FY 2007 SUP
i i
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
Message from the Directors
This report highlights some of the many accomplishments of EPA's Superfund remedial, removal, enforce-
ment, and federal facilities programs during Fiscal Year 2007. The Superfund program protects the public
and the environment by requiring cleanup of the nation's worst hazardous waste sites and by taking short-term
actions to mitigate immediate threats to human health and the environment. EPA continues to focus its man-
agement attention and resources on the sites that present the greatest risk. Removal actions often are taken to
protect the public and the environment even in situations where remedies to achieve long-term protection are
being developed and constructed. ,
To turn Superfund sites into community assets, EPA partners with local governments and communities to seek
out land revitalization opportunities when selecting and implementing remedies. With so many sites (1,030)
reaching the final stage of remedy construction completion, the program is focusing greater attention on the
achievement and maintenance of long-term protection at these sites. Since the early 1990s, all of these ac-
tions have been taken using the "enforcement first" paradigm, which ensures that the party responsible for the
contamination is first required to implement the cleanup. The cumulative value of private party cleanup com-
mitments and cost recovery settlements is more than $25 billion. EPA's enforcement efforts have allowed the
Agency to focus appropriated funds on sites where potentially responsible parties (PRPs) cannot be identified or
are unable to pay for or conduct the cleanup.
Within this report are many local success stories that document the Superfund program's involvement with and
contributions to communities throughout the country over the past fiscal year. It is our hope that these stories,
together with the facts, images, and Web links herein, convey the diversity of effort, the innovative problem
solving at all levels, and the high level of enthusiasm that characterize the Superfund program. This report also
highlights the strengthening of efforts toward greener remediation at Superfund sites. For example, the cover
and last section of the report depict the increasing use of wind turbines and solar cells to generate power-sus-
taining cleanups and long-term stewardship of sites.
Even while we recognize these accomplishments, we know that much still remains to be done to protect the
public and its natural resources. For instance, EPA still expects to return ground water to beneficial use wher-
ever practicable. The Agency continues to look to the latest science to inform its risk management decision-
making. EPA, together with states, tribes, local governments, private parties, and other federal agencies, must
continue to focus its collective efforts on reducing the number of National Priorities List (NPL) sites where
the public may be exposed to contamination. We need our collective efforts to make sure that the potential for
future exposures is minimized as well.
We hope you find the report interesting, informative, and reflective of the progress underway in your community.
-------
(THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
-------
Contents
Introduction .. . .. iii
FY 2007 Superfund Annual Report 1
I. A Brief History of Superfund 1
II. FY 2007 Financial Overview 2
III. Key Superfund Program Components . 4
Assessing Sites 4
Hazard Ranking System and National Priorities List..... .. 4
Responding to a Release at a Site 6
Removal Actions 6
Remedial Actions 7
Enforcement 9
Federal Facilities Cleanup 10
Streamlining Cleanup Process 11
Community Involvement and Stakeholder Participation 11
Redevelopment and Reuse 12
Using Renewable Energy for Remediation Projects 14
IV. Conclusions/Program Outlook.. . 16
Appendix A. Superfund National Accomplishments Summary Fiscal Year 2007 A-1
Appendix B. Glossary ......B-1
Appendix C. Green Remediation Site Summaries C-1
-------
(THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to communicate the
progress made by the Superfund program in Fis-
cal Year (FY) 2007 (October 1,2006-September 30,
2007). The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or the Agency) prepared this report in an
ongoing effort to provide the public with information
on Superfund and related programs, including Emer-
gency Response, Enforcement, and Federal Facilities
(hereinafter referred to as "Superfund").
In 1980, Congress created the Superfund program to
protect human health and the environment from the
risks posed by hazardous waste sites. To limit expo-
sures across the country, EPA undertakes a variety of
Superfund response actions. From providing alterna-
tive water supplies for communities to performing
residential yard cleanups, the Superfund program
continues to protect public health and the environ-
ment. The Superfund program guards against direct
human exposure to environmental contamination at
these sites, assures the protection of those who work
and live nearby, and serves as a principal source of
information on the associated risks to human health
and the environment.
The Superfund program has been tremendously suc-
cessful. Remedy construction has been completed at
two-thirds of the sites listed on the National Priorities
List (NPL).1 In addition to completing construction on
the remaining sites, the program is now focusing on
making sure that these sites are ready to be returned to
beneficial use by the community, putting both people
and property back to work.
In recent years, nationally significant events, such as
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, have presented the Unit-
ed States with unprecedented challenges that require
large-scale government response. Beginning in 2003,
EPA introduced an Agency-wide National Approach
to Response (NAR) that was designed to efficiently
utilize emergency response assets and to clarify the
Agency's preparedness roles and responsibilities at all
levels. EPA has been working to ensure that its inter-
nal NAR, which is consistent with the government-
wide National Response Framework, is fully imple-
mented in conjunction with federal, state, local, and
tribal partners. Currently, the NAR priorities include
a decontamination strategy, laboratory analyses, crisis
communications, training and exercises, information
technology advancements, field communications,
equipment, and radiation response coordination.
Accomplishments of the program's emergency man-
agement and removal activities include:
Establishing a National Decontamination Team;
Training over 2,000 EPA employees in the Incident
Command System;
Developing a National Incident Management Sys-
tem Implementation Plan and Incident Management
Handbook; and
Conducting over 9,400 removal actions at more
than 6,900 sites to address immediate threats (as of
the end of FY 2007).
The Superfund program spent $520.7 million for
construction and post-construction activities and for
conducting and overseeing emergency response ac-
tions in FY 2007. This figure includes $380 million for
construction and post-construction projects and $140:7
million for 351 emergency response and removal ac-
tions to address immediate and substantial threats to
communities. More than $82 million was provided
to start cleanup construction at 19 projects across the
country. These 19 projects represent all of the projects
ready to receive funding to initiate cleanup activities,
and are in addition to ongoing projects.
Please note that terms of art or words that may not be commonly understood to readers (such as "National Priorities List") are
defined in the glossary (Appendix B) if they appear more than once in this report. If they appear only once, such terms of art or
unfamiliar words are defined where they appear.
Yw the online version of this report (available at www.epa.gov/superfand), readers may access additional information on terms or
site names highlighted in blue or beige by clicking-on the highlighted text. :
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
Working with states, tribes, commu-
nities, local governments, and many
other stakeholders, by the end ofFY
2007, the Superfund program:
Selected final cleanup plans at 75 percent of the
sites listed on the NPL (1,180 of 1,569 sites);
Controlled all identified unacceptable human
exposures at a net total of 13 additional sites,
exceeding the annual target of 10 and bringing the
program's cumulative total to 1.282 sites;
Controlled the migration of contaminated ground
water through engineered remedies or natu-
ral processes at a net total of 19 additional sites,
exceeding the target of 10 for the year and bringing
the program's cumulative total to 977 sites;
Completed construction at 24 sites across the coun-
try (for a total of 1,030 sites, or 66 percent of the
sites on the NPL);
Determined that 64 sites (covering 25.790 acres)
are ready for reuse;
Conducted 631 long-term, ongoing cleanup
projects at 409 sites (includes EPA funded sites,
potentially responsible party (PRP)-lead sites, and
federal facility sites); and
Secured more than SI billion in cleanup commit-
ments and cost recoveries from the private parties
responsible for toxic waste sites.
EPA and its partners continued to identify new threats
to human health and the environment. In 2007, EPA
listed 12 new sites on the NPL and proposed an ad-
ditional 17 sites. The Superfund program spent $199
million to conduct and oversee site assessments and
investigations, select and design cleanup plans, and
support state, tribal, community involvement, and other
activities. EPA selected final cleanup plans at 26 sites.
The program continues to emphasize community in-
volvement in decision making. The efficiency and ef-
fectiveness of cleanup remedies are enhanced when EPA
works closely with the local community, particularly on
important choices regarding the future land uses of sites
and the use of local institutional controls (ICs) to help
ensure the long-term protectiveness of cleanups.
As the Superfund program continues to evolve, it
faces new challenges. At its inception, the Superfund
program was often the only program available to clean
up a toxic waste site. That is no longer true. Following
site assessment, EPA and its state and tribal partners
identify the most appropriate program to address sites
that require cleanup. This may be a state voluntary or
enforcement program, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action program, the
Superfund removal program, or the Superfund reme-
dial program, either as a Superfund Alternative Site
or by listing on the NPL. The universe of sites not yet
complete and the sites being listed today on the NPL
are very different from the universe of sites on the list
10 or more years ago. EPA completed work at many
smaller, lower-cost sites that were listed in the past,
while many new sites in this category are being ad-
dressed through other programs. The sites that have
not yet reached completion are larger and more com-
plex, requiring more work to reach completion. In FY
2007, nearly 44 percent of EPA's Superfund obliga-
. tions were committed to long-term cleanup work at
large, complex sites. This phenomenon reflects the
evolution and maturation of the program, not a dimi-
nution in EPA's cleanup efforts.
Furthermore, while completing cleanup construction
continues to be a useful measure by which to assess
program progress, completing cleanup construction
may not represent achievement of all cleanup goals,
nor does it indicate that needed controls are in place
to assure long-term site protection. As the Superfund
program evolved, EPA looked for additional ways to
assess program progress beyond construction comple-
tion and helped keep the public informed about site
cleanup milestones. To better measure long-term prog-
ress, in 2007 the program adopted a Site-Wide Ready
for Anticipated Use measure. This measure tracks the
number of NPL sites where the remedy is constructed
(construction completion) and all of the controls
are in place to ensure that the land is protective for
reasonably anticipated uses over the long term. Those
anticipated uses and needed controls are outlined in
the site Record of Decision (ROD). EPA expects to
make at least 30 sites ready for anticipated use in FY
2008 and FY 2009. In FY 2007, EPA exceeded its
goal of 30 sites, making 64 Superfund sites ready for
anticipated use.
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
FY 2007 Superfund Annual Report
I. A Brief History of Superfund
In the late 1970s, several events made clear that seri-
ous legacy hazardous waste problems were falling
through the cracks of existing environmental laws.
The Love Canal community of Niagara Falls, N.Y.,
had to be relocated due to hazardous substance con-
tamination of the ground water. At the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky, 10,000 leaking chemical barrels
produced one of the nation's most notorious aban-
doned hazardous waste sites. The little town of Times
Beach, Mo., was eventually evacuated after dioxin in
oil that was applied to roadways to control dust was
discovered in the community's soil and water. At that
time, no federal program had comprehensive authority
to respond to these emergencies.
This time also marked the first efforts by the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) to address environ-
mental contamination at its facilities. In the 1980s,
other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), also began addressing environmental
contamination.
In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Envi-
ronmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA or Superfund) to address the dangers of
abandoned or uncontrolled sites contaminated with
hazardous substances. CERCLA provides EPA and
other federal agencies the authority to respond to a
release or substantial threat of a release of a hazard-
ous substance into the environment, or a release or
substantial threat of a release of "any pollutant or
contaminant which may present an imminent and
substantial danger to public health or welfare."2'The
law established a trust fund known as the "Superfund"
for EPA to use in cleaning up sites when the parties li-
able for the contamination could not be found or were
financially unable to pay for the cleanup. Superfund
was financed primarily by an excise tax on crude oil
and certain chemicals, and an income tax on corpora-
tions and general revenues. The legislation also en-
abled the federal government to recover the costs of its
Love Canal, New York
ian 200 homes and a nearby school \\cr
inlt around a covered landfill.
vd health problems and cancer were experi-
need among residents.
'resident Carter declared a State of Hmergency in
!i September 1. 1 \added 1 alt
the NPL.
Federal funds were u>ed to permanently reku
900 families.
In September 2003. I-PA issued a live-year revii.
report that showed the remedies implemented at
the site adequately control exposures necessary tor
the protection of human health and the environ-
ment (next review 20081.
On September 30. 2004. Love Canal was rem-
*rom the NPL.
- Neighborhoods north and west of the canal ha\e
been revitali/ed: 240 formerly boarded-up hoi>
have been renovated and sold to new owners and
10 newly constructed apartment buildings have
been occupied.
The area cast of the canal has been sold for light
industrial and commercial redevelopment.
Petroleum and gasoline are not included under CERCLA as hazardous substances.
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
actions from the responsible parties or to compel them
to clean up sites at their own expense.
In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA), which established
many improvements to the Superfund program that the
Agency was implementing administratively. The box on
this page ("Provisions of SARA") shows some of the
changes in the Superfund program as a result of SARA.
Provisions of SARA
n. increased the
limit to S2 million and the duratic \ear
Authorized waiver of remi rent
with long-term remedial u long-term
cleanup
Requii- le and federal
i practicable
N pplicable to federal faciliti
Required IPX to consider alien;
and to treat wastes to the extent practicable
Stipulated the dispo>al of v. novcd from
at R( RA-compliant lacii
Provided deadlines for negotiating and settling
with responsible pan
ith
responsible parties and to settle uith tic minimis
pan
Inci ite involveme ind deleft
- from the NPL and negotiating and settling
with responsible part;
tion activities at NPL sites and for cleanup and over-
sight of emergency response and removal actions to
address threats to the community.
Since the inception of Superfund in
1980, EPA has:
Placed 47,281 sites in the Superfund data system;
Removed or archived 35.053 sites from the data
system;
Retained 12,228 active sites;
Listed 1,569 sites on the NPL;
Deleted 324 sites; and
Completed construction at 1,030 sites.
FY 2007 Enforcement Accomplishments:
Securing more than $1 billion in cleanup commit-
ments and cost recoveries from the parties respon-
sible for toxic waste sites;
Entering into 140 agreements with responsible
parties to initiate response work;
Achieving 86 settlements with funds designated for
special accounts, eight de minimis settlements, and
three orphan-share settlements; and
Initiating 23 new PRP-lead remedial actions or
long-term cleanups.
II. FY 2007 Financial Overview3
For the past five years. Congress has appropriated
funding levels averaging $1.25 billion for the
Superfund program, and private party commitments
for future work have averaged $630 million.
EPA continued to prioritize sites to receive cleanup
funding. EPA also encouraged innovative public and
private financing. In FY 2007. the Superfund program
spent S520 million on construction and post-construc-
Pleuse see Appendix A for the "Superfund National Accomplishments Stinnnun; " which includes u full list of accomplishments for
FY 2007.
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
Escambia Wood Treating Company Site Cleanup Underway
Region 4) will permanent 1\ all soil contamination attributable to
le and design the cleanup to be compatible with the planned eomnv
c of the property. ! in 19*) 1 with an
emergency removal action that produced a stockpile of more than 200.000
cubit . informally kmn\ in." Investigation and
residential relocation acti\ r the next which invoh
ronraental justice concerns. Cirand Jury investigati. Monal ink
and challenging negotiations with tlu cleanup
led to a final Record ol
.\n permanent reiocaiu ompietion emoer zuus, at \\m
iti(
ReliK aluation Pilot project that addresses the arinda Triangle neighborhood. The project v
out in two ph;; 'ally incorporating learned from the first phase into the second. Through
community involvement efforts. Region 4 lias developed broad support lor the cleanup of this
More Than $27 Million Obligated to Libby Asbestos Site in FY 2007
The health effects associated with the former and current exposure from the asbestos-contaminated vermiculite from
the Libby, Mont., mine continue to be a subject of intensive study and overt public health concern. In February 2007,
EPA, other federal agencies, and several universities began a joint effort, called the "Libby Action Plan," to study and
evaluate the toxiciry of Libby Amphibole asbestos. This study is expected to take a minimum of two years to complete
and should help EPA complete its Baseline Risk Assessment at the site. In addition, assessment and removal action at
residential and commercial properties in Libby continued in FY 2007, with actions taken at 160 properties. This brings
the overall total number of properties addressed since 2002 to 954. In addition, in the nearby town of Troy, a full-scale
assessment of properties began in 2007 (550 of the 1,198 properties targeted were sampled).
Concurrently, W.R. Grace, under an EPA Administrative Order, commenced work to delineate the nature and extent of
the necessary cleanup and restoration of the former vermiculite mine. Overall, EPA obligated $27.6 million for work
at Libby in FY 2007 and has obligated more than $182 million in total at this site.
Cleanup Completed at Atlas Tack Corporation
129 tons of contaminated material. During the c ihe
cleanup, neai; ;ruck trips were made through the neighborhc
The upland portion of the \icklilleu iiidthe\\e
lands d to pre-indu iditions with additional fresl
\\etland enhancements. 1 nmercial indu>
cleanup standards and remains private property. Different type>
future land use would require further risk assessment by the o\\ner o.
eloper and approval and supervision by I-PA. Any /oning chan
required fora different use are under town authority.
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
III. Key Superfund Program
Components
Assessing Sites
The site assessment process includes three primary
screening activities: Preliminary Assessment, Site In-
spection, and application of the Hazard Ranking Sys-
tem model to score sites for potential inclusion on the
NPL. During the Preliminary Assessment, EPA col-
lects and reviews readily available information (such
as site history, drinking water sources, and surround-
ing populations) about a site to determine whether a
threat or potential threat exists and to decide if further
investigation is needed. During the Site Inspection,
EPA and other government agencies further evaluate
the extent to which a site presents a threat to human
health or the environment. A Site Inspection involves
field work to determine whether hazardous substances
are present at the site and are migrating to the sur-
rounding environment.
As a part of the site assessment process, EPA applies
the Hazard Ranking System model to derive a pre-
liminary site score. The site score is used to determine
whether further investigation is necessary or whether
the site should receive a "No Further Remedial Action
Planned" (NFRAP) designation. A NFRAP designa-
tion means that further remedial assessment under
A Number of Firsts Under Superfund
1982 - First cleanup/construction completion
(pre-NPL) at Walcotte Chemical Site in Green-
ville, Miss.
1983 - 406 sites identified and placed on the newly
promulgated NPL
1986 - First eight sites deleted from the promul-
gated NPL
1987 - First federal facilities added to the NPL
(total of 32 federal facilities added)
1995 - First major, multi-party settlement-South
Carolina Recycling and Disposal, Inc.
2006-1,000* construction completion
2007 - Largest civil enforcement judgment ($127
million) in U.S. v Vertac Chemical Corp.
EPA's Superfund program is not planned, although a
Superfund removal assessment and action may still
take place. EPA may refer sites that present an im-
mediate threat to human health and the environment
to its removal program for emergency response.
Sites also can be referred to state or other response
programs for further consideration (such as RCRA
Corrective Action).
EPA also may make a final assessment decision (FAD)
based on a review of available information. A FAD
indicates no further site assessment work is necessary
under the Superfund program. A FAD also may be
used to track progress related to completing site as-
sessment work at sites entered into CERCLIS. About
85 percent of all FADs indicate that no further site
assessment work is necessary, and about 15 percent
of all FADs indicate that cleanup attention is needed
under Superfund or other federal, state, or tribal envi-
ronmental cleanup programs.
FY 2007 Superfund Accomplishments
EPA concluded 395 FADs in FY 2007, bringing the
cumulative total of FADs made to 39,766.
EPA's 2006 - 2011 Strategic Plan includes a target
for completing a cumulative total of 40,491 FADs
bv the end of FY 2011.
Hazard Ranking System and
National Priorities List
In response to a Congressional mandate to identify
the worst hazardous waste sites in the nation, EPA
created the Hazard Ranking System, a numerically
based screening system that assesses the hazards
a site poses to human health and the environment.
The Hazard Ranking System score is calculated by
analyzing waste characteristics, their pathways of
exposure (e.g., ground water, surface water, soil, and
air), and potential targets (e.g., human populations or
sensitive environments).
Sites with Hazard Ranking System scores at or above
28.5 are eligible to proceed through a rule-making
process, including a public comment period, whereby
they are first proposed and then finalized for inclu-
sion on the NPL. Some of the factors influencing the
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
Cleanup Study Authorized at the
Lower Darby Creek Area Superfund
Site
private PR.
ilic Folcroft Landfill portion of ib
id silo in Delaware County. Pa. The
mem represents two milestones: (1) For the fir
time, private parties will eonduct a Superfund lines
gation on federal lands under II" Mght; and (
It ineorporated language (based on the Supren
ion in Cooper Industries, Inc., v Aviall S
Inc. [543 I '.S. 157]> providing the participating PRI
with the ability to pursue nonparticipating PRI1
contribution to the cost of the Rl
prioritization of sites for listing include the degree of
risk to human health and to sensitive environments;
the need for a response; the level of support for listing
from states, tribes, and communities; and program
management considerations affecting the types and
numbers of sites selected for proposal. EPA also seeks
alternative cleanup programs before sites are listed on
the NPL in order to ensure that all sites are addressed,
whether by placement on the NPL or through other
cleanup approaches.
EPA continues to list sites every year as new sites
serious enough to warrant Superfund attention are
identified by the Agency and its partners. The final
listing begins the response process, which can take
several years, and involves investigation, study, selec-
tion of remedy, and design and implementation of the
remedy. Only after a remedy is selected for long-term
cleanup are private party or orphan sites eligible for
long-term cleanup funding.4 In addition, EPA moni-
tors sites for any change in status that may require
additional short-term or emergency cleanup.
The first NPL, announced in 1983, contained 406
sites. The vast majority of NPL sites, including many
of the largest and most complex sites, were listed in
the early years of the program (more than 75 percent
were listed before 1991). As new sites are identified,
typically by referral from state agencies, the NPL is
periodically updated. Through FY 2007, EPA had list-
ed a total 1,569 sites (including 172 federal facilities);
proposed but not yet finalized 66 sites (including five
federal facilities); and deleted 324 sites (including 15
federal facilities). At the end of FY 2007, 1,245 sites
were on the NPL.
In early FY 2005, the Agency issued a policy to up-
date the NPL at least twice a year. These scheduled
updates, currently planned for spring and fall, help
EPA budget its resource requirements. Each update
comprises a proposed rule and a final rule, as need-
ed, for including sites on the NPL. EPA retains the
discretion to promulgate "special rules" as needed
Under section HI ofCERCLA, federal facilities on the NPL are not eligible for remedial action funding from EPA s budget.
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
Protecting Human Health and the
Environment Remains Superfund's
Top Priority
In FY 2007. the Superfund program:
Controlled all identified unacceptable human
exposures at a net total of 13 additional sites,
exceeding the annual target of 10 and bringing the
program's cumulative total to 1,282 sites with hu-
man exposure under control; and
Controlled the migration of contaminated
ground water through engineered remedies or
natural processes at a net total of 19 additional
sites, exceeding the target of 10 for the year and
bringing the program's cumulative total to 977
sites under control.
to address unique circumstances for particular
sites needing immediate proposal or finalization
to the NPL.
During FY 2007, EPA added 12 new sites and pro-
posed 17 others to the NPL. All appropriate responses
were implemented and no further cleanup was re-
quired at all or part of 10 sites, allowing EPA to delete
seven sites (including one federal facility) from the
NPL and partially delete three others.
Responding to a Release at a Site
Without regard to whether a site is listed on the NPL,
when EPA determines that a federal response is neces-
sary, CERCLA provides two options for responding to
an actual or potential release of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant. The first is a removal action
and the second is a remedial action.
Removal Actions
Three types of removal actions are: (1) emergency
removals, where action is required within hours or
days; (2) time-critical removals, where timely action
must begin to protect human health or the environ-
ment and the lead agency has up to six months to
plan the response; and (3) non-time-critical removals,
where the lead agency has at least six months to plan
the response action. Using its removal authorities,
EPA takes such actions as removing leaking drums
from a site or providing alternative drinking water
at NPL and non-NPL sites if the Agency determines
that available supplies are unsafe.
To address immediate threats to communities, EPA
obligated more than $140.7 million to conduct and
oversee 351 emergency response and removal ac-
tions in FY 2007. Of these, 200 were Superfund-lead
removals and 151 were responsible party-lead. These
emergency response and removal actions ranged in
size from a catastrophic explosion and fire in Danvers,
Mass., to a residential mercury release in Yakima,
Wash. While the Danvers fire, to which EPA New
England (Region 1) responded, affected hundreds of
residents and businesses, EPA Pacific Northwest's
(Region 10) response to the Yakima mercury spill had
very localized impacts, requiring partial demolition of
two homes, substantial excavation of two yards, and
treatment of streets and sidewalks.
Danversport Explosion
Damerv Mass, (about 15 miles northeast of Bosta
1 I'A coordinated multiple efforts to clear debris.
remove destroyed buildings, and conduct monitorin^.
designed to identify if any contaminants were released
into the local environment.
roved
The catastrophic explosion and fire entirely destroyed
a 10.000 square-toot specialty paint manufacturing
facility. In addition, the Liberty Marina, six other
commercial businesses, and approximately 25<
dential homes in the surrounding neighborhood wei
damaged (some se\erel\ I. More than 300 residents
were believed to be at home at the time of the expU
sion; 10 people reportedly suffered minor injuries. In
addition. 300 commercial and passenger vehicles and
approximately 100 boats at Libem Marina were dam-
aged. 1 he energ\ released from the explosion was fell
up to 25 miles away
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
EPA often is faced with contaminated sites that have
immediate as well as long-term hazards. In these in-
stances, a time-critical response can be used to address
the immediate threat (such as the presence of drums
or highly contaminated soil) while the Agency selects
a long-term response. This was the case at the Omaha
Lead Superfund site, where time-critical removals were
instituted at child care centers having high soil lead
concentrations and at homes with children exhibiting
high levels of lead in their blood. A long-term reme-
diation, which is ongoing, was then extended to cover
homes contaminated with lower concentrations of lead.
Remedial Actions
Remedial actions are the second type of response
action, and generally involve long-term cleanup ef-
forts that prevent or minimize the release or threat
of release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants. Remedial actions may require years to
complete and are intended as a permanent remedy for
the contamination.
EPA's 2007 report. Treatment Technologies for Site
Cleanup: Annual Status Report, shows that treatment
remedies are planned or implemented at 63 percent
of NPL sites (data includes RODs signed through
FY 2005). The report shows increased use of in situ
remedies at those sites where treatment was selected.
For example, 78 percent of source control treatment
projects selected in 2005 (for which the latest data
are available) were for in situ treatment. In 2005, 31
percent of RODs for ground water indicated in situ
treatment, which is the highest annual value based on
available data (through 2005).
Superfund Marks the 1,000th
Construction Completion
EPA Southeast (Region 4) reports that the
Macalloy Corporation site in North Charleston, S.C.,
became the 1,000'h Superfund site to reach the con-
struction completion milestone in the fall of 2006.
As of the end of FY 2007, an additional 30 of the
1,569 sites on the NPL have had all immediate threats
eliminated. At sites that are construction complete,
a remedy has been designed and built that prevents
contaminants from spreading through the soil, surface
water, or ground water.
Major Milestone Reached in
Protecting Children at Omaha Lead
Superfund Site
In FY 2007. I-PA Re
lead-contaminated soil from over l,0(tu residential
yards at the Omaha Lead Superfund sile in Nebrask,
This represents the third consecutive year that EPA has
cleaned up more than 1.000 yards in a single yeara
record-breaking accomplishment for the Superfund
program. As part of the cleanup process, EPA rein
contaminated soil and replaced it with clean soil and
sod. This investment in protecting the health and fu-
ture of Omaha's children is unprecedented.
In FY 2007, there were 24 construction completions,
bringing the cumulative total to 1,030 sites (or 66
percent of the current NPL). Construction completion
is the stage of the cleanup when physical construction
of all cleanup remedies is complete and all immediate
threats have been addressed. Long-term cleanup goals
need not be met for a site to be classified as construc-
tion complete. In addition, most remedies are based
on reasonably anticipated future land use, so many
sites where construction is complete require land use
restrictions called institutional controls (ICs) to ensure
long-term protectiveness of the remedy. EPA ensures
that these additional milestones are reached at sites
though its Ready for Anticipated Use (RAU) measure.
The community-based identification of reasonably
anticipated future land uses informs all stages of
the remedial or long-term decision-making process,
strengthens EPA's relationships with communities, and
creates opportunities to target planning and potentially
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
Figure I. Percentages ofNPL Sites Construction Complete
Have Increased 2000 - 2007
1800
1600
2000
'
Total NPL Sites
NPL Sites Construction Complete
reduce the cost of long-term cleanups. Since the enact-
ment of the Brownfields legislation in 2002 and the
2004 launch of Superfund Redevelopment's "Return
to Use Initiative," EPA and local governiriLMits have
been identity ing and removing obstacles that may un-
necessarily prevent the reuse of non-NPL sites, hinder
construction completion, or delay NPL site deletion.
Removing these obstacles may permit the reintegra-
tion of completed or deleted NPL sites into the com-
munity and local economy.
Superfund post-construction completion encompasses
activities needed to reach RAU status, as well as sev-
eral related activities, including:
Operation and maintenance of long-term remedial
actions or long-term cleanups to monitor and con-
firm that remedies perform as intended;
Five-year reviews (203 completed in FY 2007) to
evaluate the performance of remedies, identify po-
tential problems, and adjust operations and mainte-
nance as necessary;
Optimization of remedies to improve performance
or reduce operating costs of remediation systems
without compromising protectiveness; and
Notification and solicitation of comments on EPA's
decision to remove sites from the NPL (seven de-
leted in FY 2007).
The Superfund program has assumed a leadership
role in developing a national tracking system to man-
age and review data on ICs. In 2004, the Superfund
program outlined its strategy for making certain that
ICs are successfully implemented where needed to
ensure protectiveness in its Strategy to Ensure Institu-
tional Control Implementation at Superfund Sites. The
strategy serves as a roadmap for EPA Regional and
Headquarters personnel in preparing Region-specific
action plans and conducting the work necessary to
ensure the proper implementation of ICs at Superfund
sites. Information on ICs also has been gathered and
entered into the Institutional Controls Tracking System
(ICTS), which is currently in development. Through
ICTS, 1C information will be made available to the
public on a site-by-site basis through Web-based site
profiles. As ICTS is further developed, the Superfund
program will participate in coordinating the exchange
of 1C information with other federal agencies, states,
tribes, local governments, and industrial entities that
also have an interest in managing and reviewing infor-
mation on ICs.
A key challenge to the effectiveness of this network is
the overlapping and often disconnected responsibilities
of different levels of government for implementing,
monitoring, and enforcing institutional controls. The
success of this network will rely on the standardization
of terms and the willingness of federal, state, tribal,
and local agencies, as well as industry representatives,
to use the system to collect and exchange information.
Superfund Site Progress Profiles and fact sheets pro-
vide information on sites addressed under the Super-
Remediation Completed at Fernald
Preserve Superfund Site
mid water pump and treatment) at the Fernald P
in Fernald. Ohio. The site, which
one by many nan a former
1.11 .Tnment-owned nuclear production fa-
cility lo. ncinnati. From
l')51 to IWl. high-purity uranium metal was pro-
duced onsitc in support of national defense programs.
In IWO. DOh entered into an agreement with FPA
to clean up the site I PA and the ()hio 1 in ironmen-
tal Protection Agency worked in close partnership to
pro\, ight of this massive project. More that
S4 billion in cleanup costs were used to address mil-
lions of pounds of products and billions of pounds of
waste at the site. The vast majoritx of the property has
been restored tor use as an undeveloped park, and the
remedy pro restoration of the Greater Miami
Aquifer to drinking water standards b\ 2025.
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
fund program. Additionally, site-specific details are
available on regional Web sites.5 For more informa-
tion, visit the individual site profiles available on the
Superfund Site Information Web site at http://cfpub.
epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm.
Enforcement
CERCLA's strong enforcement provisions help to
encourage prompt settlements, minimize litigation,
and concentrate resources on actual cleanup.'1 EPA has
three options in response to a release at a non-federal
facility. EPA has the legal authority to: (1) conduct the
cleanup and seek cost recovery from responsible par-
ties; (2) enter into settlement agreements; or (3) issue
a Unilateral Administrative Order to compel respon-
sible parties to conduct or pay for a cleanup. Through
its "enforcement first" policy, EPA assigns the high-
est priority to locating responsible parties and getting
them to address cleanup. The Agency's goal is that the
liable, financially viable parties must pay for the cost
of cleanup.
Cleanup of Lower Fox River's Final
Stretch Begins
In late 2007, EPA Region 5 ordered a group of
companies responsible for the PCB-contaminated
sediments at the Lower Fox River site in northeast-
ern Wisconsin to begin cleanup of the remaining
stretch of the river. During the 1950s and 1960s,
mills located along the Lower Fox River routinely
used materials contaminated with PCBs. These
PCBs ultimately contaminated the river, which is
surrounded by communities that are home to ap-
proximately 270,000 people.
In July 1998, EPA proposed the Fox River Natural
Resource Damage Assessment/PCB Releases site
to the NPL. Cleanup of the site is anticipated to
cost an estimated $400 million. The recently issued
Unilateral Administrative Order is focused on Op-
erable Units 2 through 5 of the site, which include
a stretch of the river from Appleton to the mouth of
Green Bay.
Successful Negotiations Between
EPA and General Electric Result in
Consent Decree for Hudson River
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Cleanup
entered in federal I ourt. Hie agreement s (ji
instruct a sediment pro iransfer facilit
Fort Edward, N.Y.. and to begin dredging. The dredg-
ing project will result in the removal of more than
two million cubic yards ofPCB-contaminated sedi-
ment and is expected to cost more H; 0 mi
The dredging project includes two plias^
the first year of the dredging program, and Phase 2
is the remaining 5 the program. The Phase I
dredging program will be peer rc\ iewed to determine
whether engineering performance standards or the
project design need to be modified for the Phase
ram. The agreement also calls I
about $78 million for the -t and future
conduct the next
phase of dredging, and about $43 million foi
- if (11: does not agree. These amounts are in
addition to the approximately $37 million in cost re-
imbursement that til-; had already made under earlier
settlements with EPA.
_ rv critical part of the project is the constructii
of the Hi' dimcnt processing facility. The
iruction of this facility began in April 2007. This
facility is likely to cost close to $100 million and will
take 18 24 months to complete from start to finish.
Significant progress has been made on the facilr
construction will be completed in a time-frame that
will allow dredging to start in June 2009.
The electronic version of this report contains a link to individual site profiles deserihing E PA s progress in addressing threats at
the sites.
6 Courts have interpreted CERCLA to impose retroactive, strict, and joint and several liability.
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
As a result of Superfimd enforcement and other reme-
diation agreements, responsible parties committed a
total of more than $1 billion in FY 2007. This includes
$688 million to clean up contamination and $252 mil-
lion to reimburse EPA for past cleanup costs. These
parties agreed to clean up a record-setting 79 million
cubic yards of contaminated soil, enough to cover
more than 12,000 football fields to a depth of three
feet. In addition, they agreed to clean up 1.4 billion
cubic yards of contaminated water, which is enough to
fill more than 425,000 Olympic-size swimming pools.
Federal Facilities Cleanup
EPA's Federal Facilities Program under Superfimd
has programmatic and enforcement components. The
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office is responsible
for ensuring that interagency and federal facility
agreements required by section 120(e) of CERCLA
are in place for NPL facilities. The Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office also has the lead for addressing
disputes arising under interagency and federal facil-
ity agreements. The Federal Facilities Restoration and
Reuse Office is the EPA lead for response activities,
such as overseeing cleanup at NPL and selected non-
NPL sites, addressing response policy issues related
to cleanup, supporting DoD's Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) program, and promoting revitaliza-
tion of federal properties. EPA oversees environmental
cleanups resulting from past improper hazardous ma-
terials/waste handling and disposal operations primar-
ily at DoD installations.
For all remedial actions or long-term cleanups, pro-
gram-to-date accomplishments total 807 remedial
actions completed at NPL facilities. At the end of FY
2007, 657 remedial projects were underway at NPL
sites. Approximately 153 NPL federal facilities have
interagency and federal facility agreements signed.
EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office has
reached agreements with other federal agencies gov-
erning the cleanup at almost all federal facility NPL
sites. These agreements are required under CERCLA
section 120(e). In 2007, EPA, the U.S. Navy, U.S.
FY 2007 Federal Facilities
Accomplishments
The government made progress in protecting human
health and the environment at many federal facil-
ity sites. FY 2007 accomplishments for the Federal
Facilities Program included:
Issuing 110 cleanup decision documents at federal
facility sites;
Starting 37 RI/FSs;
Beginning 49 remedial actions;
Completing 62 remedial actions;
Achieving four site construction completions;
Achieving Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use
status at eight federal facility sites; and
Completing 32 five-year reviews.
Department of the Interior, and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico signed an agreement for the cleanup
of the Navy's former Atlantic Fleet Weapons Train-
ing Area on the island of Vieques, off the east coast of
Puerto Rico. EPA also issued enforcement orders to
require the following federal agencies to do the neces-
sary cleanups:
The U.S. Air Force and Raytheon to clean up Re-
gion 9's Tucson Airport Superfimd Site (also known
as the Air Force Plant 44 site) in Tucson, Ariz.;
The U.S. Air Force to investigate and clean up
Region 2's McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey;
and
The U.S. Army to assess the nature and extent of
contamination at 14 waste sites at Region 3's Fort
Meade in Maryland and to implement appropriate
cleanup actions.
For more information, visit: http://cfpub.epa.gov/com-
pliance/resources/reports/endofyear/fy2007/landhigh-
lights/index.cfin# 1246.
Building on Success:
-------
Privatization at Federal Facility Sites
EPA Pacific Southwest (Region 9) reports that in FY
2007, the Fort Ord and McClellan Air Force Base
teams completed the nation's first two "privatized"
federal facility cleanup agreements. Under the privati-
zation concept, the military provides funding to a non-
liable party, such as a reuse authority or a developer.
The non-liable party assumes the primary responsibil-
ity for the site cleanup; however, the military service
remains liable for it. Since a privatization agreement
had never been done before at an NPL site, the poli-
cies and procedures were not well defined. The teams
coordinated with EPA Headquarters and the U.S. De-
partment of Justice to develop an innovative Adminis-
trative Order on Consent (AOC). \\ hereby the non-lia-
ble party agrees to perform the work under regulatory
oversight. EPA Region 9 negotiated and completed an
AOC' u itli each private party. Federal Facility Agree-
ment Amendment, and Finding of Suitability to
Transfer with each military service.
The response will include SI00 million for investi-
gation and cleanup of any unexploded ordinance on
nearly 3.500 acres at Fort Ord. and approximately $11
million for work to address volatile organic com-
pounds in soil on a 62-acre parcel at McClellan Air
Force Base, both of which are located in California.
Anticipated reuses of the sites include residential,
commercial, industrial, recreational, and natural habi-
tat. The documents and procedures developed for these
privatization agreements will form the basis for future
privatization efforts nationwide, saving all parties
significant time and money. For more information on
EPA's Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
(FFRRO), please visit hup: www.epa.gov/fedfec/.
Streamlining Cleanup Process
EPA is leading an effort to reach out and address barri-
ers to cleanup involving other federal agencies. EPA is
also partnering with DoD on many policy and guid-
ance efforts to streamline the cleanup of munitions
sites. The DoD inventory contained approximately
3,316 munitions response sites as published at the end
of FY 2006.
FY2007 Federal Facilities N
Deletions
A; Ml
(Vl;i re military facility was deleted
106.
R(u ..irtial
dck , nrrcd at i1
partial deletion at tin--
surface media (soil, surf;: Innent) ar
surface media including ground water within
the peripheral Operable Unit and Operable Unil
the Rocky Flats Plant, following transk
the Department of Interior cd the \\.i
lonal Wildlife Re!'
Community Involvement and Stakeholder Par-
ticipation
Stakeholder involvement is an integral part of cleanup
planning and implementation. It begins early and is
sustained throughout all stages of site work. Superfund
engages stakeholders (communities, local govern-
ments, tribal nations, states, and other interested orga-
nizations and groups) at each site. This involvement is
based on the recognition that stakeholders should have
a say in the cleanup decision-making process, and
that robust stakeholder involvement will improve the
quality and acceptability of the cleanup. EPA enables
community participation in many ways, including:
Awarding a total of 305 Technical Assistance
Grants to communities affected by Superfund
cleanups, including those at federal facilities, since
1988;and
Providing support for Community Advisory
Groups in 56 communities across the nation.
At many sites, EPA's community involvement
activities exceed the mandatory basic requirements
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
for public participation by providing more frequent
information and specially developed opportunities for
input. An example is EPA Pacific Northwest's (Re-
gion 10's) efforts at the Lower Duwamish Waterway
(Wash.) and Portland Harbor (Ore.) sites. The third
Duwamish River Festival and second Portland Harbor
Superfund Field Day are raising awareness about con-
taminated river sediments, providing information on
how to safely eat fish from the river, and giving local
residents from diverse ethnic backgrounds the means
to learn about Superfund cleanup. At Duwamish Wa-
terway Park, south of Seattle, Vietnamese and Hispan-
ic interpreters were on hand to help share information.
while hundreds of people enjoyed kayak tours, local
dance troupes, and booths. At Cathedral Park in north
Portland, over 100 community members took part in
hands-on activities and viewed exhibits. Community
groups, environmental organizations, tribes, and busi-
nesses, as well as local, state, and federal agencies
joined EPA in-making these events successful.
Redevelopment and Reuse
EPA places a high priority on land revitalization as
an integral part of its Superfund response program
mission. The Agency's policies have increasingly
addressed the issue of making Superfund NPL sites
protective for current and future users. For example,
one of EPA's key responsibilities under CERCLA is to
ensure that contaminated property owned by the feder-
al government is environmentally suitable for transfer
or lease. EPA has been involved in making environ-
mental determinations pertaining to site use since the
first BRAC legislative action in 1988, and continues
to ensure protective use at both operating and closed
federal facilities undergoing CERCLA environmental
response actions.
Building on its experience supporting reuse at Super-
fund sites, in 1999 EPA created the Superfund Rede-
velopment Initiative to help communities and other
stakeholders in their efforts to return Superfund NPL
sites to productive use. In April 2003, EPA announced
its Land Revitalization Action Agenda, a plan for
addressing the nation's contaminated lands to enable
their reuse by communities. Using this framework, in
November 2004 the Agency developed the program-
matic performance measures described in the Super-
fund Revitalization Performance Measures guidance,
which serve to report the progress of EPA's activities
in making Superfund NPL sites ready for their antici-
pated future use.
For the last decade, EPA's redevelopment initiatives
have offered communities assistance with reuse plan-
ning to identify reasonably anticipated future land uses
for properties addressed under cleanup authorities.
For example, EPA Southeast (Region 4) implemented
an innovative prospective purchaser agreement at
the former St. Augustine Gas Company Superfund
site and supported reuse at the Florida Steel Super-
fund site. The former St. Augustine Gas Company
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
Midvale Slag
ing smelters, and mills. Today at the Mich
Superfund site, a large-scale de\elopment called
Bingham Junction is under construction. The 350-acre
de\ elopment will include major retail stores, housing
units, and office parks served by the future mid-Jordan
light rail line. The scenic proposed development is
located along the Jordan River and will include a ri\
walk linking up with the Great Salt Lake area trail
vm. Through the Superfund program. FPA Moun-
tains and Plains (Region 8) pro\ ided assistance to the
\lid\ale Slag site through a Technical Assistance Grant
in 1999. participation in the Superfund Redevelopment
Pilot Program in 1W9. and support as a Return
in 2()0(S.
Superfund site is a former manufactured gas plant con-
taminated with coal tar, a byproduct of gas production.
EPA worked together with the City of St. Augustine,
Fla., and the San Sebastian Harbor Partners to integrate
environmental protection with urban revitalization.
This public-private partnership spurred cleanup of the
contaminated site, restored and created salt marshes,
and created the Sebastian Inland Harbor, a waterfront
redevelopment located in the heart of America's oldest
city. The project, which includes condominium and loft
residences, retail shops and restaurants, a boutique hotel
and spa, and a marina, is the centerpiece of the revital-
ized gateway into historic St. Augustine.
From 1970 until 1982, the Florida Steel Superfund site
housed a steel mill that recycled steel from old cars into
steel reinforcement bars for concrete. EPA Southeast
(Region 4) reports that the Floridian Natural Gas Stor-
age Company (FGS) plans to build a liquefied natural
Tinkham Garage
Formerly a waste disposal site, the Tinkham Ga-
rage Superfund site in Londonderry, N.H., has
been revitalized into a retail shopping complex
and an active senior housing development called
The Nevins. EPA New England (Region 1) reports
that the residents of Londonderry now have the
benefit of shopping at a Home Depot, a Staples
office supply store, a 99 Restaurant, and a Dunkin'
Donuts. When the town of Londonderry and other
stakeholders refused to let the site linger as a va-
cant, fenced property, EPA responded by providing
easily understandable information to prospective
buyers to encourage reuse of the site. Reuse of the
Tinkham Garage Superfund site has encouraged
greater economic activity, thereby resulting in
higher tax revenue and increased property values.
The Tinkham Garage site was a Return to Use dem-
onstration project in 2006.
gas storage facility on approximately 145 acres of the
site. Because the new facility only encompasses a small
portion of the site, the remaining acreage provides a
greenbelt buffer for the gas storage facility. Cleanup and
reuse of the site are significantly increasing the property
value, and Martin County is benefiting from the addi-
tional property tax revenue. The FGS facility is answer-
ing a real need for natural gas storage that is close to
consumers and provides the highest level of reliability.
Gas storage also will provide an important backup fuel
source for Florida should fuel supplies be interrupted by
a hurricane or other unexpected event.
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
Environmentally Responsible Rede-
velopment and Reuse (ER3) at Empire
Canyon Daly West Mine Site
iopment prat: have unintended environ-
mental consequc! li as \\ ildlife habitat destru<
lion, stormvvater run* and
energy consumption.
,\ Mountains and Plain-
'orating sustainable pi,
into their pr< ontaminated
can ininimi/e the impact of the project on the envin
ment without sacritich iiility. This is the
the p -ruction of a ;
minium ;i
I IK , itribute to tin
at this former mining site in Park <
umlaye K
. ill incorpor;: itures into the design.
construction, and operation of the development to
minimize the pro; ironmental footprint.
Innovative Approach-
Prospective Purchaser
EPA Region 6's site team developed an administrative
order that the Many Diversified Interests. Inc. (MDI)
trustee offered to would-be bidders for the property at
the MDI NPL site in Houston, Texas. The agreement
will allow a non-liable prospective purchaser to buy
the site from the bankruptcy trustee, clean it up under
EPA's oversight, and redevelop the property without
acquiring liability for past contamination. The agree-
ment saves EPA over $6 million in future costs, and
will return the land to productive use.
Pursuant to Congressional mandate, many military
bases are undergoing realignment or closure with the
potential for severe economic impacts on the local
communities. To mitigate economic dislocation and
speed economic recovery of communities near military
bases scheduled for realignment or closure, the federal
government gives priority to local economic redevel-
opment, provides transition and redevelopment as-
sistance to workers and communities, puts cleanup on
a fast-track, provides transition coordinators at major
bases scheduled for closure or substantial realignment.
and allocates more funds for economic development
planning grants. For more information on the status of
BRAC redevelopments, visit http://www.defensecom-
munities.org/Downloads/ADC_SBRR.pdf.
Additional information on the Federal Facilities Res-
toration and Reuse Office's base closure and property
transfer activities can be found at http://www.epa.
gov/fedfac/documents/baseclosure.htm.
Using Renewable Energy for Remediation
Projects
Increasingly, remediation projects implemented under
the authority of the Superfund Remediation, Removal,
and Federal Facilities Programs, Brownfields Program,
and RCRA are utilizing renewable solar and wind en-
ergy to power systems. In FY 2007, 15 projects across
Building on Success: Protecting Hum on Health and the Environment
-------
the country utilizing renewable energy were identified
and researched.7 Ten of the projects used solar power
(photovoltaics), four projects used wind power (with
another site in the process of constructing a system),
one used landfill gas. and one used recycled vegetable
oil as a fuel for site-specific purposes. Some sites used
a combination of energy sources to achieve site goals.
Ground water was the most common contaminated
medium at these sites, and therefore, a majority of the
sites employed pump and treatment systems. One site
used soil vapor extraction as the remediation technol-
ogy. Other small uses of renewable energy at sites
included irrigation and data collection.
Figure 2. 16 Alternative Energy Uses at 15 Study Sites
Power
Generation
Equipment
Operation
1
Irrigation
Pump and Treat
7
Data Collection
3
For more information on the individual sites, locations,
treatment type, and alternative energy use. see Ap-
pendix C. The study's findings suggest that the use
of renewable energy sources to power remediation
systems is gaining ground but currently focuses on
providing supplemental power to long-term pump
and treatment systems. Findings also indicate that
numerous opportunities exist for expanded integra-
tion of renewable energy sources in remedy selection
and design.
The study also looked at green remediation. Green re-
mediation is the practice of considering environmen-
tal impacts of remediation activities at every stage
of the remedial process in order to maximize the net
environmental benefit of a cleanup. Considerations
include selection of a remedy, energy requirements,
efficiency of on-site activities, and reduction of
impacts on surrounding areas. Remediation activi-
ties can have a negative impact on the environment,
such as greenhouse gas (a gas, such as carbon diox-
ide or methane, that contributes to potential climate
change) emissions from combustible fuels used by
remedial technologies or from off-site water qual-
ity impacts of cleanup activities. In future years,
EPA's land remediation programs will increasingly
consider green remediation and the use of renewable
energy systems.
Dellens, A. 2007. Green Remediation and the Use ofRenewable Energ\- Sources for Remediation Projects. U.S. EPA, National
Nehvork for Environmental Management Studies Fellow, disc llestern Reserve University.
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
IV. Conclusions/Program Outlook
Protection of human health and the environment re-
mains the highest priority for the Superfund program.
EPA and its partners will continue to use Superfund
authority to address the worst hazardous waste sites
first, maintaining protective remedies and balancing
the need to complete response actions across the more
than 1,200 sites remaining on the NPL. The Agency
will continue to ensure that available resources are
disbursed in a fiscally sound manner. Maximizing PRP
involvement remains a high priority.
EPA's strategic planning goals include enforcement and
compliance assistance to determine who should pay and
the implementation of sound science and research to ad-
dress risk factors and identify innovative solutions. As
cleanup costs continue to grow, a major challenge is to
improve response capabilities and develop site assess-
ment and remediation technologies that do a better and
more cost-effective job of cleaning up hazardous waste
sites, especially those with contaminated ground water.
By developing and implementing prevention programs,
improving response capabilities, and maximizing the
effectiveness of response and cleanup actions, EPA
will continue to apply the most effective approaches to
protecting communities across the country.
An emerging area in the Superfund program is the
Agency's attempts to maximize the net environ-
mental benefits of cleanups by encouraging the use
of green remediation techniques and technologies
at hazardous waste sites. By promoting the use of
renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar
power, EPA is maintaining the effectiveness of reme-
diation methods while reducing emissions of green-
house gases from conventional power sources, such
as coal-fired power plants.
In the area of responding to incidents of national
significance, EPA has partnered with the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security and other federal
agencies to develop and implement the National
Response Framework, the National Incident Man-
agement System, and the National Infrastructure
Protection Plan. Together, these plans form a cohe-
sive structure that integrates the incident manage-
ment, protection activities, and emergency response
capabilities and resources of federal, state, and local
governments into a national framework for domestic
incident management.
Now that remedy construction has been completed at
two-thirds of the sites listed on the NPL, EPA is look-
ing ahead to the post-construction phase of the pro-
gram, which has grown in size and complexity. This
post-construction workload ensures that Superfund
response actions remain protective of human health
and the environment. Post-construction encompasses
a number of discrete inter-related activities including:
five-year reviews; implementation, monitoring, and
enforcement of ICs; operation and maintenance of
response actions-often for several decades; optimiza-
tion of remedies; and deletion of sites from the NPL
when all cleanup goals have been achieved. EPA,
states, tribes, federal facilities, private companies,
local governments, and communities all play an inte-
gral role in performing post-construction activities.
EPA has been promoting future use opportunities at
contaminated sites with its partners for over a de-
cade, beginning first with its Brownfields Program
and through the BRAC program with DoD. As the
focus on reusing contaminated sites became part of
the mindset at Superfund sites, properties that were
once thought to be unusable are now being "recy-
cled" back into productive use. EPA will continue to
encourage the reuse of Superfund sites by working
to remove barriers to their use and making cleanup
decisions that are consistent with intended reuse.
Experience has taught us that one of the best ways to
clean up contaminated sites and to address blighted
properties in communities is to expressly consider
the future uses of this land. The country has accepted
the economic and ecological importance of recycling
various consumer products, and our understanding of
sound resource management must now also embrace
the recycling of contaminated properties. In addi-
tion, by incorporating "green" and sustainable ap-
proaches into redevelopment of Superfund sites, we
can further increase the environmental benefits from
land revitalization. We remain committed to the goal
of restoring our nation's contaminated land resources
and enabling America's communities to safely return
these properties to beneficial economic, ecological,
and societal uses.
Building on Success: Prott
lumon Health and the Environment
-------
Appendix A. Superfund National
Accomplishments Summary Fiscal Year 2007
Disclaimer: These data represent a "snapshot in
time" and future numbers may change based on data
quality reviews, updates, corrections and changes to
report select logic.
Protecting human health and the environment re-
mains Superfund's top priority:
Controlled all identified unacceptable human expo-
sures at a net total of 13 additional sites, exceeding
the annual target of 10 and bringing the program's
cumulative total to 1,282 sites under control.
Controlled the migration of contaminated ground-
water through engineered remedies of natural pro-
cesses at a net total of 19 additional sites, exceeding
the target of 10 for the year and bringing the pro-
gram's cumulative total to 977 sites under control.
EPA's Superfund program obligated $520.7 mil-
lion to perform construction and post-construction
activities and to conduct and oversee emergency
response actions:
Obligated more than $380 million in appropriated
funds, state cost-share contributions, and potentially
responsible party settlement resources for construc-
tion and post-construction projects.
Obligated $140.7 million to conduct 351 emergency
response and removal actions to address immediate
and substantial threats to communities.
EPA funded new construction:
Obligated more than $82 million in appropriated
funds, state cost-share contributions, and potentially
responsible party settlement resources for 19 new
construction projects ranked by the National Risk-
Based Priority Panel (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
programs/nrbpp/index.htm) at 19 National Priorities
List (NPL) sites. This represents all new construction
projects that were ready for funding in Fiscal Year
(FY) 2007.
Superfund is working on hundreds of construction
projects:
Conducted or oversaw 631 ongoing construction
projects (by EPA, potentially responsible parties,
and federal facilities) at 409 sites.
Completed construction phase of cleanup at 24 sites
across the country for a total of 1,030 or 66 percent
of the sites on the NPL.
The Superfund remedial program prepared for future
cleanup efforts:
Listed 12 new sites on the NPL, and proposed 17
sites to the NPL.
Completed 395 Final Assessment Decisions, for a
cumulative total of 39,766.
Obligated more than $199 million in appropriated
funds, state cost-share contributions, and potentially
responsible party settlement resources to conduct
" and oversee:
Site assessments and investigations;
Selection and design of cleanup plans; and
Support for state, tribal, community involvement
activities, and other activities.
Selected final cleanup plans at 26 sites. These addi-
tional plans bring the cumulative total of sites with
final cleanup plans to approximately 75 percent of
1,569 NPL sites.
Superfund ensures the protection of human health and
the environment after construction is complete:
Conducted 203 Five-Year Reviews, including 34
reviews at 32 federal facilities sites. These reviews
are conducted to ensure that protective measures for
waste that has been secured on-site remain intact.
Deleted 7 sites, including 1 federal facility, and
partially deleted 3 sites from the NPL.
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
Superfund committed to the "polluter pays" principle:
EPA secured private party funding commitments of
more than $1 billion in FY 2007. Of this amount,
potentially responsible parties agreed to conduct
more than $688 million in future response work,
and to reimburse EPA for $252 million in past
costs. EPA billed private parties $62 million for
oversight costs.
Superfund faces constraints:
In FY 2007, nearly 44 percent of Superfund obliga-
tions for construction and post-construction activi-
ties went to 11 sites.
Sites Receiving FY 2007 New Construction Funding
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/factsheets07/
index.htm#funded)
ilding on 5LI
Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
Appendix B. Glossary
-A-
Administrative Order on Consent - a legal agree-
ment signed by EPA and an individual, business, or
other entity through which the violator agrees to pay
for correction of violations, take the required correc-
tive or.cleanup actions, or refrain from an activity. It
describes the actions to be taken, may be subject to a
comment period, applies to civil actions, and can be
enforced in court. Unlike a consent decree, an Admin-
istrative Order on Consent does not have to be ap-
proved by a judge.
-B-
baseline risk assessment - an analysis of the poten-
tial adverse health effects (current or future) caused
by hazardous substance releases from a site in the
absence of any actions to control or mitigate these
releases (i.e., under an assumption of no action). The
results of the baseline risk assessment are used to
help determine whether additional response action is
necessary at the site, modify preliminary remediation
goals, help support selection of the "no-action" reme-
dial alternative, where appropriate, and document the
magnitude of risk at a site, and the primary causes of
that risk.
brownfields - abandoned, idled, or underused indus-
trial and commercial facilities/sites, the expansion
or redevelopment of which is complicated by real or
perceived environmental contamination. They can be
in urban, suburban, or rural areas. EPA's Brownfields
Program helps communities mitigate potential health
risks and restore the economic viability of such areas
or properties.
-C-
cleanup - actions taken to deal with a release or threat
of release of a hazardous substance that could affect
humans or the environment. The term "cleanup" is
sometimes used interchangeably with the terms "re-
medial action," "removal action," "response action,"
or "corrective action."
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) - law,
commonly known as Superfund, enacted by Congress
on December 11, 1980, which established prohibitions
and requirements concerning closed and abandoned
hazardous waste sites, provided for liability of persons
responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these
sites, and established a trust fund to provide for clean-
up when no responsible party can be identified.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Information System (CER-
CLIS) an automated inventory of site information
for all potential or confirmed Superfund sites.
consent decree - a legal document, approved by
a judge, that formalizes an agreement reached be-
tween EPA and potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
through which PRPs will conduct all or part of a
cleanup action at a Superfund site; cease or correct ac-
tions or processes that are polluting the environment;
lor otherwise comply with EPA-initiated regulatory en-
forcement actions to resolve the contamination at the
Superfund site involved. The consent decree describes
the actions PRPs will take and may be subject to a
public comment period.
contaminant - any physical, chemical, biological, or
radiological substance or matter that has an adverse
effect on air, water, or soil.
contamination - introduction into water, air, or soil of
microorganisms, chemicals, toxic substances, wastes,
or wastewater in a concentration that makes the me-
dium unfit for its next intended use; also applies to
surfaces of objects, buildings, and various household
and agricultural use products.
construction completion -- the stage in Superfund
remedial actions when physical construction of all
cleanup remedies is complete, all immediate threats
have been addressed, and all long-term threats are
under control. Though long-term cleanup actions may
still be operating, the site is often ready for economic,
social, or environmental reuse.
Health and the Environment
-------
Corrective Action - statutory authority, added to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA),
§3004(u), that allows EPA and RCRA-authorized
states and territories to require treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities handling hazardous waste to clean
up spills resulting from failure to follow hazardous
waste management procedures or other mistakes.
cost recovery - legal process by which PRPs who
contributed to contamination at a Superfund site can
be required to reimburse the federal trust fund for
money spent during any cleanup actions by the fed-
eral government.
-D-
de minimis party - party whose contribution of
hazardous substances to a facility is minimal, in both
volume and toxicity (or other hazardous effects) rela-
tive to the other hazardous substances at the site. EPA
will often offer small settlements to de minimis parties.
-E-
emergency cleanup - see emergency removal action.
emergency removal action - steps taken to remove
contaminated materials (e.g., removal of leaking
drums or the excavation of explosive waste) that pose
imminent threats to local residents; and the state re-
cord of such removals.
emergency response EPA actions to coordinate and
implement a wide range of activities to ensure that
adequate and timely response measures are taken in
communities affected by emergencies involving haz-
ardous substance and oil releases where state and local
first-responder capabilities have been exceed or where
additional support is needed.
enforcement - EPA, state, or local legal actions to
obtain compliance with environmental laws, rules,
regulations, or agreements or obtain penalties or crimi-
nal sanctions for violations. Enforcement procedures
may vary, depending on the requirements of different
environmental laws and related implementing regula-
tions. Under CERCLA, for example, EPA will seek
to require PRPs to clean up a Superfund site or pay
for the cleanup. In other situations, if investigations
by EPA and state agencies uncover willful violations,
criminal trials and penalties are sought.
"Enforcement First" principle - policy by which
EPA seeks to compel those who are responsible for
hazardous waste sites to take the lead in cleanup, thus
conserving the resources of the Superfund trust fund.
Environmentally Responsible Redevelopment and
Reuse (ER3) Initiative - EPA's use of enforcement
and other Agency-wide incentives to promote sustain-
able redevelopment of contaminated sites.
-F-
federal facilities agreement - an interagency agree-
ment to govern the cleanup of environmental contami-
nation at federal facilities.
Five-Year Reviews - generally required by CERCLA
or program policy when hazardous substances remain
on site above levels that permit unrestricted use and
unlimited exposure. Reviews are performed five years
following the initiation of a CERCLA response ac-
tion, and are repeated every succeeding five years so
long as future uses remain restricted. EPA or the lead
agency for a site can perform Five-Year Reviews, but
EPA retains responsibility for determining the protec-
tiveness of the remedy.
-G-
ground water - the supply of fresh water found be-
neath the Earth's surface, usually in aquifers, which
supply wells and springs. Because ground water is a
major source of drinking water, concern is growing
over contamination from leaching agricultural or indus-
trial pollutants or leaking underground storage tanks.
H-
Hazard Ranking System - the principal screening
tool used by EPA to evaluate risks to public health
and the environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. A score is calcu-
lated based on the potential of hazardous substances
spreading from the site through the air, surface water,
or ground water, and on other factors such as density
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
and proximity of human population. This score is the
primary factor in deciding if the site should be on
the National Priorities List and, if so, what ranking it
should have compared to other sites on the list.
hazardous substance - any material that poses a
threat to human health or the environment. Typical
hazardous substances are toxic, corrosive, ignitable,
explosive, or chemically reactive; any substance des-
ignated by EPA to be reported if a designated quantity
of the substance is spilled in the waters of the United
States or is otherwise released into the environment.
hazardous waste - by-products of society that can
pose a substantial or potential hazard to human health
or the environment when improperly managed. Pos-
sesses at least one of four characteristics (ignitabil-
ity, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appears on
special EPA lists.
-I-
incident command system the organizational ar-
rangement wherein one person, normally the fire chief
of the impacted district, is in charge of an integrated,
comprehensive emergency response organization and
the emergency incident site, backed by an Emergency
Operations Center staff with resources, information,
and advice.
in situ - in its original place; unmoved unexcavated;
remaining at the site or in the subsurface.
institutional controls (ICs) - actions, such as legal
controls, that help minimize the potential for human
.exposure to contamination by ensuring appropriate
land or resource use.
-L-
Libby amphibole asbestos - toxic form of naturally
occurring asbestos called tremolite-actinolite series as:
bestos found in vermiculite ore mined in Libby, Mont.,
until 1990. The ore is waxy-silky white to greenish
white, with fibrous strands running across the surface.
long-term cleanup see remedial action/long-
term response.
-M-
monitoring - periodic or continuous surveillance
or testing to determine the level of compliance with
statutory requirements or pollutant levels in various
media or in humans, plants, and animals.
-N-
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Con-
tingency Plan (NCP, 40 CFR Part 300) - federal
regulation that guides determination of the sites to be
corrected under both the Superfund program and the
program to prevent or control spills into surface waters
or elsewhere.
National Priorities List (NPL) - EPA's list of the
most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial
action under Superfund. The list is based primarily on
the score a site receives from the Hazard Ranking Sys-
tem. EPA is required to update the list at least once a
year. A site must be on the list to receive money from
the Trust Fund for remedial action.
No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) -
decisions made from a site assessment perspective
only; they simply denote that further Superfund Na-
tional Priorities List assessment work is not required
based on currently available information. In contrast,
the archival of WasteLAN sites is made only when no
further Superfund interest exists at a site. This means
that sites are not archived if there are planned or ongo-
ing removal or enforcement activities or if other Su-
perfund interest still exists, even if a NFRAP decision
was made during site assessment activities.
non-time-critical removals - removals where based
on site evaluation, the lead agency determines that a
removal action is appropriate and that there is a plan-
ning period of more than six months available before
on-site activities must begin. The lead agency for non-
time-critical removals will undertake an engineering
evaluation/cost analysis or its equivalent.
Buildinq on Sit
Protecting Human Health and the
-------
-o-
.orphan share - the financial responsibility assigned
to a PRP who is insolvent or defunct and unaffiliated
with other liable responsible parties. Orphan share
compensation provides a major incentive for respon-
sible parties to perform cleanups and settle claims
quickly without litigation, and reduces transaction
costs by wholly or partly resolving the question of
who should bear the burden of orphan shares.
-P-
pollutant - generally, any substance introduced into
the environment that adversely affects the useful-
ness of a resource or the health of humans, animals,
or ecosystems.
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) - PCBs belong to
a broad family of man-made organic chemicals known
as chlorinated hydrocarbons. They have a range of
toxicity and vary in consistency from thin, light-col-
ored liquids to yellow or black waxy solids. Due to
their non-flammability, chemical stability, high boil-
ing point, and electrical insulating properties, PCBs
were used in hundreds of industrial and commercial
applications including electrical, heat transfer, and
hydraulic equipment; as plasticizers in paints, plastics,
and rubber products; in pigments, dyes, and carbonless
copy paper; and many other industrial applications.
potentially responsible party (PRP) - any individual
or companyincluding owners, operators, trans-
porters or generatorspotentially responsible for,
or contributing to a spill or other contamination at a
Superfund site. Whenever possible, through adminis-
trative and legal actions, EPA requires PRPs to clean
up hazardous sites they have contaminated.
Preliminary Assessment - the process of collecting
and reviewing available information about a known or
suspected waste site or release.
-R-
Record of Decision (ROD) - a public document that
explains which cleanup alternative EPA selected to ad-
dress a site under the authority of CERCLA.
release - any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring,
emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping,
leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment
(including the abandonment or discarding of barrels,
containers, and other closed receptacles containing any
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant).
remedial action/long-term response - the actual con-
struction or implementation phase of a Superfund site
cleanup that follows remedial design.
remedial design - a phase of remedial action that fol-
lows the remedial investigation/feasibility study and
includes development of engineering drawings and
specifications for a site cleanup.
remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS) - the remedial investigation is an engineer-
ing study that assesses the geographical, geological,
and hydrological properties of a site, and the nature
and extent of the hazardous waste contained therein. It
is usually combined with the feasibility study, which
identifies the various cleanup alternatives and specifies
their costs and benefits.
remediation - cleanup or other methods used to
remove or contain a toxic spill or hazardous materials
from a Superfund site; for the Asbestos Hazard Emer-
gency Response program, abatement methods includ-
ing evaluation, repair, enclosure, encapsulation, or
removal of greater than 3 linear feet or square feet of
asbestos-containing materials from a building.
removal/removal action - short-term immediate ac-
tions taken to address releases of hazardous substances
that require expedited response. Removal actions may
be emergency, time-critical, or non-time-critical. See
emergency removal action, non-time-critical removals,
and time-critical removals.
response action - a generic term for actions taken in
response to actual or potential health-threatening en-
vironmental events, such as spills, sudden releases,
and asbestos abatement/management problems; a
CERCLA-authorized action involving either a short-
term removal action or a long-term removal response.
This may include but is not limited to: removing
hazardous materials from a site to an EPA-approved
success
Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
hazardous waste facility for treatment, containing or
treating the waste on site, identifying and removing
the sources of ground-water contamination and halting
further migration of contaminants; any of the follow-
ing actions taken in school buildings in response to
AHERA to reduce the risk of exposure to asbestos:
removal, encapsulation, enclosure, repair, and opera-
tions and maintenance.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) - law enacted by Congress in 1976 to protect
human health and the environment from the potential
hazards of waste disposal; to conserve energy and
natural resource; to reduce the amount of waste gen-
erated; and to ensure that wastes are managed in an
environmentally sound manner. In 1984, Congress
enacted the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) that significantly expanded the scope and
requirements of RCRA.
Return To Use Initiative - a policy that focuses on
National Priorities List sites that were cleaned up prior
to EPA's current emphasis on considering reuse during
response activities. Many of these sites have remained
vacant. With appropriate oversight, communities can
reclaim these vacant sites. Returning these sites to
beneficial use will provide local communities with
valuable green space, recreational amenities, or com-
mercial property. Removing the stigma associated with
fenced and vacant Superfund sites may also increase
local property values and the tax base.
risk - a measure of the probability that damage to life,
health, property, or the environment will occur as a
result of a given hazard.
-s-
sediment - soil, sand, and minerals washed from land
into water, usually after rain. They pile up in reser-
voirs, rivers, and harbors, destroying fish and wildlife
habitat, and clouding the water so that sunlight cannot
reach aquatic plants. Careless farming, mining, and
building activities will expose sediment materials, al-
lowing them to wash off the land after rainfall.
short-term cleanup - see removal/removal action.
site assessment - an initial phase of the Superfund
process through which hazardous waste sites are eval-
uated, using preliminary assessments and site inspec-
tions, to develop a Hazard Ranking System score.
Site Inspection - the collection of information from
a Superfund site to determine the extent and severity
of hazards posed by the site. This phase follows and
is more extensive than a preliminary assessment. The
purpose is to gather information necessary to score the
site using the Hazard Ranking System, and to deter-
mine if the site presents an immediate threat requiring
prompt removal.
Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use - EPA per-
formance measure to report the number of NPL
sites where, for the entire site, all cleanup goals in
the Record(s) of Decision or other remedy decision
document(s) for media that may affect current and
reasonably anticipated future land uses of the site have
been achieved, and all institutional or other controls
required in the Record(s) of Decision or other remedy
decision document(s) have been put in place.
special accounts - cost recovery payments are de-
posited into "special accounts" that are sub-accounts
within Superfund's Trust Fund. Special accounts are
most commonly used when certain potentially respon-
sible parties "cash out" their liability at a site rather
than perform the cleanup work.
stakeholder - any organization, governmental entity,
or individual that has a stake in or may be impacted by
the Superfund program.
strict, joint, and several liability - under CERCLA,
this legal concept relates to the liability for Superfund
site cleanup and other costs on the part of more than
one potentially responsible party (i.e., if there were
several owners or users of a site that became con-
taminated over the years, they could all be considered
potentially liable for cleaning up the site).
Superfund - see CERCLA.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) - legislation that amended the Comprehen-
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) on October.17,1986. SARA
reflected EPA's experience in administering the com-
plex Superfund program during its first six years and
made several important changes and additions to the
program. SARA stressed the importance of permanent
remedies and innovative treatment technologies; re-
quired Superfund actions to consider the standards and
requirements found in other state and federal environ-
mental laws and regulations; provided new enforce-
ment authorities and settlement tools; increased state
involvement; increased the focus on human health
problems; encouraged greater citizen participation;
and increased the size of the Trust Fund to $8.5 billion.
-T-
Technical Assistance Grants - grants provided to
citizens' groups to obtain assistance in interpreting
information related to cleanups at Superfund sites or
those proposed for the National Priorities List. Such
groups use the grants to hire technical advisors to help
them understand the site-related technical information
for the duration of response activities.
time-critical removals - removals where based on
the site evaluation, the lead agency determines that a
removal action is appropriate and that there is a pe-
riod of less than six months available before response
activities begin on-site.
toxic waste - a waste that can produce injury if in-
haled, swallowed, or absorbed through the skin.
Trust Fund - a fund set up under CERCLA authority
to help pay for cleanup of hazardous waste sites with
revenues subject to congressional appropriation.
-u-
Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) - a le-
gal document issued by EPA directing a potentially
responsible party to perform site cleanup. A UAO
sets forth the liability of the party for the cleanup,
describes actions to be taken, and subjects the re-
cipient to penalties and damages for noncompliance.
Unilateral orders may be enforced in court. A UAO is
EPA's most potent enforcement tool and a powerful
settlement incentive. EPA usually only issues them to
parties that are the largest contributors of waste to a
site, are financially viable, and against whom there is
strong evidence of liability.
-V-
volatile organic compound (VOC) - any organic
compound that participates in atmospheric photo-
chemical reactions except those designated by EPA as
having negligible photochemical reactivity.
-------
Appendix C. Green Remediation Site Summaries
Site Name Site Type Location Region Energy Treatment Alternative Contact
Source Method Energy Use
Aberdeen
Proving
Ground
O-Field
AltusAFB
Apache
Powder
BP
Paulsboro
Crozet
Township
Arsenic Site
Frontier
Fertilizer
Lawrence
Livermore
National Lab
(Site 300)
Pemaco
Raytheon
Beech
Aircraft Site
Superfund
NPL
Federal
Facility (FF),
Non-NPL
Superfund
NPL
NJDEPISRA
Voluntary
Removal
Response
Superfund
NPL
Superfund
NPL (DOE)
Superfund
NPL
RCRA
Private-Party
Led Cleanup
Edgewood, Md.
Amis, Okla.
St. David, Ariz.
Paulsboro, N.J.
Charlottesville,
Va.
Davis, Calif.
Livermore,
Calif.
Maywood,
Calif.
Boulder, Colo.
3
6
9
2
3
9
9
9
8
Solar
Solar
Solar
Solar
Solar
Solar
Solar
Solar
Solar
Pump & treatment
(P&T), hydraulic
ground-water
containment, landfill
cap, removal of
contaminated soils
Pilot-scale bioreactor
P&T
Soil vapor extraction
(SVE), P&T
Phytoremediation with
ferns
P&T, electrical
heating, bioremedia-
tion
Excavation/off-site
disposal, SVE, P&T
High vacuum, dual
phase extraction
(HVDPE), ultraviolet
oxidation (UV/Ox),
GAC, flameless
thermal oxidation
(FTO), electrical
resistance heating
(ERH), SVE
SVE, P&T
Solar-powered
data collection
system
Solar-pow-
ered pump for
groundwater
circulation
Solar-powered
pumps for
recirculation in
wetlands
Solar- and
gravity-powered
irrigation system
Solar- and
gravity-powered
irrigation system
Small solar-
power system on
the roof of the
ground-water
treatment plant
Solar-powered
pumps for gran-
ular activated
carbon (GAC)
systems
Solar-powered
system for
emergency
backup battery
power
Solar-powered
monitoring
stations with
wireless data-
transmission
well loggers
Frank Vavra
Nancy Pagan
Andria Benner
Greg Hal
Sasa Jazic
Iain Bryant
Myles Bartos
Bonnie Arthur
Kathy Setian
Ed Folsom
Rosemarie
Caraway
Noreen Okubo
Building on Success: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
-------
Site Name Site Type Location Region Energy Treatment Alternative Contact \
Source Method Energy Use \
Savannah
River Site
RE, Warren
AFB
Former
Nebraska
Ordnance
Plant
Getty
Gasoline
St. Croix
Alumina
Facility
Operating
Industries
Landfill
Grove
Brownfield
FF
Superftmd
Final NPL
(DOE)
FF
Superfund
NPL
Superfund
NPL For-
merly Used
Defense Sites
(FUDS)
SCDHEC
Getty
Gasoline
Water
Division
RCRA
Superfund
NPL
Brownfield
Aiken, S.C.
Cheyenne,
Wyo.
Mead, Neb.
North
Charleston,
S.C.
Kingshill, St.
Croix, V.I.
Monterey Park,
Calif.
Austin, Texas
4
8
7
4
2
9
6
Solar
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
and
Solar
Landfill
Gas
Vegeta-
ble Oil
Passive soil, vapor
extraction (PSVE),
MicroBlower,
GeoSiphon
Excavation, landfill
disposal, landfill cap,
permeable reactive
barrier (PRB)
P&T
P&T, recovered oil
senttoHOVENSA
refinery
Landfill cap, landfill
gas (LFG) collection,
ground-water
monitoring, monitored
natural attenuation
(MNA)
Debris removal,
ecological revitaliza-
tion with native plants
10 solar-
powered
MicroBlower
systems
Wind turbines
for base power
generation
Wind turbine
for groundwater
circulation well
(GCW)
Wind-powered
pump
Wind-driven
turbine compres-
sors powered by
6 large wind-
mills; 6 solar -
array panels are
used to power
submersible
pumps for oil
recovery
Microturbines to
convert LFG to
electricity
Vegetable oil-
powered tractor,
biofuel genera-
tors, solar panels
Robert Pope
Robert Stites
Scott Marquess
Lori Land-
meyer
Tim Gordon
Pankaj Arora,
Shiann-Jang
Chern
Dorothy
Crawford
Sites Currently Planning to Use Renewables:
Massachusetts
Military Res-
ervation
FF Super-
fund NPL
Bamstable Co.,
Mass.
1
Wind
Excavation/off
site disposal,
SVE/biosparging
Wind turbines to
power ground-
water treatment
systems
Lynne
Jennings
Note: This chart has been updated from the original (available at http://clu-m.org/dowrdoacl/smdentpapers/Green-
Remediation-Renewables-A-Dellens.pdf) to reflect changes in site status since the report was first published in Au-
gust 2007. Frontier Fertilizer, a pump and treatment site, in Davis, Calif., has moved from the planning to the imple-
mentation phase for solar power generation. Casmalia Resources (Calif.) and Hassayampa Landfill (Ariz.), two sites
in EPA Pacific Southwest (Region 9), no longer have immediate plans to implement renewable energy systems.
Protecting Human Health and the Environment
------- |