United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste Publication 9200.1 -12
and Emergency Response PB92-963265
Washington, DC 20460 May 1992
Superfund
&EPA Superfund Progress
Spring 1992
-------
Focus: The Removal Program
The Life of an On-Scene Coordinator
The phone in Pat
Hammack's bedroom
rang at 3 in the morning.
A train wreck 300 miles
away near San Antonio,
Texas, had released an
unknown amount of
sulfuric acid, said the
EPA duty officer. He'd
better check it out.
Hammack wouldn't sleep
again for more than 48
hours.
He called out his
Superfund Emergency
Response Team, a
contractor available
'round the clock to assist at spills of hazardous
materials. One team member lived nearby in the
same Dallas suburb; he and Hammack rode to
the airport together. By 8:30 a.m., five-and-a-
half hours after the duty officer called, they were
at the scene. It was a mess.
A trestle spanning the Medina River had
collapsed and 21 tank cars each carrying 10,000
gallons of sulfuric acid lay in a crumpled heap
on the river's left bank. Two hundred and ten
thousand gallons of acid lay on the ground and
streamed into the river.
Strapping on bottled air and donning a hard hat
and protective clothing to inspect the damage,
Hammack was wading in four inches of concen-
trated sulfuric acid as far as 650 yards from the
wreck. His first concern was the Medina River.
Near the spill, the river was mostly acid. Trees
and shrubs hanging over the river were eaten
away at the water line.
"I started working with the railroad company
and the Texas Water Commission to make sure
they cleaned up the spill site and other environ-
mental hazards. In this situation, we wanted to
keep the acid from going too far down the
river," Hammack recalls.
Acting as an advisor only and not in charge of
the cleanup, he recommended neutralizing the
acid with Mme. However, the state's decision to
apply the lime directly to the river at various
locations, rather than first mix the lime with
water, resulting in alternating stretches of highly
On-Scene Coordinators have
been called the stars of the
Superfund Program. Working
on the front lines at accidental
spills and emergency
removals, this talented group
of dedicated professionals
protects the public and the
environment.
acidic and highly
alkaline water for 35
miles downstream.
Eventually, natural
processes corrected the
situation.
In the six years or so
since that train wreck,
Pat Hammack has
supervised dozens of
emergency cleanups and
removals of hazardous
materials. One of about
—. 160 EPA on-scene
coordinators (OSCs)
nationwide, he is in his
eighth year on the job.
EPA Region 6, which encompasses Arkansas,
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
has 13 OSCs; Hammack is a senior OSC. There's
no such thing as a typical job for an OSC; there
may be no such thing as a typical OSC. But Pat
Hammack's experience and dedication are
emblematic of the Superfund program's Emer-
gency Response Branch.
Emergencies and Removals
The National Contingency Plan (NCP),
Superfund's blueprint for confronting the
nation's hazardous materials problem, gives
OSCs broad authority. Often the first EPA
official at accidental spills, the OSC is respon-
sible for seeing that cleanup efforts protect
public health and the environment. If need be,
an OSC can "federalize" an emergency response,
mobilizing Superfund dollars and contractors to
make sure the job is done right.
The Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 shifted the
focus of OSC work from handling emergencies
to removing hazardous materials that threaten
public health or the environment. Both aspects
of the job are important, but Hammack firmly
believes that making decisions under the
pressure of an emergency makes an OSC more
adept at handling routine removals. Being an
OSC, he says, has three main attractions.
"First, the job is exciting. You get a real
adrenalin rush when you're out working at an
-------
emergency removal. Also, there's the responsi-
bility. No other job in the Agency, from man-
ager on down, has the responsibility an OSC
does. And I know of no other job with the
immediate gratification that this one has. You
can have a major hand in helping people back
into their homes or in making a site safe,"
Hammack explains. The pay may not be great,
but "the benefits of this job far outweigh the
detriments," he adds.
Among the detriments are long hours and even
longer separations from friends and family.
Married for 22 years to his high school sweet-
heart, Donna, Pat Hammack says his wife is
very supportive. Sons Ken and Keith are in the
Navy and college, respectively, so Hammack's
schedule is no longer troublesome for them.
"I can't say I've gotten used to it, but we take it
as it comes," says Donna Hammack. "He enjoys
his job, and that makes it a lot easier to accept."
Independence and Judgment
As a group OSCs appear to be an independent
lot, more comfortable in the field than in the
office. Besides technical skills and judgment, the
job requires a certain temperament for cooperat-
ing with public safety officials, contractors, the
press, and the public. Disagreements between
OSCs and reporters, for example, aren't un-
known, but an OSC doesn't necessarily need
confrontation to assert his or her authority.
"You can be in charge in one of two ways,"
explains Hammack. "You can be in charge
because you say you're in charge and federal
law supersedes state law. The other way is just
by knowing your abilities and responsibilities."
National Zinc Site
Currently Hammack is managing a major
removal in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, a community
of 50,000 residents about an hour's drive north
of Tulsa in the northeast corner of the state.
Two-thirds of Bartlesville's residents may be at
risk from exposure to lead and cadmium from a
smelting operation. The site is listed on the
National Priorities List of the nation's worst
hazardous waste sites. Hammack's job is to
Michigan Site Is Scene of Superfund Removal Number 2,800
- m December 1991, Superfund's Emergency
Response Program started its 2,800th emer-
gency removal since Congress established
Superfund in 1980. Tlie program deals with
hazardous materials that directly threaten
public health and the environment and re-
moves them for proper disposal.
The site where thousands of barrels of paint-
related wastes were dumped is in rural
Sumpter Township, Michigan, about 20 miles
southwest of Detroit. Crews began the removal
on December 6, after tests showed elevated
levels of heavy metals, paint-related volatile
organic chemical wastes/ and polychlorirtated
biphenols (PCBs). Several of the compounds
may cause cancer in people, and removing
them was a top priority. Later, EPA will
address potential ground-water contamination.
About 260 people live within a mile of the 15-
acre site, part of it planted with vegetable
gardens.
On-scene coordinator Ralph Dollhopf calls the
removal "fairly classic in that it was buried
drums of waste. The winter weather made the
field work difficult, but when you're
working with volatile organic chemicals, the
cold weather can be a blessing." Volatile
organic chemicals evaporate less readily in cold
weather.
Workers already have removed more than
2,000 barrels, 20,000 smaller containers, 10,000
gallons of spilled liquids, and 100 cubic yards of
contaminated sludge. They also found con-
taminated documents, which, along with
labeling and other information on drums, have
led investigators to a potentially responsible
party (PRP).
Within four or five months, EPA Region V
moved in to stabilize a dangerous situation,
gathered information to identify who was
responsible, and began the process of making
the PRP assume responsibility for the cleanup.
Region officials anticipate the PRP, a major
automobile manufacturer, will complete the site
cleanup under EPA supervision.
By late March, EPA had spent about $12
million on work at the site, and estimated that
completing the drum removal phase could
require an additional $2 million.
-------
assess the situation in Bartlesville and, if he
finds a problem, recommend a solution.
The OSC is part manager, part
scientist, and part community-
relations practitioner, as he
explains what's been done and
what remains to do.
A study by the Oklahoma Department of Health
in the 1980s disclosed that people living within
three miles of the smelter had dangerously high
levels of lead in their blood. A toxic metal found
throughout the environment, lead is especially
dangerous to unborn and very young children,
who can suffer physical and mental impairment
when exposed even to low doses of the metal.
Cadmium can cause liver and kidney damage.
Hammack directs a crew of 10 technicians and
chemists. Their headquarters is a cinder block
building that once housed a rental car company.
Aerial photographs and maps of the National
Zinc Site and environs cover the walls. One
map displays the 60 sites in a 36-square-mile
area where soil samples are being taken. A
mobile chemistry lab is parked outside.
A white board in Hammack's office records the
sampling sites. They include day-care centers
and schoolyards, places where children might
be exposed to lead thrown out by the smelter's
smokestack. "If we can show where the depos-
its from the smokestack's plume are on the
ground, then we can go in and clean them up,"
he explains.
Hammack's crew takes 16 to 20 samples from
each of the 60 sites. Their computerized siting
system uses orbiting satellites to precisely locate
where the samples were taken. They'll plot on a
map the results of analyzing more than 1,000
soil samples. By connecting sampling sites with
the same concentrations, they will generate what
looks Like a topographical map. But rather than
show hills and valleys, this map will show lead
and cadmium concentrations. Areas with more
than 500 to 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of lead
or 30 ppm of cadmium will be candidates for a
removal action. That is, the contaminated soil
most likely will be dug up and trucked away for
proper disposal.
"This job is very much a fluctuating type of job,"
Hammack says of his current assignment.
"Sometimes it's very much an office job. You
coordinate all the activities necessary to get the
job done. My job is to determine whether a
removal action is warranted and, if so, what
type." That means the OSC is part manager,
part scientist, and part community-relations
practitioner, as he explains at public meetings
whaf s been done, what's going on, and what
remains to do.
Removal Types
Bartlesville is a "time-critical" removal. That
means removal work will begin within six
months of EPA's determining that public health
is threatened. "Classic emergency removals"
are situations so dangerous an OSC can't walk
away. Instead, he or she will open the
Superfund and commit up to $50,000 to start
removal work immediately. The Regional
Administrator can authorize spending up to $2
million on the removal. Hammack found just
such a situation one day in Dallas.
He was working with investigators from the
region office's criminal investigation division,
checking out some 55-gallon drums that had
been dumped. Their investigation led to a
warehouse in a densely populated industrial
area. Inside were 400 to 500 55-gallon drums
containing hydrofluoric acid, other acids, and
flammable liquids. Many drums were corroded
and leaking; some were tipped over on their
sides. Iridescent chemicals pooled on the
cement floor of the warehouse. Acid ran out a
door, across a parking lot, and into a drainage
ditch that ran beside a mobile home park behind
the warehouse. Children played near the ditch.
"There was no way in the world I could walk
away from that," Hammack recalls.
The removal took three months and cost $1.5
million. Crews built sand dikes to capture the
acid in the parking lot and keep it out of the
drainage ditch. They cleaned up the spilled
chemicals on the warehouse floor and removed
barrels of acid and other materials. "We got
everything packed up, cleaned up, and shipped
out," he says.
Hammack's proud of that removal and of being
an OSC. He is a founder, and currently the
chairman, of the national OSC association.
Despite the occasional frustrations and the long
separations from his wife, Hammack isn't about
to change jobs. "I probably will remain an OSC
until I retire," he says. "I've got the job I want.
Nothing else has really attracted my attention."
-------
Superfund Progress Report
Employing the Latest Technology
Contaminated drinking water at a Superfund
site in Groveland, Massachusetts will be cleaned
up with the latest technology, according to a
plan selected late last year by EPA Region 1 and
the Massachusetts Department of Environmen-
tal Protection.
Workers will use ultraviolet light and oxidation
to destroy industrial chemicals found in the
groundwater used by the northeastern Massa-
chusetts community of 6,000 residents. The ad-
vantage of this method, according to federal and
state officials, is that it destroys contaminants,
rather than transfer them to the air or capture
them in filters which will eventually require
treatment and disposal. EPA estimates the
project will cost $8.9 million.
The contamination forced town officials to close
two drinking water wells in 1979. EPA placed
the 850-acre site on the National Priorities List in
1982, making it eligible for cleanup under Super-
fund. The site was analyzed, and the Agency in-
stalled a filter on one of the closed wells in 1987
to ensure the town had adequate clean drinking
water. The other well remains closed. Grove-
land is also served by a third well, which draws
water from an unpolluted aquifer.
The Groveland site is an example of Superfund's
growing emphasis on treating, rather than bury-
ing or burning, hazardous waste. During FY
1991, innovative treatment technologies such as
the one to be used in Massachusetts were part of
the clean-up plans for 141 Superfund sites. In
FY 1989, the number was 95. (Unlike us citizens,
the federal government runs on a fiscal year that
starts on October 1 and ends on September 31.
Superfund, as part of a federal agency, tracks its
performance on the basis of the federal fiscal
year.)
A Two-Pronged Approach
Superfund Progress Report
Cleanups at Superfund Sites
(Excluding Federal Facilities)
(Data as of 4/30/92)
Sites
Emergency Cleanups
Sites Investigated
Cleanups Begun
Cleanups Completed*
Total FY FY 1980 to
Date
32,496
, 340
84
Total
Number
Total
Dollars
Total RP Response
Settlements {$ Million)**
Total Cost Recovery, *\
Settlements ($ Million) ^r^
* as of May 1,1992
** Does not include State Lead Settlements, and Federal Facilites
Inter-Agency Agreements.
63
$22.6
In many ways, Superfund is two pro-
grams whose aim is to protect us and
the environment from uncontrolled re-
leases of dangerous chemicals. The
emergency program handles short-term
problems such as train wrecks, truck ac-
cidents, and fires that involve chemi-
cals. It also handles emergencies at
Superfund sites. The site clean-up pro-
gram addresses long-standing prob-
lems, like the Groveland Superfund
site, which took years to develop and
will take years to correct.
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 will 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.
During FY 1991, Superfund responded
to 346 emergencies involving danger-
ous chemicals.
Since Superfund began in 1980, teams
have responded to more than 2,808
-------
emergencies at 2,271 locations nationwide.
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 pro-
gram 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 pro-
gram. In addition, there are hazardous waste
sites in each state whose cleanup is the responsi-
bility of state or local governments or private or-
ganizations.
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. Cleanups were successfully con-
cluded at 84 Superfund sites as of May 1992.
Since 1980 when the program began, 84
Superfund sites have been cleaned up, and sur-
face cleanups at another 196 sites have been
completed. Almost a tenth of the nation's popu-
lation, 23 million people, have been protected by
Superfund actions since 1980. About 450,000
(roughly the population of Atlanta, Georgia)
have been given alternate sources of safe drink-
ing water. Another 4,000 people living near
Superfund sites have been temporarily or per-
manently relocated. In addition, more than
25,000 people (about the size of a standing-
room-only crowd at Boston's Fenway Park) have
been temporarily relocated due to emergencies
not involving Superfund sites.
Site Investigations and Clean-up Flans
Before actual cleanup begins, EPA carefully in-
vestigates 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 cleanup options and, after much re-
view, 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 public desires whenever possible,
but the Agency is responsible for deciding
which clean-up option will be used at a site.
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 resi-
dents want to know from EPA. The information
community residents provide can also help EPA
plan its investigation of the site and tailor the
site cleanup to satisfy community needs.
Making Responsible Parties Pay
Whenever possible, EPA makes individuals,
companies, and government agencies responsi-
ble for creating a Superfund site—known as
"potentially responsible parties" (PRPs), or "re-
sponsible parties" (RPs) when their links to the
pollution are established—pay for its cleanup.
PRPs financed 52 percent of the cleanups started
(and 46 percent of the cleanups completed) be-
tween Superfund's start in 1980 and December
31,1991. For each enforcement dollar EPA spent
in FY 1991 ($173 million), it received eight dol-
lars in PRP commitments to site work ($1.4 bil-
lion). In fact, these commitments equaled Su-
perfund's entire FY 1991 budget.
Since 1980, RPs have committed to spending
more than $5 billion on site work; half that
amount has been committed in the two years
since EPA began its get "tough policy."
EPA can take to court PRPs and RPs who fail to
comply with federal cleanup orders. By law, the
federal government can recover its cleanup costs
plus triple that amount in damages. Since 1980,
the Agency has referred to the U.S. Justice De-
partment 459 cost recovery cases worth an esti-
mated $798 million, achieved 1,113 settlements
to recover $592 million, and returned $359 mil-
lion total U.S. Treasury.
for More Information
Detailed infearmatfett about the Superrund
program's performance is available in a
fteW publication. Superfuttd Progress-^-Afi-
cionado's Version is available from the Of-
fice of Emergency and Remedial Re*-
sponse's Communications and Special
Projects Staff, (202) 260-2180.
-------
How Superfund Works
Arduous and exacting, the Superfund process re-
quires the best efforts of hundreds of experts in sci-
ence and engineering, public health, administration
and management, law, and numerous other fields.
The goal of the process is deceptively simple, to pro-
tect people and the environment from the affects of
hazardous wastes. The problem the process is de-
signed to correct is enormously complex.
The average site takes seven to ten years to work
through the system, from discovery to start of clean-
up. Actual cleanup can take years—decades if
ground water must be treated. The diagram at the
right presents a streamlined view of the process. At
every step, the public has the right and the opportu-
nity to comment on the work being done. As the
process continues, EPA works to compel those re-
sponsible for site contamination to pay for cleanup.
Site Discovery
Reports of potential hazardous waste sites come from
many sources. Citizens can make reports to the Na-
tional Response Center's 24-hour hotline (800/424-
8802). Federal, state and local officials, businesses,
and the U.S. Coast Guard also file reports of hazard-
ous waste problems.
Emergency Cleanups and Site Investigations
When dangerous chemicals are spilled, Superfund
teams move in immediately. Most emergencies are
cleaned up quickly, the chemicals hauled away for
proper disposal or treatment, or they are treated on-
site to render them safe.
Sites that don't require emergency cleanups usually
are investigated first by local or state officials. If the
site seems dangerous enough, EPA will check it out.
Only the worst hazardous waste sites require federal
cleanup. The rest are the responsibility of state or lo-
cal governments, companies, or private citizens.
These are not necessarily safe; they just don't meet the
Superfund criteria.
If investigators find that a site poses an immediate
threat to public health, Superfund will send in an
emergency team to fix the problem. Superfund will
respond to hazardous waste emergencies at any time
during the clean-up process.
Site Listing
Superfund responds to emergencies wherever and
whenever they occur; but only sites on the federal Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL) are eligible for long-term
cleanup under Superfund. EPA ranks sites according
to the danger they pose to public health and the envi-
ronment. Sites that score high enough are eligible for
the NPL; EPA refers the rest to the states for further
action. Between 5 percent and 10 percent of the sites
EPA evaluates become Superfund sites.
The Superfund Process
Currently there are 1,275 sites on the NPL. These are
the nation's worst hazardous waste sites. About 100
sites are added to the NPL each year, and EPA ex-
pects the list to total more than 2,000 by the end of the
century. EPA inspects each NPL site every other year
to see if conditions have changed or if an emergency
cleanup is required.
Planning
Preparing a long-term cleanup of a Superfund site be-
gins with a detailed study of the site and an evalua-
tion of various cleanup options. This step in the plan-
ning process can take up to 30 months and cost as
much as $1 million. EPA strives to use new technolo-
gies to treat hazardous waste, rather than haul them
away for disposal elsewhere. Wherever possible EPA
negotiates with responsible parties to conduct these
studies, but ultimately EPA with public input, choos-
es the long-term cleanup method.
Once a clean-up method has been chosen, it must be
adapted to the unique conditions at the site where it
will be used. The design adds another 12 to 18
months to the cleanup process, and an average of $1
million to the cost of the cleanup.
Cleanup
The actual site cleanup is the culmination of the
Superfund process. No matter who cleans up the
Superfund site, EPA is always in charge. Cleanup
work may take years, and often a site must be careful-
ly monitored once the cleanup is completed. Cleanup
costs average $25 million per site. Because of these
high costs and limited trust fund resources, it is neces-
sary to compel Responsible Parties (RPs) to conduct
the cleanup. Due to EPA's enforcement efforts RPs,
under EPA's direction, now conduct more than 50
percent of new cleanup actions taken since 1980. RPS'
contribution to actual cleanup work has been an esti-
mated $359 million.
-------
A History of Superfund
In the second half of this century, the environ-
mental effects of more than 100 years of indus-
trial growth in the United States became increas
ingly clear. Authors such as Rachel Carson
wrote pursuasively about
the often hidden environ-
mental consequences of
widespread chemical use in
our modern society.
By the 1970s, environmental
issues were firmly part of
the national consciousness.
The first Earth Day was ob-
served in 1970, and by the
end of the decade Love Ca-
nal in New York and the
Valley of the Drums in Ken-
tucky had entered the popu-
lar lexicon as synonyms for
pollution and environmen-
tal degradation.
Responding to growing concern over the public
health and environmental threats from uncon-
trolled releases of hazardous materials, Con-
gress passed the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) in 1980. CERCLA, popularly known
as Superfund, established a comprehensive pro-
gram to identify and cleanup hazardous materi-
als spills and contaminated sites.
Identifying these sites and gauging their public
health and environmental threats is a rigorous
process. It must be to make sure that Superfund
takes care of the worst problems first. The arti-
cle and flow chart on page 6 details the steps of
the Superfund process.
The Removal and Remedial Programs are two
major parts of Superfund. The Removal Pro-
gram takes quick action to correct short-term
emergencies such as accidental spills of hazard-
ous materials or long-standing contamination
that immediately threatens public health. The
Remedial Program pursues long-term solutions
to contamination problems caused by hazardous
releases.
An Enormous Problem
A decade ago, Congress and others believed rel-
atively few sites in the nation were contaminat-
ed with hazardous wastes. Superfund, they
thought, would be a short-lived program involv-
ing at most a few hundred sites and requiring
relatively few resources. But experience was to
prove them wrong.
As EPA began uncovering
sites and evaluating their
potential to do harm, one
discovery led to another
and the inventory of haz-
ardous waste sites grew
rapidly. Today, close to
36,000 sites are in EPA's
computerized database of
hazardous waste sites.
The National Priorities List
(NPL), the roster of the na-
tion's worst sites eligible
for Superfund cleanup,
holds more than 1,200 sites
and is over three times as
large as Congress original-
ly expected. EPA continues to add about 100
sites a year, and the NPL may reach 2,000 sites
by the end of the century.
The cost of cleaning up the hazardous waste
mess has risen as the magnitude of the problem
has increased. Congress originally set aside $1.6
billion for NPL cleanups; when the program was
reauthorized six years later $7.0 billion was add-
ed to the fund. Last year, Congress added an-
other $5.1 billion when it authorized continuing
Superfund through 1994. EPA's FY 1989 Annual
Report to Congress estimates that Superfund
will spend an additional $19 billion to clean up
sites currently on the NPL.
The Early Years
CERCLA was signed into law in early January
1980. The early years of the Superfund program
were slow going. Decision-making was highly
centralized and conservative. Expertise in haz-
ardous waste cleanup was limited, and cleanup
technologies were practically nonexistent. This
was in marked contrast to other EPA programs,
which were able to use proven technologies to
improve other aspects of the environment.
In 1984, administrative hurdles were lowered
and more authority was delegated to the 10 EPA
regional offices. As a result the program's pace
increased, and 1984 saw much activity and
-------
many accomplishments in all aspects of
Superfund.
Delays in Congressional reauthorization of the
program severely curtailed Superfund activities
in late 1985 and 1986. Almost all non-emergen-
cy worked stopped as taxing authority ran out
and managers carefully rationed remaining
funds.
Congress passed the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) in October
1986. Besides increasing the size of the cleanup
Trust Fund, SARA expanded EPA's enforcement
and cleanup authority, and it established
the emergency preparedness and public
right-to-know programs.
By the time Congress passed SARA, the
scope of the nation's hazardous materials
problem was becoming clear. EPA strug-
gled to reduce the public health risks posed
by a growing list of increasingly complex
sites, but incomplete information, immature
technology, and relentless pressure on lim-
ited resources plagued the Agency's efforts.
Rampant public criticism added pressure
and an increased sense of urgency. Clearly,
Superfund was in trouble.
A New Direction
In 1989, EPA's new administrator, William K.
Reilly, commissioned a candid evaluation of
Superfund. The Superfund Management Review,
also known as the 90-Day Study, established a
new strategy for the program based on four
guiding principles. A year later, EPA was well
on the way to implementing the precepts of the
90-Day Study:
• Use Enforcement First to Compel Private Par-
ty Response. EPA routinely acts to force po-
tentially responsible parties (PRPs) to pay for
cleanups. The percentage of sites where work
is funded by PRPs, and the value of work un-
dertaken with PRP funding, have increased
since 1989.
• Make Sites Safer by Controlling Acute
Threats. Last year, EPA completed evalua-
tions of the more than 1,200 NPL sites. As a
result, the Agency took immediate actions at
50 sites to protect public health and the envi-
ronment. Since 1980, more than 2,000 emer-
gency actions have been taken at sites on and
off the NPL.
• Tackle the Worst Problems at the Worst Sites
First. Because EPA has more sites ready for
cleanup than it can fund, the Agency is target-
ing the most serious problems for immediate
attention. Using the Remedial Action Prioriti-
zation Strategy, EPA Headquarters and re-
gional offices establish a national consensus
on which sites get funding priority. EPA also
has improved its procedures for evaluating
the public health and environmental threats
posed by individual sites.
• Use More Treatment at Superfund Sites. In
the early days of Superfund, site cleanup of-
Superfund Environmental Indicators
Contaminated Material Volume Addressed
8011 Vj?«0? ^Ai <;lf "4^- • 4-13 rnWion cubic yards '•
'- m
Solid Wg
Uquid Waste . '-v?vf'> v,t <«,,"• , » 4 "* r
«^c«i» - *B"
Surface Water
ten meant incinerating hazardous wastes or
"containing" them either on site or in a spe-
cially designed landfill. Such techniques often
just relocated, rather than corrected, the prob-
lem. EPA continually has sought more effec-
tive cleanup techniques, and by FY1990 75
percent of the plans to control hazardous
waste sources included some type of treat-
ment to address the most serious threats. Half
these treatment choices employed innovative
technologies developed or refined since
Superfund began.
The strategy arising from the 9Q~Day Study also
calls for EPA to improve program efficiency, en-
courage public involvement in program deci-
sions, and communicate program successes
more clearly. And successes there have been.
Observers judge the success or failure of
Superfund by how many hazardous waste sites
are removed from the NPL. While that number
is one measure of progress, it does not tell the
whole story. Because the health and environ-
mental threats that Superfund addresses are nu-
merous and varied, a better measure of program
8
-------
progress is the successive, incremental cleanups
that quickly protect people and the environment
while providing long-term protection:
• Surface cleanup has been completed at almost
200 sites, rendering them fit for use.
• Substantial progress has been made toward
permanent cleanup of land, ground water or
surface water at another 400 sites.
• Direct threats from contact with contaminated
lands have been elminated at 196 NFL sites.
• Another 373 NPL sites are moving toward
cleanup.
• All construction has been completed at 84
NPL sites. EPA wants to increase that number
to 200 by the end of 1993 and 650 by the end of
the century.
Attacking the nation's hazardous waste prob-
lems is a herculean task. In its site cleanup
work, Superfund has:
• handled enough hazardous soils and solids to
cover more than 680 football fields to a depth
of 10 feet;
• handled more than 4 gallons of contaminated
liquids for each man, woman, and child in the
country; and
• treated more than 25 gallons of contaminated
ground water for each U.S. resident.
EPA is proud of the hard-won accomplishments
of the Superfund program. There are no easy
answers to the hazardous waste problem, but
program administrators and managers are confi-
dent they have the managerial and technical
tools, as well as the cogent national strategy, re-
quired to meet the program's challenges well
into the next century.
Revitalization Team Targets Superfund Program Improvements
HPA Adnmustrator William K. ReHly an-
nounced in October 1991 antbifiQus plans tfr
trim tiie clean-up time for the average
Superfuttd site by two or three years and to
make sure that every available dollar pays for
direct dean-up worjk. Tufnmg these goals
into reality is the job of the Superfund Revital-
ization Team and Director Hjfe Helds.
The 20-tti^mber leans is dttrgefi, with making
afiir and
wIB
fll use its fiipMe$f^0urce£,to have
fect,
Hi,
i& jbsir community/' says
roitije
•30,1992.
ants co»j«Mps to total 200
§e|*eaiber 30,19^3 iwd&SQty the end ef
eceatttry. BPAhaspufc^^ed^listsafthe
sites expected to be cleaned up by the end of
the current and the next federal f^al |^ar.
The RevftaMzaticas Team. wM faitp^pgedcstte
deajnups fey ensuring that risk assewjente
.and other site study work are as streamlined as
possible. It also wUl review risk management
techniques so that site cleanups provide the
same level of protection nationwide. The team
will review contracts management procedures
to hold theAe,
-------
A Final Word on Superfund Progress
This issue marks the debut of the quarterly,
Superfund Progress. Its aim is simple—to
report on the strides we are making to protect
people and the environment from the hazards
of uncontrolled chemical releases.
Historically, Superfund's critics and support-
ers alike have measured the program's
progress by the number of hazardous waste
sites removed from the National Priorities List
(NPL). But this focus is too narrow. It diverts
attention from the major gains Superfund
makes by reducing the major risks at the
nation's worst sites, long before all the clean-
up work Is done. And it ignores our Removal
Program, where we have been remarkably
successful in meeting our twin mandates of
public health and environmental protection.
Superfund Progress is one way we are working
to improve our communication with the
public. We've designed it to be different from
other Superfund publications. We'll use
feature stories, like the one about ofrseerte
coordinators in this issue, to portray facets of
our program that often go unnoticed or
unpublicized. We'll also use Superfund Pro-
gress as a forum for reporting new develop-
ments. And, of course, there will be numbers
to show what we've accomplished.
Often, it seems, the Federal Government runs
mainly on numbers, and EPA and Superfund
are no exception. But many of the numbers
that track our work are of little or no meaning
to most people. For examjple, we record how
many cleanups are led by $te$es or EPA <$$%
Regional offices. With tltat in mind, we've
tried oar, best to report only those numbers
that wifl have the most significance for our
readers. He have, in effect, kept our focus on
"the bottom Brte." ,...•&«, , '
Readers wJbo want more details on the
Superfund Program—including morenum-
bers—cart get a copy of another new publica-
tion, Superfund Progfes$~-*A/icionado's Version.
If s available fromihe Office of Btnergertcy
" Remedial Response's Communications
and Speaal Projects Staff, (202) 260-2180.
AEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
OS-200
Washington, D.C. 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Want More Information?
Learn more about Superfund's performance
by reading the Superfund Progress—
Aficionado's Guide. This new publication is
available by writing or calling:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Communications and Special Projects Staff
OS-200
401 M St. S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-2180
First Class Mail
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
------- |