courses for the marine specialists who dean up
hazardous materials spills from ships traveling
through the Panama Canal. Spills are a frequent
problem as cargo ships traverse the narrow
canal or lay up for repairs and become, in effect,
floating chemical storage sites.
ERTP Campus
ERTP is housed in a 42-year-old school in
southwest Cincinnati, the area where
Cincinnati Reds great Pete Rose grew up.
EPA uses every inch of the school and grounds
for training and training support.
The basement boiler room serves as an aban-
doned warehouse where students practice
identifying chemical hazards under extremely
-------
Focus: Superfund Training
adverse conditions. (That's where Morgan
Button "blew up" one of his entry teams,
ending the exercise described at the beginning
of this article.) Up a short hill behind the school
are a simulated Superfund site and a mock
truck accident used to train-firefighters and
other first responders to hazardous materials
emergencies.
.The first floor houses registration and adminis-
tration offices, classrooms, an equipment repair
room, and areas such as the dressout room
where students don protective gear for training
exercises. Manuals and other course materials
are assembled and stored on the first floor. .This
is also where the program's $2 million inven-
tory is tracked and where shipments of equip-
ment and course materials are scheduled for
delivery to training sites around the country.
"Shipping takes quite a bit of coordination.
Things just have to click," says Potoka. To help
things click, ERTP
employs one of the
few Federal Express
work stations not
located at a Federal
Express facility.
ERTP personnel can
schedule shipments
of equipment and
course materials and
track their location
using the Federal
Express network.
There can be a lot of
equipment to track.
The five-day health
and safety course,
"Emergency Re-
sponse to Hazardous
Materials Opera-
tions," requires 60
crates full of sensi-
tive monitoring
equipment, manuals,
and other gear
totalling three tons.
That's almost
enough to fill a large
truck.
The second floor of the old Riverside-Harrison
Elementary School provides offices for the
course instructors. Fifty-three persons work at
the Cincinnati facility, and nine are located at
ERT headquarters in New Jersey.
The trainers have worked at hazardous waste
sites, and they bring this practical experience to
the classroom. They can speak with authority,
not only on what the students should do in the
field, but also how they should do it. Similarly,
in the early days of Superfund, Potoka worked
as an On-Scene Coordinator (OSC), the person
in charge of hazardous materials cleanups. His
experience helps make the course simulations
more than just technical exercises in the proper
use of protective gear and monitoring equip-
ment. By introducing public health and other
considerations Potoka faced as an OSC, the
exercises remind students that these technical
problems also have implications for people.
Keeping Current
H
Scrubbing down in the decontamination line
azardous materials (hazmat) response
technology is constantly being im-
proved. The old firefighter's maxim to
"put the wet stuff on the red stuff" is a danger-
ously out-of-date
notion. To keep its
courses current
ERTP relies on the
EPA's Environmen-
tal Response Team
of which it is a part.
This group of
experts is called on
to advise at some of
the toughest envi-
ronmental emergen-
cies around the
world.
"One thing that
makes the program
work is that ERT is
out in the field
doing state-of-the-
art technology. It's
ground-breaking
work and it's
transferred directly
to the students,"
Potoka says. ERT
personnel take the
lead on ERTP
courses, feeding
back to the instructors new techniques and new
information gained in the field.
External Providers
T
o help meet the growing demand for
health and safety training, ERTP lets
approved public and private organiza-
-------
Focus: Superfund Training
tions sponsor these courses. "We want to take
the training we've created and get it out to
every one who needs it. If a company can show
they have the capabilities to deliver our course,
including the instructors and the equipment, we
will give them the slides, overheads, and other
training materials to put on the course. But they
have to agree to do it our way, using our
lectures and our materials," Potoka says.
EPA personnel review these externally pro-
vided courses to ensure they are consistent with
ERTP-provided training. Participants in courses
provided by EPA-approved organizations
receive an EPA certificate of attendance, as well
as any certificate awarded by the presenting
organization.
External training providers with interim or final
EPA approval are listed in the table on page 7.
Professional Students: ERTP Courses Keep Them at
the Head of Their Class
If EPA's Environmental Response Training
Program (ERTP) awarded advanced aca-
demic degrees, Clarence B. Melton, III
would be ready for a doctorate and Mark
Kennedy would be getting his master's.
Although most students take only one or two
ERTP courses, Melton has taken about 10 and
Kennedy has taken four or five. The high
quality of the courses and the high-caliber
instructors keep these enthusiastic boosters of
ERTP coming back.
"I found every one of their courses outstand-
ing, and the key to their program is that they
use people who have many years of experience
in the areas covered by the courses," says
Melton, a battalion chief with the Baltimore
City Fire Department's Hazardous Materials
Task Force.
Each course focuses on a specialized environ-
mental activity, such as air monitoring for
hazardous materials, investigating grourtdwa-
ter contamination, and sampling water and
soil for contamination. Students tend to
specialize in one area or another. But Melton
says the breadth of the course offerings help
him do his job of responding to hazardous
materials emergencies better.
"You need to follow the whole program to get
an idea of what each group of experts can do
for you in an emergency and what they can't
do. You also see where you fit in," he says.
"Soon you see that you're it. No one is going to
handle the emergency for you, so you go in
and do it right away."
That's what Melton and his task force did a
couple of years ago when a hydrogen sulfide
leak sickened people throughout half of
Baltimore. "Using our EPA training from EPA,
we knew that as long as we could smell the
hydrogen sulfide, we were safe. So we moved
in and attacked the incident, finding the leak
and stopping it," he says.
Like Melton, Mark Kennedy first took ERTP's
Hazardous Materials Incident Response
Operations course. Until recently the safety
director of Lexington Fayette Emergency
response in Lexington, Kentucky, Kennedy's
also taken the radiation safety course, which
he calls excellent. The air monitoring course is,
he says, the best ERTP course he's taken.
Kennedy credits the teaching staff for the
program's high quality.
"The instructors make it click," he says.
"They're extremely diverse and talented, with
all sorts of backgrounds. If there were only
technicians teaching the classes, it'd be pretty
boring."
Off-duty instructors often sit in on one
another's classes and add their perspectives to
the class discussion, an exchange of views that
Kennedy especially appreciates. He also
praises the hands-on aspects of the courses,
"They show you efficient ways to use your
machinery," he explains. "They teach you to
use just about every piece of monitoring
equipment that's in the field."
Kennedy credits his ERTP training with giving
him more flexibility in his former job. "I've
been able to move and do what I want in work
because I have this enormous training and
knowledge."
The training is also helping him start his own
company, while pursuing a master's degree in
industrial hygiene at the University of Ken-
tucky. While he expects his graduate school
studies to keep him busy for a while, Kennedy
says he'll probably return to the ERTP for
more training as early as next summer. •
-------
Focus: Superfund Training
In addition, the U.S. Public Health Service's
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) has awarded grants to 16
organizations to develop and present training
courses for hazardous waste workers. The
National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) offers professional-level
courses at 11 Education Resource Centers
nationwide for workers involved in Superfund
cleanups.
Future Plans
Potoka would like to develop more ad-
vanced courses that build upon ERTP's
current entry-level offerings. He'd also
like to make current courses accessible to more
people by computerizing some of them. Course
materials and computer disks for these self-
paced courses could be distributed easily and
cheaply, reaching a larger audience than ERTP
and the external training providers currently
reach. Some courses, such as the Introduction to
Groundwater Investigations, are particularly
well suited to the 3-dimensional graphics and
other visual techniques that a computerized
course would employ.
Potoka also envisions tailoring some computer-
ized courses so that average citizens could take
them over a weekend or a couple of evenings.
"That way, EPA personnel at individual sites
would be dealing with an informed community,"
he says. All too often, his experience as an OSC
showed, environmental professionals and the
general public have widely divergent views on
hazardous materials problems and the best way
to remedy them. Potoka believes that educat-
ing the public about the technology may help
reduce some of the emotionalism that sur-
rounds hazardous waste site cleanups.
"I firmly believe that it's easier to work with
a community if they are well informed
about conditions at a site and the technolo-
gies available to address the problems,"
says Potoka. "I always stress to our students
that the general public isn't stupid. Just
because someone doesn't have a Ph.D.
doesn't mean they aren't incredibly intelli-
gent or influential in the community."
Lessons Learned
Back in a classroom, the ERTP instruc-
tors review the abandoned ware-
house exercise with the assembled
students. Two entry teams review what
they found in the boiler room-cum-ware-
house. They outline the location of the drums
they could see, and others they thought they
could see.
Murphy's law, they say, was in full force.
Whatever could go wrong, did. Communica-
tions were a particular problem. There weren't
enough two-way radios to go around, and
activating a microphone in a moon suit is
especially difficult.
Instructor Morgan Button agrees. "Communica-
tions are always a problem, especially for this "
exercise," he says.
The purpose of the exercise is to let students,
most of whom have known each other for less
than a week, organize themselves into teams,
enter the mock warehouse, and report on what
they find. It's a confusing situation, but it's also
a confidence builder.
Stressing the positive, Button commends the
entry teams for their coolness under difficult
conditions. And instructor James Hurley praises
the rescue team's speed in suiting up in re-
sponse to the report of a man down.
Quick studies all, the next day the students
apply their hard-won lessons to a simulated
investigation of abandoned drums of chemicals.
Later, EPA certificates in hand, the 20 men and
4 women depart for their homes in Minnesota
and Florida, Maryland and Missouri where they
will use their ERTP training to protect people
and the environment from the effects of hazard-
ous materials. Q
7 )f: -
Unsuitingfor a well earned rest at the end of the exercise
-------
Focus: Superf und Training
All Dressed Up For Hazardous
Materials Training
Wearing a "moon suit," the high-level
protection gear known as "Level A,"
it helps not to be claustrophobic
When the one-piece rubber suit is zippered
shut, and you're breathing bottled air inside a
synthetic cocoon, the sense of isolation can be
a bit unnerving.
Level A is what
comes to mind when
people talk about
Superfund. Newspa-
pers and TV use
shots of the exotic
gear to illustrate
stories about hazard-
ous-materials clean-
ups. Level A pro-
vides the maximum
protection from
deadly chemical
solids, liquids, or
gases by creating a
portable, safe envi-
ronment.
Safe and sound in a Level A "moon suit"
Inside the suit, new
sensations, sounds,
and smells surround
you. The 10-lb. suit
and the 35-lb. self-
contained breathing
apparatus (SCBA)
strapped to your back weigh you down and
throw you slightly off balance. Your feet sweat
almost immediately in the over-sized rubber
boots. The sweet smell of disinfectant enve-
lopes you, along with the suit. The rubber face
mask that feeds you air also narrows your
field of view. The suit's hood flops over your
face, and the faceplate slips almost below your
eyes. From inside, the loose-fitting orange suit
seems to glow, backlit front the Eght in the
dressout room.
The hood muffles outside sounds, and the face
mask that feeds you air muffles your voice.
The rhythmic whoosh-whoosh of your breath-
ing fills your ears, and you begin to sound like
Darth Vader. For a moment, you focus only on
your breathing. Satisfied that everything is
working, you're ready to move around.
Walking is a deliberate exercise. Looking like
the Michelin tire man or the Pillsbury
doughboy, you shuffle along slowly and
deliberately. Exhaled air gradually fills the suit
and lifts it a bit from your shoulders and head.
You begin to feel like you're walking in an
orange balloon. Crouching and hugging
yourself to force air out of the suit's one-way
valve briefly raises the air pressure inside and
plugs your ears.
Encapsulated in the
hot, baggy suit with an
air tank strapped to
your back, the simplest
activities become
difficult. Using
wrenches to remove a
plug from a barrel or
bolts from a wall
requires concentration
and care. It's hard to
see what you're doing,
and you can't feel
much, through the
three pairs of rubber
gloves you wear for
protection.
The mildest exertion
raises the temperature
inside the suit, and
moisture fogs the
faceplate. You can
wriggle your arm out of the oversized sleeve
to wipe off the moisture with a paper towel
strapped to your chest. Then it's back to work.
Fifteen or twenty minutes after suiting up an
alarm bell lets you know five minutes of air
remain in the tank. The monotonous ringing
slows as the air in the bottle runs out. There's
still plenty of breathable air in the suit if you
need it, but before the bell stops you're out of
the suit and breathing normally again.
A few minutes in a moon suit provide only a
sense of what it's like to work in one. No such
exercise can fully reproduce the tension and
anxiety of working at an actual hazardous
waste site. But it can help you appreciate the
challenges faced by the men and women who
work in environments so hazardous they must
be completely encapsulated to ensure their
health and safety. •
-------
A Guide to EPA-Approved Hazardous Materials Training
Environmental Response Training Program (ERTP) courses are available from a nationwide network of EPA-approved
organizations. EPA grants "Interim Approval" to qualified organizations authorized to present the courses. Following an audit
by ERTP personnel to ensure consistency with EPA's curriculum, the training organization receives "Final Approval."
Students who successfully complete the ERTP courses provided by the groups listed here receive an EPA certificate of
attendance, along with any certficate awarded by the training organization.
Training Organizations With Final EPA Approval
LAKESHORE TECHNICAL
COLLEGE
Terry Linson
Hazardous Materials Training Ctr.
1290 North Avenue
Cleveland, Wl 53015-9761
GEORGIA FIRE ACADEMY
David Pritchett
Georgia Public Safety Training Ctr.
1000 Indian Springs Drive
Forsyth, GA31029
UTAH VALLEY COMMUNITY
COLLEGE
Walter Barrus
Dept. of Environmental Tech.
800 West 1200 South
Orem, UT 84058-5999
WOODWARD-CLYDE
CONSULTANTS
Rodney D. Petri
51 20 Butler Pike
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
KENTUCKY TECH REGION 4
FIRE/RESCUE TRAINING
BRANCH
William S. Carver
1845 Loop Drive, P.O. Box 1868
Bowling Green, KY 42102-1868
EDUCATION & CONSULTING
RESOURCE, INC.
John D. Turley
938 Oak Ridge Place
Myrtle Beach, SC 29572
MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL
TESTING, INC.
Troy D. Corbin
Director, Training Services
P.O. Box 5693
Portland, OR 97228-5693
GOLDBERG-ZOINO &
ASSOCIATES
Randall Stegner, Training Manager
38091 Schoolcraft Road
Livonia, Ml 481 50
FORT WORTH FIRE
DEPARTMENT
Chief K.D. Laymance
Fire Training Division
1 000 Calvert Street
Fort Worth, TX 76107
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA,
FAIRBANKS
Mike Oden, Safety & Training
Officer
31 5 Signers Hall
Fairbanks, AK 99775-1605
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA,
ANCHORAGE
Dennis D. Steffy, Director
Mining & Petroleum Training
Service
College of Career & Voc. Ed.
155Smithway
Soldotna, AK 99669
HUSEMAN OIL INTERNATIONAL
M.L. Wood/Thomas R. Huseman
306 Jefferson Street
P.O. Drawer D
Natchez, MS 391 21
LSU FIREMAN TRAINING
PROGRAM
Stephen Guillot, Jr.,
Program Coordinator
6868 Nicholson Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70820
SCOTT, ALLARD, & BOHANNAN
Perry B. Hoskins
Project Manager
3001 W. Indian School Rd.,
Suite 312
Phoenix, AZ 8501 7
OFFICE OF STATE POLICE
Lt. Ken Williams/Sgt. Chris Viator
Trans. & Environ. Safety Sec.
Public Safety Service
Dept. of Public Safety &
Corrections
P.O. BOX66614
Baton Rouge, LA 70896
RALEIGH FIRE DEPARTMENT
Captain Shelton T. Eudy
Keeter Training Center
105 West Hoke Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Training Organizations With Interim EPA Approval
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Allen King
Division of Continuing Education
178 Pleasant Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803-1520
AMERICAN NORTH INC.
Jay Graham
Training Center Director
201 East 56th, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 9951 8
APPLIED ASSOCIATES
INTERNATIONAL. INC.
Thomas O. Murray, CIH
Vice President
300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 237
Casselberry, FL 32707
ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Larry A. Baylor
1050Granville
Itasca, IL 60143
HAZCON, INC.
Thomas G. Natsch, CIH
Division Manager - Salem
750 Front St. N.E., Suite 160
Salem, OR 97301
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT
ARLINGTON
Vittorio K. Argento, Ph.D., P.E.
Director, Center for Environmental
Research & Training
P.O. Box 19021
Arlington, TX 76019-0021
MARTECH USA, INC.
Gary G. Lawley, Administrator
Hazardous Waste Training Course
300 East 54th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 9951 8
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Kevin J. Ormsby
14497 N. Dale Mabry Hwy.,
Suite 115
Tampa, FL 33618
HARTEC MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Gerald Hooper
Safety Training Coordinator
8220 Briarwood, Suite 101
Anchorage, AK 9951 8
IDAHO FIRE SERVICE TRAINING
Clare D. Harkins
Division of Vocational Education
650 West State Street
Boise, ID 83720
ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC.
Todd Carroll
Industrial Hygiene Consultant
Acorn Park
Cambridge, MA 02140-2390
ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING
CENTER OF SOUTHERN OHIO &
KENTUCKY
Mr. Robert E. Robb, Jr
President
607 Shephard Drive, Unit 7
Cincinnati, OH 4521 5
METCALF & EDDY
Paul Bacon
Project Manager
30 Harvard Mill Square
Wakefield, MA 01 880
WILLIAMS AND ASSOCIATES
Ruth S. Williams, Ph.D.
460 Tennessee Street
Memphis, TN 381 03
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
APPLIED RESEARCH CENTER
Robert Ferguson
Center for Hazardous Materials
Research
320 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
FAILSAFE RISK MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVES, INC.
David Plouff
433 River St., Bldg. E
Troy, NY 12180
THE UNIVERSITY OF FINDLAY
Daniel W. Hehr
Emergency Response Training Ctr.
1000 North Main Street
Findlay, OH 45840-3695
CHEM LAB, INC.
J.D. Cox
Laboratory Director
4302 Wheeler Avenue
Fort Smith, AR 72901
BOSTON EDISON
Brian J. Gallant
Chiltonville Training Center
186AR16A
Sandwich, MA 02563
ROCKLAND COUNTY FIRE
TRAINING CENTER
Donald P McGuire, Director
Office of Emergency Service
Fireman's Memorial Drive
Pomona, NY 10970
ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS
AND SERVICES, INC.
Dr. T. Jim Tofflemire
Port of Albany
Albany, NY 12202
-------
Promoting Local Involvement
Superfund Continues To Listen
To Concerned Citizens
More than any other EPA program,
Superfund owes its existence to
citizen action and community in-
volvement. So it is fitting that community
relations has been a major part of Superfund
since its inception.
When residents of contaminated Love Canal
near Niagara Falls, New York were forced to
abandon their homes in the 1970s, the public
began to realize the dangers of hazardous
waste. Soon it became apparent that the hazard-
ous waste problem was larger and more com-
plex than anyone had previously thought.
People who once believed hazardous waste
sites plagued only other people's communities
found sites leaching toxic pollutants in their
own neighborhoods. Community concern was
chiefly responsible for the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) that established
Superfund.
Furthermore, the citizen involvement that led
up to CERCLA found that more than hazardous
wastes were hidden from view. Information
about these sites also was concealed from
people who lived or worked near them.
CERCLA stipulated, and the National Contin-
gency Plan systemized, community involve-
ment in the decision-making process and open
information about activities at all Superfund
sites. Perhaps most important, community
relations were to be site-specific. In addition to
national outreach, communities would be
guaranteed access to direct information about
the sites that concerned them most.
Grants to Local Groups
The Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
went even further toward guaranteeing
that public information would be understand-
able. Under SARA, EPA can award Technical
Assistance Grants (TAGs) of up to $50,000 per
site to groups affected by National Priority List
(NPL) sites. Citizen groups use TAGs to hire
experts to interpret technical information on site
hazards and alternatives recommended for
investigation and cleanup. (Groups must
contribute a share of at least 20 percent of the
cost of a TAG. But they may substitute in-kind
services, such as administrative support, for
cash, and under some circumstances, these
requirements may be waived.)
Community relations professionals in the
regions find TAGs a great help. All regions
actively encourage them, and, for example,
more than 20 percent (17 of 74) of Region VI's
NPL sites have TAGs. Verne McFarland, Chief
of the Region VI Superfund Information Man-
agement Section, explains that TAGs serve two
very important roles, "first of all, they raise the
general level of trust: the community feels that
somebody is representing their interests rather
than EPA's or the possible polluter. Second,
they help to focus and consolidate opinion. We
help them with the application process, but it
still takes a lot of citizen work: to incorporate as
a non-profit, to establish a board of directors
that really represents all points of view."
"By the time they've gone through all that,"
McFarland explains, "you know you've got a
representative group that is really interested
and committed. We'll still do our regular
outreach work, but a TAG makes our efforts go
further, and the community as a whole ben-
efits."
EPA regulations provide for as much commu-
nity involvement as possible at every site.
EPA's prime responsibility is to protect public
health and the environment. In an emergency,
there may be little time to involve citizens in
clean-up decisions. So an appointed spokesper-
son keeps State and local officials and the
community informed about what is going on,
responds to questions, and creates an adminis-
trative record. The record is open to the public
and contains the information that clean-up
decisions were based on. In short-term removal
actions, the public has at least 30 days to
comment on the record. EPA (or the agency in
charge) responds in writing to significant
concerns, and these responses also become part
of the administrative record.
For longer removal actions the agency prepares
a Community Relations Plan (CRP) and estab-
lishes at least one "information repository."
Interviews with residents, local officials, and
public interest groups help the agency create
the CRP. The completed plan details how the
agency will ensure that local residents' opinions
-------
Promoting Local Involvement
and concerns about the site can be expressed
and how residents will be kept informed of, and
involved in, all clean-up actions at the site. The
agency also publishes where and when the
public can examine the analysis of a site's
engineering costs and their related alternatives.
The information
repository, often called
a "site file," usually is
located in a public
building such as a
school, library, or
town hall. Typically, a
site file includes press
releases, fact sheets, and technical reports about
lead Agency activities and a site's contamina-
tion problems. For citizen convenience, most
Superfund sites have more than one repository.
For example, Niagara Frontier site in New York
has 13.
The public has a right to know everything about
a site, to comment on hazards and cleanup
plans, and to have its comments attended to.
Confidential or sensitive information may be
withheld from site files if public disclosure
could hinder judicial actions to force respon-
sible parties to pay clean-up costs.
A Commitment to Local Involvement
For remedial actions, the lead agency (i.e.,
the State or Federal agency in charge of
the cleanup) prepares a CRP, establishes a
site file, and—going one step further—informs
the community that Technical Assistance Grants
are available.
Citizens are encouraged to comment at all
major stages of remedial actions at a site. Also,
the proposed remediation plan will explain in
non-technical language the preferred method of
cleaning up the site and the alternative clean-up
methods that were considered. EPA or the State
agency publishes a brief analysis of the pro-
posed plan. If requested, the public comment
period can be extended. At the Union Chemical
site in Hope, Maine, residents asked for more
time and were granted first an additional 60
days and then a further 85 days. The additional
time helped residents reach consensus on their
response to the proposed plan.
During this comment period, EPA provides an
opportunity for a public meeting. In 1990 EPA
held more than 2,000 public meetings at
Superfund site communities. Meetings ranged
from small discussions between citizens and
In 1990, EPA held more than
2,000 public meetings at
Superfund site communities.
government officials in private homes or offices
to public meetings where officials presented site
developments to the community.
"EPA is required by law to hold public meetings
for rule making, such as Superfund remedy
selection," says Region
— VI's Verne McFarland.
"Unfortunately, they
are one of the least
successful communica-
tion techniques we
have. People start out
thinking they're an
efficient way to get the
word out, but they're not really. Discussion is
always having to be cut short. People with their
own agendas, sometimes not even from the
community, hog the microphones, and prevent
others from voicing their concerns. I'd rather
host several small discussions where citizens
have access to people with answers to their
questions, and feel they've been listened to."
Listening to Citizens
"hatever the venue, EPA encourages
and gives strong consideration to
public comments on all alternative
remedial actions considered at a site. EPA also
considers each alternative's reliability, effective-
ness, construction cost, and maintenance cost.
After this consideration, EPA prepares a Re-
sponsiveness Summary describing the signifi-
cant public comments and responding to the
issues raised. After the Agency selects the final
engineering design, it issues a fact sheet and
gives a public briefing before starting the
remedial action. Fact sheets have been printed in
Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, and Vietnamese
to reach people who don't speak English.
Many site cleanups have been significantly
influenced by public involvement in the
Superfund process. For example:
• Citizens and businesses near a site in
Illinois were concerned that EPA's pro-
posed clean-up alternative would harm the
town's economy by limiting use of a
nearby lake shore. In response, EPA
developed a different clean-up alternative
which allowed the town to use the shore.
• Residents near a site in Minnesota ex-
pressed a strong preference that EPA treat
their contaminated wells rather than
connect residents to a nearby city's reser-
voir. After carefully considering informa-
-------
Promoting Local Involvement
tion that residents provided, EPA agreed
to treat the wells to remove contaminants.
EPA accommodates community preferences
when choosing a site remedy; however, the
Agency may select a more effective remedy,
based on reliability, permanence, or cost. Still,
by carefully considering citizen concerns, the
clean-up actions EPA selects are more likely to
deal with the problems that are important to the
community.
Community relations is by no means a one-way
street. Through meetings and discussions,
citizens often provide information about a site's
history that helps EPA plan its response. Local
knowledge about when and how a site was
contaminated may help EPA select sampling
and monitoring locations in and around the site.
EPA may learn about who is responsible for a
problem from community members. Mutual
benefits have made community involvement a
key component of the Superfund Process. Q
Reimbursements Foster Superfund-Local
Government Partnership
Anthony Salierno, comptroller for Catskill,
New York remembers a sunny Sunday
afternoon in February 1989, when,
"with a whoosh," a gigantic tire-disposal site
there went up in flames. Within half an hour the
sky turned black with smoke and stayed that
way for three days, while firefighters from
Catskill and 14 surrounding towns fought the
blaze above and below ground.
"Thank goodness nobody was killed, but we
lost a lot of equipment. Some burned when the
fire spread, and some gave out. Our largest
pumper, after going 24 hours-a-day for three
days, just burned out," says Salierno.
For months afterward, flames would suddenly
break out from smoldering underground caches
of tires. It was only this year, more than three
years later, that the last warnings about hot
spots were rescinded.
Catskill's 1989 budget for the five volunteer
hose companies that serve the village and
surrounding town was just over $150,000. A
$25,000 Local Government Reimbursement
(LGR) from EPA's Superfund Program helped
cover some of the costs of fighting the tire fire.
Supporting First Responders
EPA's Regional Superfund Offices and
Emergency response Teams are famous
for their fast response to emergencies. In
a matter of hours, On-scene Coordinators and
technical experts can be at the site of an acci-
dent that involves a hazardous release. But
when a train carrying hazardous materials
derails, a chemical truck overturns, abandoned
barrels of hazardous waste are found leaking,
or a tire dump catches fire, local fire-fighters,
police, and emergency medical crews are likely
to arrive first. Federal or State environmental
experts staff can provide critical advice on
hazards and health, but local crews will put out
the fire, secure the site, and, in the worst cases,
provide emergency medical services.
Many local governments have been pinched for
funds the last few years. Local emergency
response costs money, and so does the other
help that local governments provide Superfund.
Communities review and comment on impor-
tant reports, studies, and proposed actions.
They help identify Potentially Responsible
Parties, and work to ensure that cleanups are
effective, efficient, and responsive to the
community.
With these local responsibilities in mind,
Congress, in the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), acknowl-
edged the partnership among Federal, State,
and local authorities and established ways to
aid participating local governments.
Under the Local Government Reimbursement
(LGR) Program, Superfund reimburses local
governments for the extraordinary costs of
responding to hazardous waste emergencies.
Superfund also provides free training for local
emergency personnel. (See article on page 1.)
Recent Reimbursements
B
esides the $25,000 grant for Catskill's tire
fire, recent reimbursements from
Superfund to local governments include:
The Town of Hamburg in Erie County,
NY: $12,214.93. On March 12,1990, the
Hamburg Fire Department responded to a
pesticide fire at the Richardson Feed Mill
in Hamburg. Fire destroyed the mill, and
analysis of the run-off showed Malathion,
Dursban, Diazinon, phenols, and
10
-------
Promoting Local Involvement
polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Decontamina-
tion was necessary for 68 people exposed
to air and water in this accident.
• The City of South Bend, IN: $2,347.60. On
April 4,1990, the South Bend Fire Depart-
ment responded to an anhydrous ammo-
nia release from a vandalized railroad
tank car. Exposure to high concentrations
of the vapor can be fatal.
• The County of Gila, AZ: $25,000. On June
27,1990, the Gila County Tri-City Fire
Department responded to a fire at Pacific
Standard Specialties. The warehouse
contained 93 hazardous substances, large
quantities of acids, chlorine, and sodium
compounds. The fire threatened the health
of people living nearby and contamination
of surrounding land.
• The County of Columbia, NY: $5,729.65.
On February 28,1990, the Philmont Fire
Department responded to a fire at the
C & D Landfill. Smoke fumes and leachate
threatened the nearby population with
toxic doses of hydrogen sulphide, sulphur
dioxide, ammonia, heavy metals, and
PCBs.
Available only to a local government (e.g., a
county, parish, city, municipality, township, or
federally recognized Indian Tribe), such reim-
bursements can make the difference for a small
town or a poor county between solvency and
going in the red.
Ken Schnautz, former superintendent of schools
in Madison, Kansas, remembers the mercury
spill there. "We were closed down for three
days during the cleanup, and practically half
the students and teachers had to be tested for
mercury poisoning. The school vacuum cleaners
had to be dismantled, packed in barrels with
uniforms, carpeting, anything the mercury had
come in contact with, and all the barrels had to
be shipped down to an Oklahoma hazardous
waste disposal site. All this adds up. The final
bill came to $30,000 and there was no way that
the little town of Madison was going to be able
to come up with that kind of money.
"It was the wife of our local state legislator
who told me that we might be able to get some
help from EPA. I've thanked her many times for
that. She tracked down the information, we got
some help from the county in applying, and
EPA came through with $25,000. We felt a
whole lot better after that."
Since its establishment in 1987, the LGR Pro-
gram has operated under an interim rule that
details the requirements for reimbursement.
Local authorities must have contacted their
regional Superfund office within 24 hours of the
emergency, must have applied for reimburse-
ment within six months, and must justify
eligible costs. (In general, eligible costs are those
that can be matched to a specific response, and
may be for materials and supplies, renting or
leasing equipment, special technical services
and laboratory fees, and costs of evacuation.)
Reimbursements are limited to $25,000 per
response. An attempt must be made to recover
the costs from responsible private owners and
insurers, and reimbursements must not sup-
plant local government funds normally pro-
vided for emergency response.
Under the interim rule, 40 reimbursements
totalling $479, 000 have been approved. As part
of an ongoing effort to expand participation, the
final rule, in effect as of October 14,1992, allows
a full year rather than six months after the
emergency for applying, and it clarifies and
simplifies the application. The 24-hour
Superfund notification has not been changed,
because it is important to get response person-
nel to the site of a release as soon as possible,
and any incentive in that direction is valuable.
A new outreach program will publicize the final
rule. While more than 4,000 fact sheets have
been distributed since 1987, the new outreach
effort targets all State Emergency Response
Coordinators (SERCs) to help spread the word
throughout their States, all Local Emergency
Planning Committees (LEPCs), all first respond-
ers (normally fire chiefs) across the country, and
local officials.
As Superfund continues to address the hazard-
ous waste problem nationwide, local govern-
ments with EPA-trained staffs probably will
become increasingly active in site cleanups. The
LGR Program is one way EPA is making it
feasible for local governments to join with
Superfund in its efforts to protect public health
and the environment. Q
Debated iafomatton about the LGR
Progmwi is available from John Ferguson
of the Gffi.ee of Emergency and Remedial
tesponse at (703) 603-8712.
11
-------
Superfund Progress Report
Enforcement Program Enjoys a
Banner Year in FY1992
Polluters undertook an unprecedented
number of Superfund site cleanups
during the 1992
Federal fiscal year, which
ended September 30,1992,
thanks to aggressive
action by the Superfund
Enforcement Program.
Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) initiated
nearly three quarters of
the 107 Superfund site
cleanups and of the 178 ~
clean-up design projects
started during the year. (See the table below for
details of PRP involvement in Superfund during
FY92.) Superfund's "Enforcement First" strat-
egy, adopted in 1989, is credited with achieving
these record levels of PRP participation. (That
strategy calls for quick use of Superfund's
enforcement authority to compel PRP involve-
ment in site cleanups. This frees Superfund
dollars for cleanups at sites where PRPs are
unknown or unable to participate in clean-up
work.)
Cost-Effective Enforcement
Superfund's tenacious enforcement pro-
gram returned $9.35 to the Federal
Government for every $1.00 spent on
enforcement activities during FY92. A total of
$1.8 billion, or $1.3 million for each person
Superfund's Enforcement
Program collects more
than $9 for every $1 of
Federal funds spent on
the effort.
dedicated to Superfund Enforcement, was
obtained from PRPs for site cleanup, according
to Bruce Diamond,
director of the Office of
Waste Programs Enforce-
ment (OWPE).
Superfund Progress Report: FY 1992
Participation by Potentially Responsible Parties
(Data as of September 30, 1992)
Superfund PRPs % PRPs
Removals (All Sites)
Site Investigations &
Studies
Cleanups Designs Begun
Cleanups Begun
253 102 28.73%
"1992 was our third
consecutive year of
billion dollar commit-
ments," Diamond says.
Included in the $1.8
=========== billion is a record $280
million collected from
PRPs for work already done at Superfund sites.
That's nearly one-third of the $873 million in
Program costs recovered from PRPs since
Superfund began in 1980.
Superfund Site Actions
"ost of the Enforcement Program's
activities focus on long-term cleanups
, of Superfund sites. However, the site
clean-up program, which addresses long-
standing problems that took years to develop
and will take years to correct, is only one aspect
of Superfund. The other is the emergency
program, which handles short-term problems
such as train wrecks, truck accidents, and fires
that involve chemicals. It also addresses emer-
gencies at Superfund sites.
At most emergencies, work crews
will clean up the chemicals and
haul them away for proper disposal
or treatment. If that's not possible,
the workers will treat the chemicals
at the site to make them safer, or
they'll make sure the chemicals
can't escape to harm people or
animals. By law, emergency teams
can spend up to $2 million and
must be finished within one year.
43
45 51.14%
48 130 73.03%
30
77 71.96%
During FY 1992, Superfund re-
sponded to 380 emergencies
involving dangerous chemicals, 34
more than the year before. Since
Superfund began in 1980, teams
have responded to more than 3,000
emergencies nationwide.
12
-------
Superfund Progress Report
Site Cleanups
Mention Superfund to most people, and
chances are they'll think about places
like Love Canal, New York where
decades of chemical dumping contaminated the
ground and water, threatening the health of
nearby residents and forcing a large-scale
evacuation. EPA's site cleanup program works
to correct long-standing hazardous waste
problems, although most Superfund sites are
not as notorious as Love Canal.
Currently, there are 1,275 Superfund sites listed
on the National Priorities List of the nation's
worst hazardous waste sites. Superfund sites
are eligible for cleanup under the federal
program. In addition, there are hazardous
waste sites in each state whose cleanup is the
responsibility of state or local governments or
private organizations.
Depending on the work to be done—treatments
to be used, structures to be built—a cleanup may
take as long as six years. If contaminated ground
water must be treated, the cleanup may take
decades. By the end of FY92, cleanups had been
successfully completed at 149 sites since 1980,19
more than the FY 1992 target of 130. Comple-
tions continue at the rate of about one each
week.
Almost a tenth of the nation's population, 23
million people, have been protected by
Superfund actions since 1980, when the pro-
gram began. About 450,000 (roughly the popu-
lation of Atlanta, Georgia) have been given
alternate sources of safe drinking water. An-
other 4,000 people living near Superfund sites
have been temporarily or permanently located.
In addition,"more than 25,000 people have been
temporarily relocated due to emergencies
involving Superfund sites.
SACM Will Speed Superfund Cleanups
EPA is streamlining Superfund to speed
hazardous waste site cleanups and
quickly reduce risks to people and the
environment. Changes in how Superfund
operates wfll be phased in during the current
Federal fiscal year, which ends September 30,
1993,
The Sttperfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM) wfli combine Early Actions, such as
the removal of hazardbus materials, with
ongoing studies to ensure that immediate
public health and environmental threats are
eliminated while long-term clean-up activities
are being planned. This will eliminate delays
by combining similar, yet currently separate,
IttteKiisciplinary Regional Decision Teams will
Early Actions (taking less than five years),
Long-Term Actions, or a combination of the
two types are warranted. Superfund site
managers, risk assessors, community relations
coordinators, Regional attorneys, and other
experts will comprise the teams.
"Although Early Actions are short term and
quickly implemented, tihey could eliminate most
human risk from hazardous waste sites," says
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Director Henry Longest. "More public partici-
pation and public information activities will be
focused during assessment and Early Action."
Some environmental problems cannot be
corrected in the five years allotted to Early
Actions. Cleanups of mining sites, wetlands,
estuaries, and projects involving incineration of
contaminants or restoration of ground water
will require Long-Term Actions.
Under SACM, emergencies such as train
derailments and motor vehicle accidents
involving hazardous materials will be handled
expeditiously, as they are today. Teams of
highly trained technicians will swing into
action right away, coordinating the cleanup
and removal of hazardous materials to ensure
public safety as quickly as possible.
EPA's implementation of SACM also will
streamline how Superfund progress is re-
ported. Under SACM, all hazardous waste
sites will be considered Superfund sites, and
program reports will focus on total risk
reduction achieved by all clean-up phases.
Thus, protection of people and the environ-
ment will be the primary yardstick for measur-
ing Superfund progress. •
13
-------
Superfund Progress Report
Site Investigations and Cleanup Plans
Before actual cleanup begins, EPA
carefully investigates a site to
identify what chemicals are there,
how dangerous they are, and who is most
likely to be harmed by them. The Agency
also considers its clean-up options and,
after thorough review, recommends a
course of action.
The public is encouraged to comment on
the clean-up options and on EPA's
recommended course of action. EPA will
tailor its clean-up plans to meet the
public's wishes whenever possible, but
the Agency is responsible for deciding
how a site will be cleaned up.
Two-way communication between EPA
and the public is a crucial component of
the Superfund process. It begins early, as
the Agency explores community concerns
and finds out what residents want to
know from EPA. The information that
community residents provide can also
help EPA plan its investigation of the site
and tailor the cleanup to satisfy commu-
nity needs. Q
Superfund Progress Report
Cleanups at Superfund Sites
(Excluding Federal Facilities)
(Data as of 9/30/92)
Sites
Emergency Cleanups
Sites Investigated
Cleanups Begun
Cleanups Completed
Total FY
1992
287
1,344
63
57
Total
Number
228
243
FY 1980 to
Date
2,134
33,565
442
148
Total
Dollars
$1.52
Total RP Response
Settlements ($ Billion)*
Total Cost Recovery
Settlements ($ Million)
' Does not include State Lead Settlements, and Federal Facilites
Inter-Agency Agreements
$280.3
Completed Cleanups More Than Double in FY 1992
By September 30,1992, the Superfund Program had successfully cleaned up 149 hazardous waste
sites around the country. That's 19 more sites than the Program's target of 130.
Program officials are confident that Superfund will reach its goal of 200 site completions by the end of
FY93. And, they say, streamlined procedures and policy clarifications have put Superfund on track to
achieve its target of 650 site completions by the year 2000.
"In 12 years of implementation, we've learned a great deal about which elements of Superfund work
well and which do not. Using this knowledge to streamline the Program, increase the number of
completed sites, increase community involvement, employ innovative technologies, and vigorously
enforce the program, we are setting a new course for Superfund in the nineties," says Assistant Admin-
istrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response Don Clay.
"Over the first years of the Superfund Program, the Agency focused on identifying and diaracterizing
sites; we measured our success by getting sites on the National Priorities List. Later, we focused on
designing and beginning construction of permanent cleanups; we measured our success in terms of
things started. During the last few years, we turned the comer and are now completing cleanups at the
rate of one each week; I believe we should now measure our success by what we've finished.
"There are no easy answers to the hazardous waste problem, but we are confident that we have the
management and technical tools necessary to get the job done well into the next century," Clay says. B
------- |