United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 13
Number 1
January/February 1987
The New Super-fund:
Protecting People and Their Environment
-------
The New
Superfund:
Protecting
People
and Their
Environment
Last April's liPA Journal
concerned the question:
what will hi; done with
newly generated hazardous
waste? In this issue the
magazine explores another
question: what will he done
with hazardous waste
that was disposed of over the
years at sites around the;
country?
The issue is introduced by
EPA Administrator Le;e M.
Thomas, whose; first job at
the Agency was head of tin;
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(OSWER), which includes
Superfund. Next is an
interview with ]. Winston
Porter, the current Assistant
Administrator lor OSWER,
commenting on how the new
Superfund will be
administered. The new
federal law is intended to
help gain control of the
problem of abandoned
hazardous waste; sites.
The issue continues with
an article by a leading
environmentalist who
describes challenges facing
hazardous waste cleanup and
the new Superfund. The
author is Russell E. Train.
Chairman of World Wildlife
Fund and Tin; Conservation
Foundation and a former
Administrator of KI'A. Then
an article by an official of
one of the major U.S.
chemical manufacturers, The
Dii Pont Company, explains
how new federal hazardous
waste laws are changing
economics and industry
attitudes regarding waste.
The author is Dr. J. Richard
(looper, the company's
Director of Environmental
Affairs.
Next is a special section on
Superfund. The section
includes a discussion of the
nation's awakening to the
problem of abandoned
hazardous waste sites, the
birth of a program to deal
with them, the new
Stiperfuud of 1<)8<>,
mini-Superfunds in the
states, and challenges for the
future. This section will be
reprinted ami made available
as a "primer" on (his major
environmental issue. Jack
Lewis, Assistant Editor of
KI'A Journal, was editor ol
the special section.
On other subjects, the
maga/.ine includes an article
explaining the Reagan
Administration's 1988 budget
request to Congress for EPA,
and a feature by Fitzhugh
Green, EPA's Associate
Administrator tor
International Activities,
describing a recent
U.S.-Soviet conference on
environmental problems.
The maga/.ine concludes
with two regular
features—Update and
Appointments, u
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 13
Number 1
January/February 1987
»EPA JOURNAL
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
Jennifer Joy Wilson, Assistant Administrator for External Affairs
Linda Wilson Reed, Director. Office of Public Affairs
John Heritage, Editor
Susan Tejada, Associate Editor
Jack Lewis, Assistant Editor
Margherita Pryor, Contributing Editor
EPA is charged by Congress to pro-
tect the nation's land, air. and
water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws, tin;
agency strives to formulate and im-
plement actions which lead to a
compatible balance between hu-
man activities and the ability of
natural systems to support and
nurture life.
The EPA Journal is published by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Administrator of El'A
has determined that the publica-
tion of this periodical is necessary
in the transaction of the public
business required by law of this
agency. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved
by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. Views
expressed by authors do not neces-
sarily reflect EPA policy. Contribu-
tions and inquiries should be ad-
dressed to the Editor (A-107),
Waterside Mall, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460. N'o permis-
sion necessary to reproduce con-
tents except copyrighted photos
and other materials.
Hazardous Waste Cleanup:
The Challenge to EPA
by Lee M. Thomas
Carrying Out
the New Law
An Interview
with J. Winston Porter
Big Questions
Facing the Cleanup
bv Russell E. Train
Cover: iVew England vj'l/age. Photo
by Robert Madden, for Folio, Inc..
Dealing with Waste:
It's a New Ball Game
by J. Richard Cooper
Superfund:
Looking Back,
Looking Ahead
An EPA Journal
Special Section
EPA's Budget
for FT 1988
by Carol Panasewich
Sparks of
Bilateral Congeniality
by Fitzhugh Green
LIpdate
Appointments
Design Credits:
Robert Flanagan;
Ron Farruli:
Donna Wasylkiwskyj.
Effective this issue, subscription
rates for KPA Journal have
changed. The annual rate for
subscribers in the U.S. is now
$11.00, down from $20.00. The
charge to subscribers in foreign
countries is Si3.715 a year. The
price of a single copy of EPA
journal is Si.75 in this country
and $2.19 if sent to a foreign
country. Prices include mail costs.
Subscriptions to EPA Journal as
well as to other federal government
magazines are handled only by the
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Anyone wishing !o subscribe to the
EPA Journal should fill in the form
at right and enclose a check or
money order payable to the
Superintendent of Documents. The
requests should be mailed to:
Superintendent of Documents,
GPO. Washington. DC 20402.
EPA Journal Subscriptions
Name - First. Last
PLEASE PRINT
Company Name or Additional Address Line
Street Address
City
Zip Code
| | Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)
! I Charge to my Deposit Account No
-------
Hazardous Waste Cleanup
The Challenge to EPA
by Lee M. Thomas
Last October, after more than three
years of debate. Congress completed
work on a comprehensive renewal of
the Superfund program. During that
period. KPA employees demonstrated a
tremendous amount of determination
and fortitude. They maintained (lit;
integrity of the Superfund cleanup
program and accomplished a substantial
amount of \vork. even during a
year-long period of slowdown. Now, we
have a new law and a new challenge.
The new law known as the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act. or SARA—is
ambitious. It presents KPA, the states,
affected industries, and the public with
some tremendous challenges.
To begin with, it reflects the public's
demand that we get on with the
aggressive cleanup of our nation's worst
hazardous waste dumpsites. It sets a
fast-paced schedule for cleanup activity.
And it directs that remedies employ
technologies that will make sure our
work is effective over the long-term.
We agree with the thrust of the new
law. After a year of delay, we want to
get on with our cleanup program as
much as anyone. Hundreds of sites are
already in the remedial pipeline. And
hundreds ol others are on our National
Priorities List awaiting action.
We also agree with the intention
expressed by Congress that site
remedies should be permanent,
whenever possible. To foster
development of permanent technologies,
Congress also provided new research
authorities as incentives for new
innovative technologies. No one wants
to engage in an expensive shell game
where wastes are moved around from
one Superfund site to another. Our job
is to clean up sites to the point where
they no longer pose a threat to human
health or the environment. We are eager
to proceed.
SARA is specific about how much
work we should undertake during the
next five years. The numbers are
ambitious, but we can achieve them
with a concerted effort and strong
management.
Our job is to
the point '.
pose a tin 'iun
or the environment.
;.s to
By January 1, 1988, we must complete
preliminary assessments of all sites in
our inventory of potentially hazardous
sites. That's more than 25,000
assessments. And by a year later, we
must have conducted inspections at
every site in the inventory where we
have reason to believe a problem may
exist.
For those sites selected for the
National Priorities List, we must start
comprehensive engineering studies at
275 sites by October 1989. These
remedial investigations and feasibility
studies are necessary to understand
each site, its physical characteristics,
and the type and extent of
contamination found. If we fail to start
275 studies by late 1989, we must start
an additional 200 by October 1990, and
a year later we must have started a total
of 650.
Actual construction of long-term
remedies must be underway at 175
national priority sites by October 1989.
Two years later, construction must have
begun at a total of 375 sites.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry of the federal Centers
for Disease Control is required to
conduct health assessments for all
current national priority sites by
December 1988. For future priority sites,
health assessments are to be completed
within one year of proposing the sites
for long-term cleanup.
We have made a good start. A total of
327 engineering studies are already
underway. More than 60 others have
moved beyond the study phase, 34 sites
are in design, and construction has
started at 32 others.
Our priorities during the early phases
of SARA implementation will be to
complete the design and construction
work already started, and to complete
ongoing engineering studies quickly so
that cleanup remedies can be identified
and implemented. Wherever possible.
we will negotiate with responsible
parties to undertake the expensive
design and construction work.
And, of course, we must get on with
the process of conducting health
assessments at all 952 National
Priorities List sites. Top priority will go
to the 393 sites where work is
underway.
One of the most successful
components of the Superfund program,
albeit one that has never been widely
appreciated, is the removal program for
addressing emergency situations. Under
the old law, we conducted more than
800 emergency response actions,
including about 200 financed fully or in
part by responsible parties.
Under SARA, our emergency response
program will be stronger than ever. The
amount of time available for emergency
action has been doubled from six
months under the original Superfund to
a year under the new one, and we now
can spend up to $2 million for each
removal action, as compared with only
$1 million under the original act.
This stengthened emergency program
will be valuable to us as we strive to
protect people and the environment
from any immediate threats posed by
hazardous sites, whether they are on the
National Priorities List or not.
The new law also enhances our
enforcement authority, and we will use
it aggressively. While maintaining the
invaluable strict, joint, and several
liability provisions of the original act, it
also encourages us to negotiate
settlements with private parties
wherever feasible.
To date, we have already achieved
settlements for cleanup valued at more
(IS !'• . \li:
EPA JOURNAL
-------
:i (lie
ilfl'dl.
:.ii!. of
•ills
than $600 million. During the coming
five years under this new legislation, we
project several billion dollars worth of
commitments for additional cleanup
work beyond our efforts using the
Superfund directly. The real
significance of private party cleanups is
that they supplement site work by
federal and state governments.
Our enforcement program is
structured to make it clear to
responsible parties that it is in their best
interest to get involved in the settlement
process early. I am confident that active
cooperation between EPA and
responsible parties will lead to faster,
better, and more equitable settlements.
There are other important new
authorities in SARA, including
comprehensive authorities directed
toward creating state and local
emergency preparedness programs, and
to providing information to
communities on hazardous chemicals in
their neighborhoods. SARA also
includes a new response program for
leaks from underground petroleum
storage tanks.
The other articles in this edition of
the Journal will give readers further
insight into the new Superfund law, its
goals, and our plans for achieving them.
The special supplement will be
reprinted and can be kept as a reference
on the complex new law.
In closing, I want to reiterate one
thing. We have done a great deal under
Superfund during the past six years.
often under extraordinary
circumstances.
We have built an effective program.
Counting both our remedial and
emergency programs, we've cleaned up
hundreds of sites. And we have put in
place a management program capable of
completing one of the toughest jobs ever
given to a government agency.
The original Superfund statute was a
major test of our will. Implementation
of SARA will test us once again. And
we will again be doing our job in the
full light of congressional and public:
scrutiny. We welcome the challenge and
the oversight.
We can be proud of the work we have
accomplished under the Superfund
program. And I know we are up to this
new challenge.
I look forward to working with this
Agency's professionals, as well as our
support contractors, the states, the
public, and others in the years ahead as
we move forward to implement the new
Superfund program. Q
JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1987
-------
Carrying Out
the New Law
An Interview
with J. Winston Porter
To get a perspective on (lie new
Superfund as it will be implemented,
EPA Journal interviewed /. Winston
Porter, the Agency's Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. The interview
follows:
We have a new Superfund act
now. What are the main differences
between it and the original Superfund?
First, the new act puts into law a
lot of things we're already doing. That's
important. But it also includes new
provisions for greater state and citizen
participation in the decision-making
process, and it's very clear that we are
to meet state environmental
requirements wherever possible. The
law also emphasizes "permanent"
remedies which are cost effective and
protective of human health and tho
environment. We were generally
heading in that direction already, hut
now it's in the law.
Aren't leaking underground
storage tanks covered under the new
law, too?
Yes. The statute has set up a $500
million trust fund financed by a tax on
motor fuel. The fund will be used for
state-run programs to clean up leaking
underground petroleum tanks.
Do you feel you can meet the
standards and schedules imposed by
the new law? They're pretty tight.
The law provides schedules for
doing a certain number of studies and
beginning a number of remedial actions.
While they're relatively tough, I feel
strongly that we can meet them.
In terms of the cleanup standards, I
think we can generally meet those, too.
Of course, we need to look at the
standards site by site. The new act says
we must meet state standards where we
possibly can or explain why we can't,
but some states have many and more
stringent requirements than other states.
I think we'll be able to meet them, but
realistically, there will be a few cases
where we just can't. The bottom line is
that in every case, we'll be developing
and implementing a solution which is
protective of human health and the
environment. That's always going to be
our bottom line.
What about the states'
participation in identifying and
cleaning up sites? How do you plan to
ensure coordination and a partnership
relationship with them?
One of the things we need to do is
to involve the states very early in the
process, and the law talks about that,
too. The first step in our process is to
conduct a preliminary assessment and
site inspection, and decide whether to
score it under our hazard ranking
system. If we do score it, and it rates
highly enough, we propose it for the
National Priorities List. The states will
be involved in this process. We also
want to have the states involved in the
remedy, and if they've interacted with
us during the process, I think we can
reach consensus on a remedy. But we
have to have a full partnership. I want
the states actively involved in proposing
sites for the Priorities List. I want them
involved in selecting a final remedy. In
some cases, the states will actually take
the lead. They're doing this now in the
so-called "state-lead projects." So there
will be some cases where the state
wants to take a lead, some cases where
we take the lead. But in any event, we
need to arrive at the point where we
both agree on the remedy for that site.
Another point is that the states have to
pay 10 percent of the remedy cost. That
gives them a very strong vehicle for
ensuring that they're involved in the
process.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
How about people living around
hazardous waste sites? What does
reauthorization do for them?
A number of things. First, we now
have a strong program with adequate
funding to move ahead with site
cleanup. I think people have been
concerned about that, particularly
during the slowdown last year. The new
law provides for more participation in
the process by local citizen groups. In
addition, citizens can sue if they don't
like the remedies we're proposing. A
third very important benefit is the
health assessment required for each site
on the National Priorities List. Under
the new law, the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (an arm
of the Centers for Disease Control in
Atlanta) must assess every Superfund
site. So the community will have an
objective look at potential health effects
before we do the remedial investigation.
The reauthorized Superfund also
addresses community "right to know"
and chemical emergency issues.
Chemical plants must provide
information to the community about
chemicals on site and their safety
requirements. Any sudden chemical
release into the atmosphere must be
reported to the local emergency
response commission. And finally,
facilities must provide EPA and the
states with an annual summary of all
emissions or discharges to air, water,
and land.
That's quite a bit of new information
available to the community.
Could you elaborate on the role of
the public in implementing the
Superfund program, the public being
environmental groups, private citizens,
industry, etc.?
One of the basic things
communities should do (and I think
most are doing it) is to educate
themselves as to what the problem is
and what the alternatives are. Frankly,
these are complex problems, and the
solutions are complex, too. From
industry's perspective, 1 hope those
involved with the sites will grab the ball
and move out with solutions. Many
times these are companies that can
retain engineers, work under our
guidance, and go ahead and effect a
remedy. I'm hoping we'll get a lot of
participation. I think that most
companies involved with these sites
will see that it's to their advantage to
conduct the cleanup themselves.
So you're hoping then that
industry will take the initiative in
cleaning up sites?
Yes. We're going to be very tough
on recalcitrants, and really use our
enforcement authorities with people!
who don't want to participate in
solutions.
Continued to next page
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987
-------
But let me say that we've already
achieved more; than $600 million in
settlements from private parties. And
under the new Superfund, we can work
out so-called "mixed funding" to share
remedial costs between the fund and
responsible parties, although we would
still try to obtain most of the total cost
of cleanup at some point. In other
words, if wo have a good case against a
group of responsible parties, and several
of them conic to us with an offer, we
can accept their offer and go after those
who didn't come forward.
There's also a new provision
addressing "de minimis " settlements,
where we can let a responsible party
with a very small share of the problem
"cash out" early, with an acceptable
contribution. We have some sites
involving several hundred parties, many
of them responsible for very, very small
shares. The law encourages us to work
out a system where we can let some of
those people make an appropriate offer,
get them out of the process, and really
deal with the principals on that site.
Another provision in the new law
allows us to do a "nonbinding
preliminary allocation of
responsibility." One of the real issues at
Superfund sites has always been how
responsible parties allocate costs among
themselves. This is still their
fundamental responsibility, but now
EPA can make a preliminary,
nonbinding allocation to put on the
table. It's a way of priming the pump so
they can begin interacting with each
other, and we think that will be helpful
in some cases.
Superfund had quite a roller
coaster ride last year. How did that
experience affect the program's overall
progress?
Well, I'd sav that with respect to
cleanup at a lot of sites, we lost a year.
It certainly slowed down a lot of the
work, and we had to put a lot of
;d\ ronldjnmuN'd u'<;
neutraiizatioi '(fill di.s/xisdJ.
Superfund fin,'.- "(in;
both
'
-------
oversees the work, and EPPA and/or the
state would manage the project
manager. That's the classic project
management approach,
I also want to bring more competition
to the program with more firms
involved in the program. Those people
who are implementing solutions briskly
should get more work.
Are there enough experienced
scientists, engineers, and managers
available to implement this program?
I think so. Of course, Superfund
projects are complex jobs to manage
both technically and procedurally, and
they're complex from the public
policy/community involvement
standpoint. So these are not just
traditional engineering projects, and it is
hard to find enough trained people who
can interact under these circumstances.
On the other hand, private engineers
and engineering companies are not
currently overworked; some of these
companies have had large layoffs. So I
think there is available talent in this
country. There are a lot of skilled
engineers and companies out there, and
I want to involve them in the program.
They've even got three ways to
work—with us, with the state, or with
responsible parties.
There has been considerable
controversy over the amount of funding
needed. Can the Agency effectively
manage the $8.5 billion the program
received, or is Superfund just another
"boondoggle" of federal dollars?
Well, it certainly could have that
potential if we're not careful. It's a lot of
money. One of my challenges is to make
sure that the majority of dollars are
spent on actual cleanup—studies,
engineering, and construction—and not
on overhead.
And I don't want to use this large
amount of money as a crutch to allow
those who caused the problem to avoid
cleanup. We will still run a very
aggressive enforcement program. If
potentially responsible parties at the site
are willing to go ahead and clean it up,
we want to let them do it. That will
preserve the fund for other projects
where we have to do the work.
There are 951 sites on the proposed or
final National Priorities List, and each
one must be evaluated for a remedy that
is protective of human health and the
environment and also cost effective. I
think that's going to be the bottom line
with the American public: did we take
this large amount of money and do a
professional job of cleaning up problem
sites?
You manage Superfund and
RCRA, both hazardous waste programs,
and both amended to include stringent
new requirements. How will Superfund
affect RCRA, and vice versa?
First, you have the basic issue that
some cleanups could potentially be
handled either under Superfund or
under RCRA. Also, many of RCRA's
requirements will be applicable to
Superfund remedial activities. Thus, it
is very important that we have generally
consistent cleanup approaches and
standards for both laws. I like to think
that I am managing an integrated solid
and hazardous waste program.
How long does the Agency
estimate it will take to eliminate the
nation's hazardous waste cleanup
problem? Will there be a "Grandson of
Superfund?"
I don't know exactly what will
happen after these five years. One of the
things we want to continue to do is
have the people who caused tin;
problem clean it up. So I'm not sure
how long the Fund itself will last. Hut
our objective anyway isn't to SIM; how
fast we can spend money: it's to clean
up sites. How much funding will be
needed to do that, it's hard to speculate
at this time. I think it will hi; largely a
function of how much we accomplish in
this sort of "forced march" over the next
five years, although ongoing cleanup
activities will probably continue for 11)
to 15 years under various authorities.
My point is that these problems arc
very complex; solutions may take years.
But it's important that we push hard on
actual solutions.
As national program manager of
Superfund, what do you hope to
accomplish? What's your number one
priority?
What I'd mainly like to do is speed
the pace of cleanup. We're working on a
lot of sites out there, and now we have
the resources to do the job. I would like
our people to work diligently with the
regulated community, the states, and the
communities to see if we can increase
the number of cleanups, while
maintaining quality, a
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987
-------
Big Questions
Facing the Cleanup
by Russell E. Train
In its closing days, the 99th Congress
reauthorized Superfund at a level of
$8.5 billion, a hefty, five-fold increase
over funds allotted in the original
Superfund program. The intense
controversy and politicking that infused
the debate over passage of the
legislation is subsiding, All of us with a
stake in this program—government,
conservationists, industry, neighbors,
citizens groups, and others—need to get
on with the job of cleaning up toxic;
waste sites.
Yet, despite the resolution by
Congress of such key issues as the
funding level and the method by which
monies are to be raised—issues that
helped delay reauthorization for a year
beyond the original law's expiration on
September ,'K), 1985—the Superfund
program still faces a series of questions
that vex even the most committed
supporters of waste site cleanup.
Indeed, since its inception, Superfund
has hud its share of critics within
industry, government, and the
environmental community.
Environmental and citi/ens
groups—among those most prominently
involved, the Citizens Clearinghouse for
Hazardous Waste, Environmental
Action, the Environmental Defense
Fund, the National Audubon Society,
the National Campaign Against Toxic
Ha/.ards, the Natural Resources Defense
Council, the Sierra Club, and other
national organizations as well as local
groups—have been among tin; most
vociferous critics, raising important
issues, scrutinizing regulatory decisions,
keeping public and congressional
attention on Superfund and cleanup
generally, and advocating a stronger,
better-financed program.
Absent this grass-roots pressure on
Congress, it is unlikely that, in the give
and take of public policy decisions,
Superfund would have emerged in its
current strengthened form. After all. the
Treasury Department and the Office of
Management and Budget suggested that
the reauthorization bill might be vetoed.
But the broad base of public support for
Superfund buttressed congressional
determination to pass the measure and
made real the threat of a congressional
override.
if the efforts of environmental critics
helped strengthen Superfund. it is not
ram faces
imitttid
suppot
the first time in the program's short
history that critics have played a
significant role. Off to a rocky start,
Superfund only got its feet on the
ground when William Ruckelshaus
reassumed the mantle as EPA
Administrator in 1984; he brought in
Lee Thomas, now the Administrator, to
straighten out the program. A great deal
of time and energy were spent in
overcoming the unfortunate legacy of
the early years. Even so, in some places
the credibility of the Agency and its
Superfund program is still suspect.
Perhaps most frustrating to all who
have followed Superfund, and most
acutely troublesome to the neighbors of
toxic waste sites and the communities
in which they are found, is the snail's
pace of cleanup. By the close of
calendar year 1986, only about a dozen
sites have been cleaned up officially,
although there have been hundreds of
emergency removal actions at toxic
waste sites. The priority list of sites to
be cleaned up now numbers more than
950. EPA estimates that this National
Priorities List could grow to 2,000 sites,
while the Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment estimates this
list could eventually reach 10,000. At
this rate, cleanup will continue well
into the 21st century.
Why has progress been so slow? As
the numbers suggest, the toxic waste
problem is enormous, its impact
reaching into every state, cutting across
jurisdictions, affecting people and
institutions in a wide variety of ways.
Crucial momentum was lost on more
than one occasion during these past
several months as the authority and
funds provided by continuing resolution
nearly expired. EPA was forced to
administer the program in fitful starts
and stops.
Perhaps more fundamental in
explaining the slow progress of cleanup
efforts are the broader questions and
issues that have made Superfund a
highly complex, controversial,
time-consuming program from the start:
• How serious is the problem?
Distressingly little is known, in fact,
about the number of toxic waste sites
and how serious a risk each site poses.
The new Superfund law will take a step
forward in trying over time to help
supply needed data. It sets a timetable
for conducting assessments to determine
the scope and severity of problems at
toxic waste sites, including evaluations
of the extent of human exposure to the
chemicals found at these sites. Of the
approximately 24,000 toxic waste sites
identified so far in the United States,
about 5,000 or so still require site
assessments; under the law, these must
be completed by January 1, 1988. Health
assessments must be carried out for all
sites on the National Priorities List. The
law also requires that a list of 275
chemicals typically found at Superfund
sites be compiled over the next five
years; lexicological profiles must be
prepared on these at the rate of at least
25 each year.
Whether EPA can meet these
ambitious schedules remains to be seen.
Without the health and environmental
information required, decisions cannot
be made. Yet even with this information
in hand, it is not unrealistic to expect
continuing debate and disagreement
over what needs to be done where.
• To what standards should toxic
waste sites be cleaned? No one has yet
answered this question satisfactorily.
The amendments to Superfund require
that cleanups meet federal and state
standards. Using these standards as a
EPA JOURNAL
-------
guide \vill he difficult: too few exist.
Less than two percent uf the more than
65,000 chemicals in commerce have
been adequately tested for their effects
on human health and the environment.
Maximum Contaminant Levels in
drinking water have been set for only a
score of chemicals.
The question of how clean is clean
enough represents one of the most
vexing issues facing the Superfund
program. Unreasonably stringent
standards can consume time, dollars.
and resources needed at other sites. Hut
if a cleanup is not sufficiently thorough,
EPA may have to revisit the site.
• How permanent are cleanups going
to be? Closely related to the question of
standards is the issue of permanency.
Efforts to contain wastes at a toxic; waste
site or redispose of wastes at another
site could merely pass the problem on
to another community or to future
generations. EPA believed that leaking
had stopped at the Butler Tunnel site in
Pennsylvania, a drainage tunnel tor
abandoned coal mines, only to find that
when substantial floods hit the area,
contaminated wastes spilled into a
nearby river. Haunting Superfund is the
nightmare of spending millions to clean
a site, then discovering the cleanup is
far from permanent.
To avoid passing toxic waste
problems to future generations, much
more must be known about the
long-term effectiveness of emerging
cleanup technologies, such as those
involving bacterial treatment, including
genetic engineering. The long-term
effectiveness of more familiar treatments
such as incineration also needs to be
explored further. Which will work best
in which situations to reduce the
toxicity, mobility, and volume of
wastes? Officials responsible for cleanup
have a lot to learn about what
constitutes permanent cleanup and how
to achieve this goal.
It may take five to 10 years or longer
at some sites to determine whether
ground water contamination, tor
example, has been halted. Given this
uncertainty, the need to devote
significant attention and resources to
monitoring cleanups remains absolutely
clear.
• How well can EPA integrate and
coordinate its mandates under
Superfund with the plethora of other
relevant federal and state laws and
programs? On paper, iiitra-agency.
inter-agency, inter-governmental, and
other forms of coordination may seem
chiefly a matter of rearranging
organizational charts or specifying
procedures. In practice, while
requirements for coordination may
produce results over time, in the
short term they can also induce
bureaucratic delays and intransigence as
agencies or offices with competing or
conflicting statutory missions struggle to
reach consensus on a common agenda.
The new Superfund law gives the
Department of Health and Human
Services a larger role in Superfund by
requiring that EPA work with that
federal department to prepare
lexicological profiles. Will testing
priorities for the two agencies mesh:'
How will this added responsibility
disrupt or benefit from the current
agendas for testing and assessing toxics
at other EPA offices and at such
agencies as the Food and Drug
Administration and the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration?
How will EPA coordinate Superfund
with the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA]? KCRA's ban on
disposing of some toxic wastes on land,
for example, will affect Superfund
though no one is yet quite sure how.
How well will EPA coordinate
Superfund with the Department of
Transportation's requirements for
transporting hazardous substances? How
well will EPA offices responsible for
implementing the Safe Drinking Water
Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean
Air Act work together?
How will Superfund relate to state
cleanup efforts? If state requirements for
cleanup are more stringent than federal
ones, which standards will apply? Will
JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1987
-------
stales IKS willing ami able lo |)iiy thu tab
for more expensive, permanent
treatments?
Invariably, those and many mon;
questions arise; when multiple parties
become involved. Despite good
intentions on the part of many.
coordination of complex, controversial
environmental laws can consume a great
deal ot time and effort.
• How can tin; involvement of private
industry in waste situ cleanup be
improved? Thu more that private
cleanups can be assured, the greater the
likelihood that public resources can be
Incused on the most difficult situations.
The experience with Clean Sites. Inc.
(CSI), whose IJoai'd I chair, offers hope
that settlement and private cleanup can
be an effective; supplement to
Superfund. When a small group of
leaders in the environmental and
chemical industry, convened under the
auspices of The (Conservation
Foundation, proposed this innovative
approach in 1984, we asked tor
forebearance, and time in which to
demonstrate the efficacy of the
approach. The Hoard and staff of Clean
Sites take great pride in its record to
date; CSI has helped parties at 17
hazardous waste sites determine how
much of the cleanup costs each should
hoar. Dividing up the costs -sometimes
among scores of parties----is a critical
step in reaching private party
settlements, which have occurred at five
of the 17 sites: settlements are pending
at another six. In many of these
instances, CSI helped the parties reach
necessary agreements with federal, state.
and local government agencies. CSI
managed the cleanup at one site and is
playing a similar role at another two. At
these three sites, CSI helped allocate
costs, assisted in settlement, and
planned the actual cleanup
simultaneously, thereby speeding the
process and holding costs in check.
The organisation, and indeed the
approach ol cleanup based on a
negotiated, fair share allocation among
responsible parties, adequate technical
planning, and supervision of cleanup, is
starting to prove its worth in bringing
previously reluctant parties to the table
and moving forward cleanup at some
sites.
Is there a broader role that groups like
Clean Sites can play to encourage more
Ultimately, nothing short of a
second chemical revolution
will gain control over toxic
chemicals.
and faster voluntary cleanups? What
other steps might foster private
cleanups? Here, too, federal, state, and
local officials, citizen groups,
environmentalists, and industry leaders
have more to learn.
Aside from these and other difficult
questions, perhaps the most provocative
issue for policy makers in Congress and
the government who oversee Superfund
is the broader matter of how our society,
and increasingly governments and
people throughout the world, will deal
with the pervasive problem of toxic
substances —toxics in the land on
which we live, the air we breathe, the
water we drink, the food we eat.
Evidence is accumulating from research
bv The Conservation Foundation, the
National Academy of Sciences, EPA
itself, and others, thai our pollution
laws and programs are failing to contain
toxic wastes. Instead, our control efforts
often seem to move toxics around,
among land, air, and
water—demonstrating the "cross-media"
problem of pollution. The experience at
hazardous waste sites, with toxic
chemicals seeping into ground water,
spilling into surface waterways, and
volatilizing into the air, underscores the
need for a cross-media approach to toxic
substances control. Narrowly focused
"cleanup" techniques may only move
the problem elsewhere, providing no
real solution.
Ultimately, nothing short of a second
chemical revolution will gain control
over toxic chemicals. The genius of
American industry that produced the
first chemical revolution, which has
benefited our lives in so many ways.
must now turn its initiative to figuring
out how to reduce, recycle, detoxify,
and in other ways render harmless the
by-products of a vigorous industrial
society. American enterprise also must
develop a new generation of products
that does not pose threats to the
environment. The health of the
American people and the health of the
natural systems on which the U.S.
economy depends warrant nothing less.n
10
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Dealing with Waste:
It's a New Ball Game
by J. Richard Cooper
Superfund and RCRA mark a new era
in waste management for American
industry. Going forward, industrial
waste will be handled with a greater
appreciation of the real costs and
technical consequences. Less waste
generation will be the order of the day,
though not the sole key to future waste
management: a range of environmentally
sound disposal options still will be
necessary. To succeed at the task of
waste handling mandated by law, there
must be cooperation among industry,
government, and concerned citizens.
Economics is a driving force for
industry. Passage of these landmark
laws coincided with increased
competitive pressures internationally.
As a consequence, the manner in which
we dispose of wastes and control the
cost of that disposal is critical to
profitability and competitiveness. An
economical and environmentally
acceptable plan for waste management
may well be the key to the future
success or failure of many businesses.
This is not new. Efficient production
has always been one key to competitive
strength, and continuing research efforts
to achieve less waste are basic: to
industrial operations. Polyethylene is a
classic example. Developed about the
time of World War II. this polymer
found immediate application as an
insulating material for electrical cables.
At the time, manufacturing costs were
high, and product yields were only
10-20 percent. The selling price
exceeded one dollar per pound. Over
the years, research to improve the
manufacturing process led to significant
yield improvements. Overall yields now
typically exceed 95 percent, and
unreacted raw material is recycled.
The expected happened. Waste was
reduced, costs and selling prices
decreased, end uses multiplied, and the
[J)r. (,'ooprr is l)ii, : nvironm
Alim'rs lor '!'};• ny.J
column (i!
high-
benefits to society expanded. Current
uses of this material are vast, and it sells
for about 35 cents per pound, or seven
cents in 1947 dollars.
If the game is not new, the stakes
have increased enormously. Du Font's
cost for handling and disposing of waste
amounts to over $100 million per year.
and this figure is conservative. Total
pollution control costs are three times
as much, and our standing investment
in environmental facilities is almost a
billion dollars. These figures don't take
into account the loss of yield to usutui
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987
i !
-------
products lh.it wastes represent. The
portion of tin; figures that represents the
costs wi; incur by having contractors
handle or dispose of waste is escalating
at a rate of 25 to 50 percent annually.
While Superfund, through settlement
costs and industry fees, is a constant
reminder of the price of improper waste
disposal, tht! 1UH4 RCKA amendments
significantly toughened the hazardous
waste management provisions of the
law. Right now, we're looking at more
that 70 new or (.hanged regulations in
the pipeline as a result of these
amendments, including the requirement
tor manufacturers to have a waste
minimization plan for most sites.
As a practical matter, how do you go
about waste minimization? From
industry's perspective, it is important
that what is involved in real world
wastt! reduction be understood. It's an
interesting mix of high lech innovation
and common sense care.
One of the most effective means of
minimizing waste is described in the
polyethylene example: to improve the
manufacturing process so that what was
once waste becomes end product.
Another is through technical advances.
including systems used to control waste
generation: computers are playing an
important role in these advances.
The use of large computer systems is
costly and complex, but barriers are
continually being lowered by rapid
advances in the electronics industry.
Today, small microprocessors art:
relatively inexpensive, easy to install.
and can be tailored to the needs of small
operations. Computers enable
manufacturers to sample conditions,
compare the results with other
parameters, and make needed
corrections with much greater
sophistication than in the past. The net
result is more prtici.se control of
manufacturing processes and. therefore,
reduced energy requirements, better raw
material utilization, and better product
quality. Less waste generation, in other
words.
This approach can make a difference
even in routine operations. The
installation of a microprocessor on the
steam boilers at a l)u I'ont plant in
Texas, for example, reduced (lit: amount
of wastewater generated by over 12
million gallons a year. The system is
simple and reliable, and maintenance
needs art! minimal.
However, waste reduction does not
result .iolely from technological change.
Equally important are high operating
standards, good training, and good
housekeeping practices. Opportunities
in these areas include careful cleaning
of process equipment to reduce
quantities of waste, improved
techniques for loading and unloading of
equipment to reduce contamination, and
proper connecting and disconnecting of
hoses and lines to reduce spills and
prevent quality problems.
An economical and
environmentally acceptable
plan for waste management
may well be the key to the
future success or failure of
many businesses.
I would be remiss not to mention the
ultimate means of managing waste
generated as by-products: selling it. iiy
taking an entrepreneurial approach to
waste management in Du Font, we're
finding new markets and developing
waste or by-product streams into
profitable specialty businesses. For
example, dibasic acid or DBA is a
by-product of nylon manufacture. Once
a waste, DBA is now sold, after
conversion to an ester, as a solvent.
Recently we found another use for DI3A:
as a chemical to increase the efficiency
of limestone slurry scrubbers. Other
dibasic organic by-products also have
become useful products. Business
prospects for waste streams are so
encouraging, in fact, that we're trying to
change our terminology and, instead of
referring to waste per se, defining it as a
specialty product for which you haven't
yet found a market.
No matter how hard industry works at
waste reduction, however, some waste
inevitably is created and requires safe
disposal. In these cases, Du Pout's
strong preference; is to destroy the
material and to do this on-site to
minimize transportation hazards. Where
the capability to dispose of a waste
on-site does not exist, our next option is
to ship the waste to another Uu I'ont
site for treatment and disposal, or lastly
to an outside contractor. When a waste
is sent off-site, we pay close attention to
the selection of the contractor. If
destruction is not feasible, the company
uses many efficient and
environmentally sound means to handle
wastes, and we believe society is best
served by maintaining a variety of
disposal options.
Still, waste reduction is the most
desirable alternative, and Congress and
international competition have
combined to make it economically
attractive. What can be done to
encourage further waste minimization?
One important step that government
could take is to design regulations thai
encourage sound environmental
practices to minimize waste generation.
At present, this is not always the case.
For example, the definition of solid
waste in the regulations is such that
many facilities recycling hazardous
materials would be required to obtain
RCRA permits. One result will be
significant increases in costs due largely
to the administrative workload, for no
improvement in environmental
protection. Another result will be the
public perception that this beneficial
recycling constitutes disposal of waste,
when just the opposite is true.
In another case, flammable solvents,
which are by-products of a process, are
classified as a hazardous waste. Due to
this classification, the freight cost for
such materials is significantly higher
than it is on incoming solvent—which.
in many cases, has essentially the same
hazard. The original producer must also
have a RCRA permit before he can
receive and purify these materials for
reuse. This inhibits recycle or reuse of
solvents by adding an unnecessary
administrative burden.
Although the intent of the regulations
is good, the consequences can be
counterproductive. If we truly seek to
encourage waste reduction, we should
make it attractive to conduct recycling
activities which benefit the environment
and the economy.
Waste management has been an
environmental topic of particular
concern during the last few years, but I
am optimistic that we now have; in
place the tools and conditions to take us
where we want to go. Russell Train, the
Chairman of World Wildlife Fund and
The Conservation Foundation, talks
about "the second chemical revolution"
that will discover ways to safely deal
with the by-products of industrial
activity. The ingenuity of American
business produced the first chemical
revolution, he says, and this same spirit
of inventiveness and innovation can
produce the second. I am convinced it
will, a
EPA JOURNAL
-------
I
Superfiind:
Looking Back,
Looking Ahead
An EPA Journal Special Section
'-"
-«
-------
The Birth of A Program
The Problem
The dimensions of the hazardous waste
problem are so vast they are almost
impossible to comprehend.
There are 240,000,000 people in the
United States. Try to imagine a ton of
hazardous waste piled next to each of
them, with another ton added each and
every year.
Hiizardous waste is produced in this
country at the rate of 700,000 tons per
day. That's 250 million tons per
year—enough to fill the Superdome in
New Orleans 1500 times over.
Yet vast though it is, hazardous waste
is only a small fraction of all waste
generated in the United States. More
than six billion tons of waste are
produced in this country every year.
Industrial waste, the type most likely to
include hazardous substances subject to
EPA regulation, represents only (i.4
percent of total waste volume.
The other 93.6 percent (see graph)
consists mainly of agricultural and
mining waste, with a small share left
over for municipal and utility waste.
It should be emphasized that one
extremely hazardous form of waste
excluded from this graph—high-level
radioactive waste—is regulated not by
EPA, but by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and the Department of
Energy.
The wastes at Superfund sites consist
primarily of industrial chemicals, each
posing different threats to the
environment and to human health. In
most cases, these chemicals wound up
at the sites as a result of slipshod
disposal practices. For example, as
recently as a decade ago, dumping was
widespread, even among reputable
companies. Little thought was given to
the long-term consequences of such
behavior.
Today we are paying the price for
years of thoughtless neglect. Thousands
of abandoned or inactive sites
containing hazardous waste have been
identified nationwide. Many of these
sites are located in environmentally
sensitive areas, such as floodplains or
wetlands. Rain and melting snow seep
through the sites, carrying chemicals
that contaminate underground waters
and nearby streams and lakes.
At some sites, the air is also
contaminated as toxic vapors rise from
evaporating liquid wastes or from
uncontrolled chemical reactions. And
some pollutants, such as metals and
organic solvents, are known to damage
vegetation, endanger wildlife, and
threaten the health of people who
unknowingly drink contaminated
waters.
Most Superfund sites were created by
the chemical and petroleum industries.
Others were once municipal landfills
that may have become hazardous simply
as a result of accumulated pesticides,
cleaning solvents, and other chemical
products discarded in the household
trash. Many sites are the result of
transportation spills or other accidents,
and others are the final resting place of
persistent toxic pollutants contained in
industrial wastewater discharges or air
pollution emissions.
Whatever their source, it is the
responsibility of Superfund to ensure
that the hazardous substances
abandoned at the worst of these sites do
not imperil human health or the
environment. It is a truly massive
undertaking, and one of great
importance to the future of the United
States.
Growing Awareness
Hazardous waste is one of those
problems that "snowballs." It started off
a minimal concern on the extreme
periphery of public consciousness. In
the space of only a decade, however,
hazardous waste rapidly became a
central concern of citizens in every part
of the United States.
A series of headline-grabbing stories
in the late 1970s gave Americans a
crash course in the perils of ignoring
hazardous waste. First there was Love
Canal, the community in Niagara, NY,
that had to be evacuated after hazardous
waste buried over a 25-year period
contaminated ground water.
Then the Valley of the Drums took
center stage. This noxious deposit of
leaking storage barrels quickly became
one of the most notorious places not
just in Kentucky but in the United
States.
The little community of Times Beach,
MO, became the next national
hazardous waste story. Oil contaminated
with highly toxic dioxin tainted the soil
and the water in this eastern Missouri
community.
In all these instances, lives were
disrupted, property values were ruined:
Suddenly Americans began to wonder
who would be next . . . and who would
be there to pick up the pieces.
14
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Solid and Hazardous Waste in the United States
Industrial 6.4%
Municipal 3.1%
Utility 1.2%
Mining/milling 39.0%
(includes uranium mill tailings
The Program
It was felt that a federal law was needed
to protect U.S. citizens against the
dangers posed by hazardous waste
abandoned at sites throughout the
nation: both the short-term threat that
became all too apparent during
emergencies and the long-term
threat, often requiring years of cleanup
action.
The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) was the first
major response to the problem on a
national level. CERCLA had several key
objectives:
• To develop a comprehensive program
to set priorities for cleaning up the
worst existing hazardous waste sites.
• To make responsible parties pay for
those cleanups wherever possible.
• To set up a $1.6 billion Hazardous
Waste Trust Fund—popularly known as
"Superfund"—for the twofold purpose
of performing remedial cleanups in
cases where responsible parties could
not be held accountable, and responding
to emergency situations involving
hazardous substances.
• To advance scientific and
technological capabilities in all aspects
of hazardous waste management,
treatment, and disposal.
Superfund was to be funded with
taxes on crude oil and 42 different
commercial chemicals. State
governments were to pay 10 percent of
the cost of Superfund work at privately
owned sites and 50 percent at those that
were publicly owned.
Agriculture 50.3%
1
The United States seemed ill-prepared
to deal with the problem of hazardous
waste prior to the creation of
Superfund. Nevertheless, CERCLA did
not develop out of a complete vacuum.
In the Clean Water Act of 1972.
Congress had provided for the
regulation of hazardous waste
discharged into all navigable waters of
the United States. A $35 million trust
fund—an ancestor of Superfund—was
set up to deal with problems stemming
from such discharges. However, no
provision was made to deal with
damage to land resources resulting from
contamination by hazardous waste.
One important offshoot of the 1972
Clean Water Act was the formulation of
a National Contingency Plan for dealing
with emergencies involving hazardous
waste. This plan has undergone many
refinements through the years, and it is
still the guiding principle behind the
implementation of Superfund.
Passage of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
marked two more milestones in the
evolution of an active governmental
response to the hazardous waste crisis.
Both these statutes brought important
changes to the day-to-day operations of
the U.S. chemical industry.
TSCA gave EPA the task of
identifying and controlling chemical
products that pose an unreasonable risk
Source: EPA's Office of Solid Waste
to human health or the environment
through their manufacture, processing,
commercial distribution, use. or
disposal.
While the mission of Superfund was
to clean up the mistakes of the past and
cope with the emergencies of the
present, RCRA was designed to create
guidelines for prudent hazardous waste
management and disposal in the present
and the future. It was to provide tin1
United States with its first tracking
system for regulation of hazardous
waste from generation to disposal. If
fully successful, RCRA should someday
eliminate the need for a Superfund
program. G
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987
15
-------
Superfund's First Six Years:
A Progress Report
What did Superfund accomplish
during the first six years?
The following had taken place by the
end of fiscal year 1986:
• More than 25,000 potentially
dangerous hazardous waste sites had
been reported to EPA. Of these, in
excess of 20,000 had been given a
preliminary assessment by EPA or state
agencies. In only one case out of three
has further action been necessary.
• Site investigations had been
completed at 6,484 sites identified as
potential threats to human health or the
environment. Information from these
investigations is used to set national
priorities for site cleanups.
• 888 sites had been listed or proposed
for listing on the National Priorities List
(NPL). These sites, presenting the most
serious potential threats to health and
tin: environment, are eligible for
cleanup using the federal Superfund.
(Thn number of NPL sites increased in
January 1987 to a new level of 952.)
• Detailed investigation and planning
for remedial action had begun at 473
NPL sites.
• Design of remedial cleanups
scheduled for implementation had been
funded at 110 NPL sites and 12
non-NPL sites.
• Fourteen sites had been removed
from the National Priorities List as a
result of actions completed by EPA, the
states, and responsible parties.
(Completion of cleanups has proved
more difficult and more time-consuming
than anyone at first imagined; this has
been particularly true of NPL sites,
which rank as the worst in the nation. It
has been estimated that EPA-managed
cleanups under the Superfund program
require an average of 5.54 calendar
years from start to finish. Completions
will be more frequent in years to come
as work proceeds at sites where
preliminary cleanup stages have already
been completed.)
• Another 156 cleanups are currently in
progress. Implementation of cleanup
remedies has been funded at 137 NPL
sites and 19 non-NPL sites. These sites
are in what is known as the
"construction phase" of cleanup. This
expression derives from the fact that
remedial actions involve various
engineering activities, such as pumping
and treating ground water, capping with
waterproof clay, and installing drains or
liners.
• In addition to remedial cleanups,
Superfund provides for emergency
actions to deal with short-term threats
to human health and the environment.
As of September 30, 1986, emergency
removal actions had been completed at
716 sites by EPA or the U.S. Coast
Guard, which enforces CERCLA in
coastal waters and inland waterways.
(By January 1987, that number had risen
to 728.)
CERCLA's enforcement provisions call
for the identification and notification,
wherever possible, of the parties
responsible for creating hazardous waste
sites that require removal or remedial
action. As of September 30, 1986:
• EPA had reached settlement
agreements with responsible parties at
372 sites, resulting in the payment of
$619 million in actual cleanup
expenditures by responsible parties. In
addition, EPA had recovered $37
million in compensation to Superfund
for cleanups performed by EPA. This
$656 million in enforcement-recovered
assets expanded Superfund resources by
40 percent during its first six years of
operation.
• EPA and the Department of Justice
had taken civil action at 91 sites to
prompt remedial action by potentially
responsible parties.
• EPA had issued 408 administrative
orders against potentially responsible
parties compelling them to take various
forms of action to deal with problem
hazardous waste sites.
Other, less readily quantifiable
achievements of Superfund'.s first six
years include:
• Development of a national
infrastructure capable of dealing with
scientific and technological problems
related to hazardous waste.
• Development of improved scientific
and engineering techniques for treating
and disposing of hazardous waste.
• Improved understanding of the health
effects associated with various levels of
exposure to different hazardous
substances.
• Expanded and improved laboratory
capacity nationwide for handling the
vast number of samples that need to be
analyzed as part of Superfund site
assessments and investigations.
• Development of a streamlined
management system within EPA for
dealing with the demands of the
increasingly complex and heavily
funded Superfund program.
• Establishment of an aggressive
Community Relations Program, which
has not only kept the public informed of
activity at Superfund sites, but sought
community input into the formulation
of decisions and plans for remedial
action, n
16
EPA JOURNAL
-------
p
1. The Initial Warning
Individuals report concerns about
abandoned hazardous waste sites or
incidents of illegal dumping to EPA's
National Response Center
(800/424-8802) or to a local, state, or
federal government official.
What circumstances could prompt a
report? It could be a citizen phoning to
report the presence of half-buried
barrels of hazardous waste in his
neighborhood. Or it could be a local law
enforcement official who had spotted a
midnight dumper. Or it could simply be
a facility manager making a formal
report to EPA.
In 1980, it was estimated that the
United States had roughly 9000 problem
hazardous waste sites. A mere six years
later, over 25,000 suspected sites had
been entered into CERCLIS—EPA's
computerized data base. In 1986 alone,
EPA and the Coast Guard received 2700
notifications of releases from a variety
of different sources. It is currently
projected that as many as 2500 of these
sites will require cleanup under the
federal Superfund program.
2. Identification and Preliminary
Assessment
Once EPA learns of a possible
hazardous site, it collects all available
background information not only from
its own files but also from state and
local records and U.S. Geological
Survey maps. This information is used
to identify the site and perform a
preliminary assessment of its potential
hazards. EPA tries to determine the size
of the site, the identity of the parties
most likely to have disposed wastes
there, the types and quantities of wastes
most likely to have been disposed, local
hydrological and meteorological
conditions, and the impact of these on
the environment.
3. Site Inspection
If a preliminary assessment turns up
evidence that the site may pose a threat
to human health or the environment,
inspectors actually go to the site to
collect sufficient information to rank its
hazard potential.
Site inspectors look first for obvious
signs of danger: leaking storage drums,
dead or discolored vegetation, etc. They
may, if circumstances warrant, take
samples of nearby soil or water. They
also analyze ways hazardous materials
from the site could be polluting
environmental resources (for example,
through run-off into nearby streams) and
check to see if children have access to
the site.
4. Ranking Sites for the National
Priorities List
The National Priorities List (NPL)
identifies the targets for long-term
remedial action under Superfund.
Updated at least once a year, the NPL
identifies the worst abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites in
the United States according to a variety
of factors, including the type, quantities,
and toxicity of the wastes involved; the
number of people potentially exposed:
the likely pathways of exposure; and the
importance and vulnerability of the
underlying supply of ground water.
As of January 1987, 951 sites had
either been listed (703) on the NPL or
proposed for listing (248).
5. Remedial Investigation
The ultimate objective for hazardous
waste sites on the NPL is a permanent,
long-term cleanup. NPL sites are
subjected to a "remedial investigation"
in order to select the cleanup strategy
best suited to the traits of each site.
A remedial investigation can best be
described as a carefully designed field
study. Conducting a remedial
investigation entails extensive sampling
and laboratory analyses. These generate
more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes at the site, the soil
type and water drainage patterns, and
resulting environmental or health
threats.
6. Feasibility Study and Cleanup
Cleanup actions have to be tailored
exactly to the needs of each individual
site. The feasibility study analyzes those
needs, and evaluates alternative cleanup
approaches on the basis of their relative
effectiveness and cost. A Record of
Decision is issued setting forth the
selected remedy based on these factors.
7. Removal Actions
EPA may initiate short-term removal
actions any time a site is found to
present an imminent hazard as a result
of its potential for fire or explosion or
its contamination of a drinking water
supply. Removal actions range from
installing security fencing to actually
digging up and removing wastes for safe
disposal. Such actions may be taken at
any site, not just those on the NPL. a
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987
17
-------
Anat
Remi
jrfund
In a Super/Line/ remedial action, EPA
undertakes a long-term effort to provide
a permanent remedy to an
environmental problem that poses a
serious, but not immediate, danger lo
the public. Hemedial deanup at a
hazardous waste site can go on /or
many years, ft takes complex
engineering analysis and design work to
produce .solutions that work and that
also meet legal requirements. EPA
Administrator Lee Thomas has said that
"the majority of sites on the National
Priori tins J.ist will not come off for five
to 10 years. There are many sites on the
list that will never come off because we
will monitor them in perpetuity to make
sure that cleanup is permanently
effective."
The following article describes how
events have unfolded at one of the sites
currently listed on EPA's National
Priorities List /or remedial action: the
Verona Well Field in Battle Creek, Ml.
The Vermin Well Field presents
problems too complex for any quick
fix solutions. For four years, EPA has
been working to clean up contaminated
ground water at this site in Battle Creek,
MI, but persistent problems remain.
The problems began in 1981. In the
process of conducting routine tests, the
Calhoun County Health Department
discovered slight contamination of
drinking water by volatile organic
compounds, or VOCs. The water was
coming from the 100-acre Verona Well
Field, where a total of 30 city wells
supplied water to 35,000 Battle Creek
residents and many businesses.
Follow-up testing by both the county
and state health departments showed
that 10 of the 30 wells, as well as 80
nearby private wells, contained
detectable levels of VOCs. Some of the
VOCs detected—trichloroethylene;
tetrachloroethylene; 1,2 dichloroethane;
1,1,1 trichloroethane; and l,l
dichloioethylene—were suspected
human carcinogens.
Could the contaminated wells be
cleaned? Could the non-contaminated
wells be preserved? Where was the
contamination coming from? Could it be
controlled? Each question led to
another, as EPA's work at the Verona
Well Field site became a combination of
detective work, laboratory study,
engineering feats, and construction
innovations.
In July 1982, the Verona Well Field
was included on the National Priorities
List, making it eligible under Superfund
for long-term remedial investigation and
cleanup money. EPA took its first action
at the site in October 1983, at the
request of Michigan's state government.
To meet the immediate threat to
drinking water quality, EPA used
Superfund emergency response money
to provide bottled water to residents
with contaminated wells. At the same
time, an EPA Technical Assistance
Team began a preliminary ground-water
survey to pinpoint the extent and
sources of the contamination. Any
number of facilities in the
commercial/industrial area could have
been potential sources.
In November 1983, building on the
results of the preliminary survey, EPA
launched an in-depth investigation,
installing monitoring wells in and
around the well field to measure the
types and concentrations of
contaminants in the ground water. It
took many months to drill the dozens of
wells that were required for adequate;
measurements. And, since ground-water
flow fluctuates throughout the year, it
took more months to collect samples in
different seasons, and then analyze each
for almost 200 different contaminants.
In December 1983. the State of
Michigan finished constructing a system
to supply city water to all homes in the
area. Residents who had been
depending on private wells, and then on
bottled water, were now hooked up to
city wells. But by January 1984, 24 of
the city's 30 wells had become
contaminated, and it was apparent that
the city would not have enough clean
water to meet peak demand in the
coming summer.
To resolve the city's water supply
problem, EPA began using certain
existing wells as barrier wells, to stem
the flow of contamination to still-clean
wells further north. Water from the
barrier wells was pumped and purged.
Since the barrier wells were started up
in May 1984, the spread of
contamination has been halted.
Next the Agency set up an air
stripping and carbon adsorption system
to clean well water that had already
been contaminated. In this system,
contaminated water is pumped from the
wells to the top of the air stripping
tower. Then the water cascades down
through a large tube, while a
high-powered fan actually blows the
contaminants out of the water and into
the air. The fan then sucks the
contaminated air out of the tower and
forces it through tanks containing
activated carbon. The contaminants
cling to the carbon. The system
discharges clean, treated air into the
atmosphere, and clean, treated water
into the Battle Creek River. Since the
system became fully operational in
August 1984, 16 of the city's
contaminated wells have been restored.
In the summer of 1984, EPA also
installed three new water supply wells.
These new wells, coupled with the air
stripping and carbon adsorption system
and the barrier wells, effectively solved
Battle Creek's water supply problem.
But another problem remained:
identifying and cleaning up the sources
of contamination.
By July 1984, EPA had progressed far
enough in its investigation to be able to
pinpoint one major source: a Thomas
Solvent Co. facility on Raymond Road,
one mile from the Verona Well Field.
Concentrations of VOCs in ground water
under and around the facility were 100
times higher than in the rest of the
ground-water plume, and the soil
around the facility was also heavily
contaminated. The Agency installed
monitoring wells at Thomas Solvent to
determine the extent of contamination.
The cost of a hazardous waste
cleanup should, whenever possible, be
paid by the parties responsible for the
contamination. But in the Verona Well
Field case, Thomas Solvent had
declared bankruptcy and ceased
operations in April 1984. EPA, one of
four major claimants against the
company's assets, decided not to wait
for the resolution of the bankruptcy
case. In August 1985, relying on input
garnered from an engineering evaluation
and public comments, the Agency
decided on a cleanup alternative at the
Raymond Road facility, site of the most
serious contamination.
18
EPA JOURNAL
-------
-
The best method for cleaning up
contaminated ground water at the site,
EPA decided, was to extract it via wells,
and then pipe it one mile to the well
field for treatment in the air
stripping/carbon adsorption system.
Engineering blueprints and construction
details were ironed out. With a dearth
of Superfund money in 1986, the State
of Michigan advanced EPA some $2.5
million so construction could begin.
The system should be ready to go on
line by June 1987. It will take about
three to five years to remove most of the
contaminants from the ground water.
Since the soil contains contaminants
which can eventually enter ground
water, soil cleanup at the site will also
be necessary. Several extraction wells
will be placed in the soil, and
connected by a vacuum pump. The
vacuum will pull VOCs out of the soil
and send them to a carbon adsorption
system for treatment. Because of the
innovative nature of this treatment
system, much of the design detail awaits
finalization by the contractor who will
win the bidding process. Once in place,
the vacuum process is expected to take
from six months to a year to reduce
contaminants in the soil clown to the
established cleanup level.
Meantime, EPA continues its
investigations into other sources of
contamination at the Verona Well Field.
It has installed more monitoring wells at
a Thomas Solvent annex and at a
railroad yard east of the well field
which was identified as another
possible source of VOC contamination.
The work at Verona Well Field has
turned out to be more complicated than
first expected. In late 1986, the
bankruptcy case was settled, and KPA
will get a portion of the "bankruptcy
estate." That amount, however, is far
less than the amount of money EPA has
spent, so the Agency must continue its
cost recovery actions against other
parties. A quick fix to the problem of
the contaminated wells — bottled water
— was not enough. New remedies had
to be devised, and new remedies for
other sources still have to be designed,
constructed, and operated until cleanup
levels are achieved. EPA repeatedly has
had to expand its work, dig some more,
and seek new solutions to unique
problems, c
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987
-------
EPA has emergency response authorities
under the Comprehensive Emergency
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980. CKHC/.A authorizes EPA to
intervene when hazardous wastes
present an imminent hazard of
explosion, air or (voter pollution, etc.,
that would pose an immediate
short-term threat to human health.
In man}' cases, emergency responses
involve removing contaminants from
the problem site and transporting them
to waste disposal sites in compliance
with the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. Hence, they are usually
called "removal actions." Whatever
actions are taken, their purpose is to
"remove" the threat in whatever way
possible1.
The cast of characters in a Superfund
removal action can include local, state,
and federal officials; private
contractors; owners or former owners of
a site; concerned citizens who live
nearby. No matter how many people are
involved, the goal is simple: identify
and eliminate the hazard as quickly
and as thoroughly as possible.
Until recently, the time limit on a
removal action was six months; the
Super-fund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 extended
the limit to one year. A total of 728
Superfund removal actions had been
completed through January 1987.
7'his is how one response action
worked in the town of Lancaster, PA:
Row after row of modest brick homes
line North Mary Street in North
Lancaster, PA. Several years ago, an
abandoned brick warehouse stood
virtually unnoticed in the midst of this
quiet neighborhood. For 60 years, it had
been the site of an electroplating facility
owned by C. E. Brubaker, Inc.
Electroplating is an industrial process
that uses electrical current to plate one
kind of metal with another. It produces
hazardous wastes such as cyanide and
cadmium as well as acidic and basic.
solutions.
Brubaker stored these wastes in large
open-top vats inside the warehouse.
Fumes from the vats mingled with air
circulating inside the building. The
polluted air was pumped into the
neighborhood outside the plant, putting
its unsuspecting residents at risk.
After a year of conflict with
Pennsylvania's Department of
Environmental Resources (PADER) over
unsafe handling of hazardous materials,
the Brubaker company declared
bankruptcy in September 1984 and shut
down its old North Mary Street site.
PADER officials then inspected the
closed facility and discovered over
14,000 gallons of liquid cyanide as well
as acidic and basic solutions. State
health experts determined that these
leaking vats posed a potential threat to
the health of nearby residents.
From December 1984 to the summer
of 1985, both PADER and the City of
Lancaster negotiated with Brubaker in
an effort to get the company to accept
responsibility for its abandoned facility.
Negotiations failed, however, and it
became obvious that any action at
Brubaker's Lancaster warehouse would
have to be publicly funded. Neither the
City of Lancaster nor the State of
Pennsylvania had the resources to
handle such large quantities of
hazardous waste, so in March 1985,
PADER and Lancaster City officials
made a formal request to EPA for help.
In July, EPA collected samples from
seven vats and three drums. Analysis of
the samples confirmed Pennsylvania's
findings about their contents. EPA
further concluded that through
vandalism or corrosion, the acids and
bases at the Brubaker site could mingle
with the liquid cyanide and release
deadly cyanide gas.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
recommended that the problem
substances be removed from the
building. To protect residents of the
area during the tricky removal period,
the CDC further recommended that all
residents within 200 yards of the
Brubaker facility be evacuated during
the cyanide pumping.
On September 10, 1985, EPA
announced the impending removal
action. The Agency also announced that
people in 46 homes and businesses
would be approached with a
recommendation to evacuate during
periods of cyanide pumping. The action,
scheduled to begin on October 2, called
for the pumping of cyanide liquids out
of containers at the site and into drums
destined for transfer to a Michigan
facility where the cyanide liquids would
be detoxified. Acidic solutions would be
sent to a waste conversion facility,
while floorboards and sludges would go
a hazardous waste acceptance facility.
EPA's Region 3, headquartered in
Philadelphia, would spearhead the
Lancaster operation. The Region 3 team
would include an On-Scene Coordinator
(OSC) to manage the project and a
Community Relations Specialist to
handle press and citizen inquiries as
well as coordinate with the City of
Lancaster. Technical experts from
Region 3's Environmental Response
Team (ERT) would advise the On-Scene
Coordinator on matters related to
community health and worker
20
EPA JOURNAL
-------
protection. The U.S. Coast Guard would
develop and implement a safety plan for
the site.
Many people assume that EPA
officials actually perform Superfund
removals and cleanups. This is seldom
the case. Federal officials devise the
plans for these actions; private
contractors execute them. In the case of
the Brubaker site, one contractor
handled removal and cleanup
operations, while another documented
site activity and provided technical
support.
Once the regional team had
assembled, EPA and the CDC turned to
Pennsylvania and Lancaster officials for
advice and assistance. PADER promised
to provide further help during the
removal action. City officials offered
help in transporting residents to
evacuation centers on the three days
cyanide pumping would be taking
place. They also offered to provide
police manpower to patrol the
evacuated streets. The local hospital and
fire companies were placed on standby
in the event that a problem occurred
during the removal.
EPA held a press conference to
announce the site cleanup, and a public
meeting to answer residents' questions
concerning the evacuation and the
waste removal. To allay remaining fears
and confusion, an EPA Community
Relations Specialist and representatives
of the CDC and the Lancaster
Emergency Management Agency went
door-to-door down North Mary Street,
distributing flyers about the impending
operation and fielding questions about
its impact on their lives. On October 1.
1985—the day before cyanide pumping
began—more flyers were distributed.
The pumping began 8:30 a.m..
Wednesday, October 2. Most of the
residents were at work by 8:30; others
stayed with friends or relatives during
the pumping, which was over each day
by 1:30 P.M. Local residents were free
to occupy their homes or businesses
both before and after the actual hours of
pumping. Only one family refused to
vacate its home during pumping hours,
which came to an end on Friday,
October 4.
The following weeks involved the
removal of acidic bases and solutions,
disposal of an underground storage
tank, and removal of floorboards and
sludges remaining in the building. On
December 6, EPA held a final tour of the
building for city officials and, five days
later, a closeout public meeting.
The removal operation had taken
about two months. At a total cost of
$472,450, 14,165 gallons of liquid
cyanide, acids, and bases, as well as 60
cubic yards of contaminated floor
boards and other solid waste, had been
removed from the North Mary Street
site—and with them.the health and
environmental threat posed by the
wastes that had been abandoned there.
Lancaster police escorted the final
truckload of wastes out of the city on
December 20, 1985. Once again, North
Mary Street was just another quiet road
in Lancaster, PA. a
JANUARY FEBRUARY 1987
21
-------
le Superfund
\ct of 1986
On October 17, 1986, President
Reagan signed into law a major bill
reauthorizing the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation,
,UH| Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980.
This reauthorization lays down the
framework for CERCLA's Superfund
hazardous waste cleanup program
during the next five years.
A major feature of the reauthorization
is its scope. From 1980 to 1985, EPA's
Superfund program drew its resources
from a $1.6 billion Hazardous Response
Trust Fund. EPA will liave more than
five limes lli.it amount of money to
spend on Superfund from 1986 to 1991:
the size of the new Hazardous Response
Trust [-'mid is $8.5 billion.
lint the 1986 Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act—now
commonly referred to as
"SARA" -introduces many other
improvements to the Superfund
program. These changes, largely the
result of lessons learned during the
program's initial years, are certain to
strengthen Superfund in the years
ahead.
Impact on Removal Actions
The 19H6 reauthorization:
• Raises the limits on removal actions
from six months to one year and from
$1 million to $2 million; these changes
were adopted in view of the actual time
and cost constraints encountered during
the first six years of Superfund
emergency removals.
• Authorizes a waiver to the new time
and cost limits if an added
expenditure of time or money would be
consistent with the long-term goals of a
planned remedial action.
• Introduces a provision that all
short-term removal actions must be
designed to contribute to efficient
performance ol any long-term remedial
action.
Impact on Remedial Actions
The 1986 reauthorization:
• Sets goals for the completion of
preliminary assessments of sites on
EPA's inventory of potentially
hazardous sites, which lists sites that
may one day qualify for ranking on
Superfund's National Priorities List.
• Sets mandatory deadlines for the
completion of two important types of
work at National Priorities List sites:
275 remedial investigations and
feasibility studies must be finished by
1989. and, even more importantly, 175
remedial actions must reach the final
cleanup stage by 1989, with 200 more to
follow by 1991."
• Requires that permanent remedial
cleanups produce environmental results
consistent with state and federal laws as
well as with EPA's National
Contingency Plan.
• Stipulates that EPA must consider
cost-effective cleanup alternatives that
foster the recycling or treatment of
waste rather than land disposal.
• Mandates that hazardous waste
targeted for removal to a new site
should go only to sites in compliance
with strict Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act standards.
22
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Strengthened Enforcement
Authorities
One of the major goals of Superfund
enforcement has been to encourage the
parties responsible for generating the
problem to pay for the cleanup. SARA
enhances EFA's enforcement powers by:
• Giving statutory authority to the use
of settlement agreements and
establishing specific procedures for
reaching them. These agreements, which
spell out what is required of private
responsible parties to meet their legal
obligations under the Superfund statute,
were used extensively during the first
years of the program's operation, but as
a matter of Agency policy, not of law.
• Authorizing increased criminal
penalties for failure to report releases of
hazardous waste, and making the
providing of false or misleading
information a criminal offense.
• Improving EPA access to hazardous
waste sites for the completion of
investigations and cleanups.
• Requiring enforcement authorities to
keep an administrative record of
enforcement actions at National
Priorities List sites.
Increased State Involvement
The first years of the Superfund
program involved state governments in
many decisions, but not as
systematically as many officials in the
states would have wished. SARA
requires EPA to develop and implement
regulations to assure involvement of
states, including their:
• Participation in identifying National
Priorities List sites.
• Review of all preliminary documents
related to Superfund remedial actions,
as well as final plans for the actions.
• Participation in all enforcement
negotiations and concurrence in
settlement agreements that EPA makes
with responsible parties.
• Concurrence in the deletion of sites
from the National Priorities List: that is.
agreement with EPA and responsible
parties that a Superfund cleanup is, in
fact, complete.
Emergency Planning
Under the 1986 reauthorization:
• Each governor must appoint
commissions to formulate plans for
dealing with hazardous waste
emergencies: mandated local planning
committees must develop local
emergency plans by November 1988.
• EPA must publish a list of extremely
hazardous substances and write
regulations establishing what quantity of
each substance would have to be
released before an emergency should be
declared.
• Facilities that produce, use, or store
extremely hazardous substances must
notify the state emergency planning
commission and local planning
committees of their practices: they must
also provide immediate notification of
releases in excess of EPA-determined
thresholds.
Expanded Research,
Development, and Training
The 1980 Superfund law made no
specific provisions for research and
development or for training. SARA:
• Establishes a comprehensive and
coordinated research and development
program, including demonstration
programs for technologies that otter
alternatives to conventional methods of
handling hazardous waste removals or
site cleanups, especially methods that
lead to the destruction or recycling of
wastes.
• Calls for the establishment of (raining
programs for hazardous substance
response and research.
Stronger Citizen Rights
The Superfund program takes pride in
its extremely active Community
Relations Program, which was begun in
1983. There was only limited statutory
provision for the program in the original
1980 Superfund law. That law also did
not define citizen rights to sue for
failure to meet statutory requirements.
The 1986 Superfund reauthori/.ation:
• Establishes requirements ensuring
that the public can participate in the
formulation of plans for Superfnnd
actions.
• Authorizes technical assistance grants
so citizens can hire experts to explain
the complexities of hazardous waste
problems and the Superfund program.
• Permits citizens to sue any person or
any governmental entity for alleged
violation of a provision of the
Superfund law. D
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987
23
-------
New Enforcerr
U»~phe polluter should pay." This is
-L the guiding principle behind
Superfund enforcement. It means that
those parties responsible for the
presence of hazardous substances at a
Superfund site must either clean the site
up themselves or pay for the cost of an
EPA cleanup. The goal of Superfund
enforcement is to encourage responsible
party cleanups through settlement.
Since 1980, responsible parties have
entered into 372 settlements with EPA
worth $619 million in actual cleanup
expenditures or cash. In addition, EPA
has recovered $37 million in
compensation for cleanups performed
by EPA. This added 40 percent in
buying power to the $1.6 billion
Superfund during its first five years of
operation, and represents a net return in
cash or cleanup of $4 for every $1 of
enforcement money expended.
The Superfund Amendments and
Roauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
further encourage prompt settlements.
They also reaffirm and strengthen the
principle of responsible party liability.
Principles
of Liability
Parties liable for payment of Superfund
cleanup costs include companies that
generated any ha/.ardous substances
found at a site, present and former
owners and operators of a site, and
certain transporters who disposed of
hazardous substances at a site.
SARA affirms the federal
government's right to use two important
principles of liability, both of which
will make it much easier for EPA to win
enforcement cases:
• Joint and several liability means that
parties responsible at a Superfund waste
site can all be sued together or any one
may be sued alone for 100 percent of
cleanup costs. This liability principle
gives EPA a great deal of legal leverage
with violators.
• Strict liability is liability without a
showing of fault. EPA has only to show
that some of a generator's hazardous
substances came to be located at the
site; it does not have to establish that
willful or inadvertent negligence was
involved.
As for harm to the site, EPA only has
to show that the harm was caused by
substances similar to those of the
generator. In other words, it is up to the
alleged violator to prove either that its
specific wastes had nothing to do with
the harm, or that they caused only a
discrete portion of it. In most cases, the
responsible party cannot present
evidence adequate to substantiate either
argument.
The value of these strong liability
principles is that they often force
responsible parties to aggressively
pursue settlement agreements as a
substitute for costly and
time-consuming litigation.
Innovative
Enforcement Tools
Whether EPA will settle with
responsible parties, rather than pursue
litigation, is governed by the terms of
the Interim CERCLA Settlement Policy
(50 Federal Register 5034). This policy
states that EPA prefers settlement but
will file suit where necessary to protect
public health and the environment. The
policy also provides guidance on issues
vital to settlement. SARA codifies much
of the policy.
The new Superfund amendments
endorse two particularly controversial
procedures that figure in the Interim
Settlement Policy: mixed funding and
de minimis settlements.
• Mixed Funding occurs when monies
from both Superfund and responsible
parties are used at the same site. Use of
mixed funding is most likely to be
approved where the parties willing to
settle are also willing to conduct the
cleanup, and where there are financially
viable nonsettlers that EPA may pursue.
However, Superfund's money is not
forthcoming until the cleanup is
complete. Responsible parties who settle
in a mixed funding agreement must pay
"upfront" 100 percent of the cost of the
cleanup.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Once the cleanup is finished and
certified as properly done, EPA will
reimburse the settling parties for that
portion of the costs specified in the
settlement agreement. The Agency, in
the meantime, sues the parties that
would not settle to recover for
Superfund its share of the cleanup
costs.
Mixed funding permits cleanups to
proceed even in cases where some
responsible parties, out of a whole
group, refuse to settle out of court.
• De Minimis Settlements involve
parties that contributed very small
amounts of hazardous waste at a site. At
some Superfund sites, responsible
parties number in the hundreds. To
reduce the number of parties involved,
EPA can settle with the small, or de
minimis, contributors as a single group.
In this way, the government achieves
a more manageable case, and the de
minimis parties end their involvement
in the case more quickly. This saves
money and manpower that might
otherwise be wasted on lengthy
negotiations.
• Nonbinding Preliminary Allocations
of Responsibility, known as NBARs, are
an altogether new enforcement tool,
unlike mixed funding and de minimis
settlements. The NBAR is an allocation
by EPA of total response costs among
responsible parties at a site. Congress
wrote NBARs into the 1986 Superfund
amendments as a discretionary tool to
hasten settlement in appropriate cases.
Under current Superfund policy,
responsible parties are expected to work
out among themselves the exact
allocation of the total cost of cleanup
each must bear. In some cases this
results in serious conflicts and delays.
Now EPA can step in, as needed, to
provide an NBAR to expedite a
settlement. EPA is preparing interim
guidelines for Nonbinding Preliminary
Allocations of Responsibility, expected
to appear for comment this spring in the
Federal Register.
Pilot studies are now underway for
mixed funding and de minimis
settlements, with more expected to
begin in the near future. Several pilot
projects will also be conducted before
NBAR procedures assume final form.
A conciliatory resolution of
enforcement problems is, in tin;
experience of Superfund, a far better
strategy than the tug-of-war of
never-ending litigation. EPA's quest for
out-of-court settlements will be
enhanced by enforcement tools that are
stronger than ever. It must In;
emphasized, however, that settlements
will never be sought where they would
compromise Superfund's goals of
protecting public health and the
environment, Q
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987
-------
The Quest For Alti
Technologies
When Superfund was launched
seven years ago, land disposal was
the most common method of handling
hazardous waste. Land disposal entailed
immobilizing hazardous waste in a
specially prepared pit, landfill, or
surface impoundment. Though
cost-effective in the short run, it often
led through leaks and other defects to
extremely expensive long-term
environmental problems.
By the time the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act was
reauthorized in 1984, the climate of
opinion had shifted dramatically in the
direction of more permanent methods of
handling hazardous waste. The
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
continues the pendulum swing in that
direction.
SARA requires EPA, to the maximum
extent practicable, to select remedial
actions that create permanent solutions
and, in doing so, to make use of
alternative or resource recovery
technologies. The least preferred
remedial method is to transport
untreated Superfund wastes to landfills.
Even before the passage of SARA,
Superfund was making use of
alternatives to land disposal. Thermal
destruction technology has been
used in approximately 13 percent
of all Superfund removal actions. It is
currently planned for use in
approximately 10 percent of all
Superfund remedial actions. Various
forms of chemical and physical
treatment are included in current plans
for approximately nine percent of
remedial actions.
Let's take a quick look at the leading
technologies under consideration as
alternatives to land disposal. A good
way to categorize them is according to
whether they destroy, immobilize.
or separate the waste.
Waste Destruction
Technology
"Destroying" hazardous waste means
getting rid of most of it. Some harmful
residues may still be left behind,
however, and these must be properly
disposed of.
Thermal Treatment
The most common type of thermal
treatment heats waste over a
flame-powered incinerator. Currently, if
waste at a Superfund site is to be
burned, it is usually removed from the
site and taken to the incinerator. In the
future, EPA will make greater use of
mobile incinerators, which can be
moved from one site to another as
needed.
Various types of flame-free thermal
treatments are now being developed to
destroy hazardous waste, including
fluidized bed treatment, infrared
treatment, plasma arc, and pyrolysis.
Neutralization
Certain types of hazardous waste can be
"neutralized." For example, an acid can
be added to an excessively alkaline
waste, or a base to an overly acidic
waste.
Waste Immobilization
Technology
Immobilizing a waste puts it into a solid
form that is easier to handle and less
likely to enter the surrounding
environment. It is useful for dealing
with wastes, such as certain metals, that
cannot be destroyed. Once a waste has
been immobilized, the material resulting
from the immobilization process still
must be properly disposed of.
Fixation and Solidification
Two popular methods of immobilizing
waste are fixation and solidification.
Engineers and scientists mix materials
such as fly ash or cement into
hazardous waste. This either "fixes"
hazardous particles, in the sense of
immobilizing them or making them
chemically inert, or "solidifies" them
into a solid mass. Solidified waste is
sometimes made into solid blocks that
can be stored more easily than a liquid.
Waste Separation
Technology
Waste separation entails either
separating one hazardous waste from
another, or separating hazardous waste
from a non-hazardous material that it
has contaminated. Sometimes this
separation is achieved by changing the
waste from one form (solid, liquid, gas)
to another. Regardless of the way it is
achieved, separation results in
end-products that can be adaptable to
recycling.
Air Stripping and Steam Stripping
Air stripping is sometimes used to
remove volatile chemicals from water.
Volatile chemicals, which have a
tendency to vaporize easily, can be
forced out of liquid when air passes
through it. Steam stripping works on the
same general principle, except that it
uses heated air to raise the temperature
of the liquid and force out volatile
chemicals ordinary air would not.
It should be noted that the mixture of
air and chemicals that results from air
and steam stripping is still hazardous
and must be further treated before
release.
An interesting variation on this
technology is now being used at the
Verona Well Field site in Michigan to
remove volatile organic chemicals from
the soil above an aquifer. (See
"Anatomy of a Remedial Action," page
18). Another promising variant is
landfill gas extraction, in which vacuum
wells are used to remove gases from
soil.
26
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon adsorption tanks contain
particles of carbon that have been
specially activated to treat hazardous
chemicals in gaseous and liquid
hazardous waste. The carbon chemically
combines with the waste or catches
hazardous particles just as a fine wire
mesh catches grains of sand.
Contaminated carbon must then be
disposed of, or cleaned and reused.
Precipitation
Precipitation involves adding special
materials to a liquid waste. These bind
to hazardous chemicals and cause them
to precipitate out of the liquid and form
large particles called "floe." Floe that
settles can be separated as sludge; floe
that remains suspended can be filtered.
Soil Washing and Flushing
Soil containing easily dissolved
chemicals can sometimes be cleaned by
soil washing. Cleaning liquid, added at
the top of a tank of contaminated soil,
picks up waste as it passes through the
soil. The contaminant-laden cleaning
liquid must be further treated or
properly disposed of.
Soil flushing works on the same
principle, except that it occurs in the
ground rather than in a tank. Soil is
purified when cleaning liquid is passed
through it; each time the liquid passes
through, it is collected by pipes or wells
located at the base of the contaminated
area.
Removing Obstacles
to Innovation
While alternative technologies may be
currently available, there are often
serious impediments to their use at
Superfund sites. These include certain
factors that EPA cannot control, such as
economic and marketplace
uncertainties. One major uncertainty is
the degree to which the public will
accept a particular means of handling
hazardous waste; this has been a special
problem in the case of incineration.
But there are other steps EPA can take
to create a climate more receptive to
alternative technologies, and the Agency
is moving ahead with those.
For example, EPA is setting up a
quicker and more flexible method for
selecting contractors to clean up
Superfund sites and to determine how
Superfund wastes may be treated. The
Agency's Office of Solid Waste is also
working to streamline the Superfund
permitting process to give high priority
to issuing permits for alternative
treatment technologies.
A new provision of SARA also fosters
the use of alternative technologies by
giving EPA the authority, under certain
circumstances, to assume liability for
contractor efforts to test or demonstrate
alternative technologies.
In addition, a Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (S1TK) program
has been established to demonstrate
new and innovative technologies.
Starting in the summer of 1987, such
technologies will be tested on real
wastes in full-scale situations at
Superfund sites.
The results of these tests will generate
vital cost and performance data, making
it easier for new technologies to
compete in the real world. EPA has also
developed a program to communicate
SITE data to appropriate offices within
Superfund.
What Lies
Ahead
Congress, EPA, and the U.S. public are
all seeking reliable long-term solutions
to the problem of managing Superiund
sites. Land disposal is no longer a
preferred remedy, but it will take some
time for alternative technologies to
develop sufficient capacity to fill the
gap.
During the years ahead, we can expect
to see alternative technologies
substituting for landfilling at an
increasing number of Superfund sites.
EPA is doing everything possible to
hasten the day when enough safe and
reliable remedies exist to ensure that
Superfund cleanups are permanent, a
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987
27
-------
Other Statutory Aul
Title HI: Emergency Planning
and Community
Right-To-Know
The tragedy in Hhopal, India, an event
that occurred halfway around the
globe, shocked the United States and
the rest of the world into recognizing
the enormous potential threat that exists
regarding chemical accidents. It also
stimulated an aggressive series of
actions to develop and modify programs
dealing with the prevention of and
response to such accidents.
The message is clear: No matter how
good the intent to mitigate chemical
disasters, to deal with the causes of
chemical disasters, and to control the
conditions surrounding a potential
chemical disaster, accidents will still
happen and we must be be prepared to
respond.
Events such as Bhopal, as well as the
release in Chernobyl, made Americans
more concerned than ever before about
the need to be aware of chemicals and
the hazards they pose. These events did
not cause the federal government to
"start" dealing with this problem, but
rather to renew existing efforts with
greater force and resolve.
As part of EPA's Air Toxics Strategy,
announced by Administrator Lee
Thomas in June 1985, the Agency
developed the Chemical Emergency
Preparedness Program (CEPP). CKPP
provides guidance, training, and
technical assistance to states and local
communities to help them in preparing
for and responding to chemical
accidents.
Recognizing the need for better
preparation to deal with chemical
emergencies, Congress enacted the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
One part of SARA is a free-standing act
called Title III: The Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of
1986.
Title III requires federal, state, and
local governments and industry to work
together in developing emergency plans
and "community right-to-know"
reporting on hazardous chemicals.
These requirements build upon EPA's
Chemical Emergency Preparedness
Program and numerous state and local
programs aimed at helping communities
deal with potential chemical
emergencies. The community
right-to-know provisions will allow the
public to obtain information about the
presence of hazardous chemicals in
their communities and releases of these
chemicals into the environment.
Title III has four major sections:
emergency planning, emergency
notification, community right-to-know
reporting requirements, and toxic
chemical release reporting (emissions
inventory).
Emergency Planning
The emergency planning sections of
Title III are designed to help state and
local governments develop emergency
response and preparedness capabilities
through better coordination and
planning, especially within the local
community.
Title III requires the governor of each
state to designate a state emergency
response commission. If a state
commission is not designated, the
governor will operate as the commission
until that designation is made. This
state commission should represent state
organizations and agencies with
expertise in emergency response, such
as state environmental, emergency
management, and public health
agencies. Various public and private
sector groups and associations with
interest and expertise in Title III issues
can also be included in the state
commission.
The state commission must designate
local emergency planning districts
(which can be based on existing
municipalities) and appoint local
emergency planning committees within
a month after districts are designated.
The state commission supervises and
coordinates the activities of the local
emergency planning committees,
establishes procedures on how to
handle requests for information, and
reviews local emergency plans.
In a somewhat unprecedented
requirement, each local emergency
planning committee must include
elected state and local officials; police,
fire, civil defense, public health
professionals; environmental, hospital,
and transportation officials; community
groups; and the media. Facilities subject
to the emergency planning requirements
must also be represented on the local
committee. The local committee must
establish rules, give public notice of its
activities, and establish procedures for
handling public requests for
information.
A local committee's primary
responsibility will be to develop an
emergency response plan by the fall of
1988. In developing this plan, the local
committee will evaluate available
resources for preparing for and
responding to a potential chemical
accident.
The plan must:
• Identify facilities as well as
transportation routes for extremely
hazardous substances.
« Establish emergency response
procedures, both on-site and off-site.
• Formulate emergency notification
procedures and evacuation plans.
• Establish methods for determining
when releases occur and what areas and
populations may be affected.
• Describe community and industry
emergency equipment and facilities, and
who is responsible for them.
• Describe and schedule a training
program to teach methods for
responding to chemical emergencies.
• Establish methods and schedules lor
exercises to test emergency response
plans.
• Designate a community coordinator
and a facility coordinator to implement
the plan.
The emergency response plan must be
reviewed by the state commission and
annually by the local committee.
Regional Response Teams (RRTs) may
review plans and provide assistance to
the local committees upon request.
RRTs are composed of regional
personnel from 14 federal agencies as
well as state representatives with
emergency responsibilities.
Guidance is also available to help the
local committees prepare and review
plans. The principal guidance
document, "Hazardous Materials
Emergency Planning Guide," will be
published shortly and made available to
state and local emergency officials.
28
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Local committees and facilities should
focus their planning activities around a
list of 402 extremely hazardous
substances identified by EPA. The list
includes the threshold planning
quantities for each substance. Any
facility that produces, uses, or stores
more of a listed chemical than this
threshold planning quantity must meet
all emergency planning requirements.
Also, after public comment, the state
commission or the governor can
designate additional facilities as subject
to those requirements.
Facilities are required to notify the
state commissions that they are covered
by Title III emergency planning
requirements. If a facility begins to
produce, use, or store any of the
extremely hazardous substances in
threshold quantity amounts, it must
notify the state commission within 60
days.
Each state commission must notify
EPA of all covered facilities and
facilities designated by the state
commission or the governor. The state
commission is also responsible for
supervising the activities of the local
committees.
Emergency Notification
Facilities where a listed hazardous
substance is produced, used, or stored
must immediately notify the local
emergency planning committee and the
state emergency response commission if
there is a release of these substances.
The substances include the 402
extremely hazardous substances on the
list prepared by the Chemical
Emergency Preparedness Program and
substances subject to the reportable
quantities requirements of the original
Superfund.
The initial notification can be by
telephone, radio, or in person.
Emergency notification requirements
involving transportation incidents can
be satisfied by dialing 911, or calling
the operator.
Notification of an emergency must
include:
• The name of the chemical.
• Whether it is known to be acutely
toxic.
• An estimate of the quantity released
into the environment.
• The time and duration of the release.
• Where the chemical was released (air,
water, land).
.
• Known health risks and necessary
medical attention.
• Proper precautions, such as
evacuation.
• The name and telephone number of
the contact person at the facility where
the release occurred.
A follow-up written emergency notice
is required as soon as practicable after
the release. This notice should:
• Update initial information.
• Provide additional information on
response actions already taken, known
or anticipated health risks, and advice
on medical attention.
The requirement to notify wont into
effect when the Title III legislation was
signed in October of 1986. Until state
commissions and local committees are
formed, releases should be reported to
appropriate state and local officials.
Community Right-to-Know
Reporting Requirements
In order to provide communities with
information about chemicals and the
potential hazards they pose, Congress
included two community right-to-know
reporting requirements in Title 111.
First, facilities required to prepare
or have available Material Safety Data
Sheets (MSDS) under the regulations of
the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration must now submit copies
of the MSDS or a list of MSDS
chemicals to the local emergency
planning committee, the state
emergency response commission, and
the local fire department.
If a list is submitted, the facility must
submit the MSDS for any chemical on
the list upon the request of the local
planning committee. For this
requirement, EPA may establish
threshold quantities for hazardous
chemicals below which no facility must
report.
The second community right-to-know
reporting requirement under Title III
stipulates that facilities must submit an
emergency and hazardous chemical
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987
29
-------
inventory form to the local emergency
planning committee, the state
emergency response commission, and
the local fire department. The hazardous
chemicals are the same as those for
which facilities are required to submit
MSDS or a list of MSDS chemicals
under the first reporting requirement.
Again, EPA may establish threshold
quantities for hazardous chemicals
below which no facility must be subject
to this requirement.
The form must present:
• An estimate (in ranges) of the
maximum amount of covered chemicals
present at the; facility at any time during
the preceding calendar year.
• An estimate (in ranges) of the average
daily amount of covered chemicals
present.
• The general location of covered
hazardous chemicals.
In addition to the information listed
above, a local committee, state
commission, or local fire department
can also request a facility to provide the
following information for each covered
substance:
• An estimate (in ranges) of the
maximum amount of the chemical
present at any time during the
preceding calendar year.
• A brief description of the manner of
storage of the chemical.
• The specific location of the chemical
at the facility.
• An indication of whether the owner
will withhold location information from
the public.
Toxic Chemical Release
Reporting
Another suction of Title III requires EPA
to develop an inventory of toxic
chemical releases from certain facilities.
Facilities subject to this reporting
requirement must complete a toxic
chemical release form for specified
chemicals, which must be submitted to
EPA as well as to state officials
designated by each governor.
This reporting requirement will
inlorm government officials and the
public about releases of toxic chemicals
in the environment. It will also assist in
research and the development of
regulations, guidelines, and standards.
The reporting requirement applies to
owners and operators of facilities that
have 10 or more full-time employees,
that are in Standard Industries
Classification Codes 20 through 39, and
that manufactured, processed, or
otherwise used a listed toxic chemical
in excess of specified threshold
quantities. The Standard Industrial
Classification Codes mentioned cover
basically all manufacturing industries.
The list of toxic chemicals subject to
reporting consists initially of more than
300 chemicals and categories listed for
similar reporting purposes by the States
of New Jersey and Maryland, but EPA
can modify the list.
EPA is required to publish a
"format" for the Toxic Chemical Release
form, which must include the following
information:
• Name, location, and type of business.
• A certification by a senior official that
the report is complete and accurate.
• Whether the chemical is
manufactured, processed, or otherwise
used, and its general categories of use.
• Estimate (in ranges) of the maximum
amounts of the toxic chemical present at
the facility at any time during the
preceding year.
• Waste treatment and disposal
methods for dealing with the chemical,
and the efficiency of the methods for
each waste stream.
• The quantity of the chemical entering
the environment annually.
EPA will use these data to maintain a
national toxic chemical inventory. The
public will be provided access to the
inventory by means of computer
tele-communications.
Other Tide III Provisions
Title 111 also addresses business
concerns about trade secrets as these are
affected by the community
right-to-know and toxic chemical release
reporting requirements of the statute.
Facilities (or individuals) may, for
certain reasons, withhold the specific
chemical identity of an extremely
hazardous substance or toxic chemical.
Even if the chemical identity is
withheld, however, the generic class or
category of the chemical must be
provided.
Title III is strict about verifying that
real trade secrets do exist. The
withholcler must verify each of the
following:
• The information has not been
disclosed to any person other than a
member of the local planning
committee, a government official, an
employee of such person, or someone
bound by a confidentiality agreement.
and measures have been taken to protect
its confidentiality,
• The information is not required to be
disclosed to the public under any other
federal or state law,
• The information is likely to cause
substantial harm to the competitive
position of the person, and
• The chemical identity could not
reasonably be discovered by anyone in
the absence of disclosure.
However, even if information is
legally withheld from the public, Title
III states that it cannot be withheld from
health professionals or officials who
need it. In these cases, the person
receiving the information must be
willing to sign a confidentiality
agreement with the firm.
EPA must publish regulations
governing trade secret claims. The
regulations will cover how to submit
claims, petitions for disclosure, and a
review process for these petitions.
All federal emergency training
programs must now emi hasize hazardous
chemicals. Under Title III, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency is
authorized to provide training grants to
support state and local governments.
These training grants are designed to
improve emergency planning,
preparedness, mitigation, response, and
recovery capabilities.
Under Title III, EPA has begun a
review of emergency systems for
monitoring, detecting, and preventing
releases of extremely hazardous
substances at representative facilities
that produce, use, or store these
substances. Representative substances to
be used in the review will be selected
from the same list of extremely
hazardous substances used in the
emergency planning provision.
Working Together
Title III constitutes a comprehensive
mandate for emergency planning and
ensures that citizens will have the
information they need to understand
and deal with chemicals in their
communities. It is the responsibility of
all sectors of society, public and private,
to work together to prevent, prepare for,
and respond to the potential hazards
that chemicals pose to society. It is this
cooperative spirit that can effectively
assist communities in meeting their
responsibilities to protect the safety of
their citizens. Only through cooperation
can the spirit and intent of this
legislation be achieved. D
30
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The Leaking Under]
Storage Tank Trust
r i
A gas station explodes in Council
Bluffs, Iowa; a shopping center is
shut down for more than a week in
Durham, NC; more than a thousand
people are evacuated in the pre-dawn
hours from their homes in Claymont,
DE; and throughout the country,
hundreds of drinking water wells are
contaminated.
These pollution episodes have not
received the national attention of Love
Canal, Times Beach, the Stringfellow
Acid Pits, and other Superfund sites
around the United States. They are not
the result of careless disposal of
hazardous chemicals. Their source is
much m'ore commonplace and
widespread: it is gasoline from leaking
underground storage tanks. LUST, one
of the funniest acronyms in the
environmental business, is no joke.
Last fall when Congress amended and
reauthorized the Superfund law, it also
changed part of the federal law dealing
with underground tanks. It amended
Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, or RCRA, to provide
a $500 million Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund over the next
five years to clean up leaks from
underground petroleum storage tanks.
These funds will come from a 1/10 of a
cent federal tax on certain petroleum
products, primarily motor fuels.
Congress passed this law because the
Superfund statute excludes petroleum
releases from its jurisdiction. Thus, EPA
is essentially precluded from using
Superfund to clean up leaks of
petroleum products. With these new
amendments to RCRA, however,
Congress not only gives EPA and the
states the authority to respond to such
releases, but also provides funds to
clean up the environment.
What prompted Congress to take the
action it did to institute such a fund?
Concern was growing over the
increasing number of incidents where
gasoline vapors were detected in houses
and where drinking water was
contaminated by leaking petroleum
tanks. Late in 1984, Congress created a
program to regulate underground storage
tanks. The program requires improved
design standards for tanks, leak
detection devices, and cleanup
standards.
The estimated number of
underground storage tanks that will be
regulated by the federal government is
at least one million. Based on an EPA
study, the Agency estimates that 20
percent of them may be leaking; that's
200,000 leaking tanks. If only five
percent of them are leaking, which EPA
considers a conservative estimate, that's
still 50,000 leaking tanks.
Since half the population of the
United States depends on ground water
as a source of drinking water, Congress
chose to take positive steps to provide
EPA with both the authority and the
money to protect the public from
releases from underground tanks.
As noted above, this new Leaking
Underground Storage Tank, or LUST,
Trust Fund is to be used by EPA and
the states in responding to and cleaning
up releases from underground tanks
storing petroleum. This includes
products such as gasoline, diesel fuel,
and jet fuel. Releases of hazardous
chemicals will continue to be addressed
under Superfund, as they have been in
the past.
The new law gives EPA, and states
that enter into cooperative agreements
with EPA, the authority to issue orders
requiring owners and operators of
underground storage tanks to undertake
corrective action where a leak is
suspected. This corrective action could
include testing tanks to confirm the
presence of a leak, excavating the site to
determine the exact nature and extent of
contamination, and cleaning
contaminated soil and water. It may also
include providing an alternative water
supply to affected residences, or
temporary or permanent relocation of
residents.
The Congressional philosophy is that
this authority to issue corrective action
orders should be used as the primary
JANUARY FEBRUARY 1987
31
-------
tool to encourage tank owners and
operators to clean up releases from their
tanks. Recognizing, however, that main-
leaking tanks will be discovered where
there is no owner or operator who can
afford to pay for the cleanup, or where
the owner or operator lacks the
willingness or ability to undertake such
a project, Congress provided that
monies from the Fund could be used by
EPA and the states to conduct cleanups
when; immediate action is necessary.
The Fund is not a bailout for tank
owners. Where Fund monies are used.
owners and operators of underground
storage tanks, as well as any other
responsible parties, are still liable to
EPA or the state for the costs incurred.
They will he pursued in court to recover
cost. And if a government agency-
undertakes a cleanup at a site, it's
probably going to cost a lot more than if
the owner had agreed to sponsor it.
Ideally, Congress believes that
payment of cleanup costs can be
satisfied by pollution liability insurance
maintained by tank owners and
operators. Reflecting this attitude,
Congress has directed KPA to publish
regulations requiring all tank owners
and operators, including those owning
chemical tanks, to maintain the
financial capability to clean up leaks.
For petroleum production, refining, and
marketing facilities, Congress has set
minimum coverage levels at $1 million
per occurrence. EPA is authorixed to set
lower limits for facilities that don't
handle large quantities of petroleum.
States may enter into cooperative
agreements with EPA under this
program. Doing so will not only allow
states to exercise the enforcement
authority granted by Congress under the
statute, but most importantly, it will
allow the states access to the Trust
Fund to pay for site cleanups as well as
certain administrative expenses related
to cleanups.
EPA sees this provision of the new
law as being most critical. It is the states
and local governments, not EPA, that
an; currently in the best position to
respond to releases from leaking
underground petroleum storage tanks.
Most states and local governments have
been responding to such releases for
many years.
The sheer number of underground
storage tanks that are leaking or will
leak in coming years demands that we
avoid the typical EPA approach where
the Agency develops a strong federal
program, runs it for a period of time,
and then turns-it over to the states. Past
experience demonstrates that such an
approach is not necessarily the most
effective way to get the job done.
Instead, EPA plans to delegate this
program to the states as soon as
possible, using cooperative agreements,
even before full EPA approval of a
state's regulatory program for
underground tanks under Subtitle I of
RCRA. States are the key to successful
LUST Trust Fund implementation.
Since October 1986, when Congress
amended Subtitle I, EPA has been
putting a program in place to conduct
emergency cleanups with Trust Fund
monies and to give states access to the
Fund. The Agency asked governors to
designate a state agency for
implementing and administering the
program. Most have done so. EPA also
provided guidelines to its 10 regional
offices on how to negotiate cooperative
agreements. EPA hopes to have the first
agreements in place by the spring of
1987.
The aim is to use the LUST Trust
Fund to clean up dangerous sites
quickly. EPA envisions states using the
Fund in many ways: to enforce
cleanups, establish priorities for sites,
determine appropriate technologies,and,
most importantly, to conduct cleanups
and pursue cost recovery from
responsible parties.
In true emergencies, of course, the
regional staff of EPA is also prepared to
respond. For the most part, however,
EPA expects its role to be as backup to
the states. EPA's Trust Fund staff will
be small, and will concentrate on setting
program direction, making sure
information on the best technology is
available to those who need it,
allocating funds efficiently, and
evaluating the program's effectiveness..
A comprehensive program for dealing
with the problems of underground tanks
can only be accomplished through
rigorous action by the states, with
equally rigorous support from EPA. The
LUST Trust Fund is an important tool
in this country's effort to solve the
health and environmental problems
caused by leaking tanks, n
Taking Up
the Slack:
Mini-Superfiinds
in the States
The national Superfund program can
only deal with the tip of the
hazardous waste iceberg. By January
1987, 952 of the worst sites in the
United States had either been listed on
EPA's National Priorities List or
proposed for listing. These comprise
just over 10 percent of the 7900 sites
where, in a recent survey of 45 states.
there was known to have been a release
of oil or hazardous substances.
Clearly, there is a major role for the
states to play in the war on hazardous
waste. How well have state governments
responded to the challenge?
A recent survey conducted by the
Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO) reveals substantial
progress at the state level of
government. Ninety percent of the 50
states responded to the survey. The
non-respondents—Alaska, Hawaii,
Nevada, Idaho, and Louisiana—have a
smaller number of National Priorities
List sites than the national average per
state.
Thirty-six out of the 45 states
responding to the ASTSWMO survey
(82 percent) have passed laws that
authorize the state to conduct
assessments and cleanups at hazardous
waste sites that threaten public health
or the environment. But other numbers
belie the notion that a strong state
presence is already a reality.
Eleven states reported that they had
no money available to fund contractors
to perform site assessments and
remedial actions. Nine of the other 34
states responding to the survey had
funding only in the $75,000 to $500,000
range, and six of those indicated that
funds for contractors were only
available for emergency removals. The
same was true of two other states with
funds in excess of $500,000.
These data indicate that nearly half of
the 45 states responding to ASTSWMO's
survey need to expand a great deal
before they can be said to have
full-fledged hazardous waste cleanup
programs.
32
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Even those states that have more
funds available for cleanup still have a
long way to go before they catch up
with EPA's Superfund, which had $1.6
billion in authorized spending during
its first five years, and has $8.5 billion
projected for its second. In contrast, the
20 states that reported expenditures for
cleanup programs had average operating
budgets, subject to cost recovery from
responsible parties, of only $1,652,000 a
year.
At present, the average state
responding to the ASTSWMO survey
has 18 sites on EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL), 165 confirmed problem sites
that do not appear on the NPL, as well
as an additional 572 suspected sites.
EPA can help with cleanups at NPL
sites, as do the states themselves, in
many cases. But only the states can
ensure that sites not severe enough to
merit NPL ranking receive the attention
they deserve.
A problem of massive scale is taking
shape, and its dimensions grow more
formidable all the time. The ASTSWMO
survey estimates that an average of eight
new confirmed or suspected sites are
reported every month. Roughly 10
percent of the total number of
confirmed sites currently prove serious
enough to qualify for the National
Priorities List.
Rapid expansions in state hiring will
be needed for the remainder of the
1980s to keep pace with the growing
dimensions of the hazardous waste
problem. Staffing levels are expected to
rise an average of almost 100 percent by
1990, but even an increase that hefty
will leave the ratio of staff to confirmed
sites virtually unchanged.
This could present problems because
the present ratio is already seriously
deficient in some states. For example,
six of the 45 survey respondents
currently have no full-time equivalent
staff to deal with hazardous waste
cleanups or emergency actions. The
average state has the equivalent of 26
full-time employees.
'''IUMKI.S K
•ind Skid' J'.'roni)'.
:: Aiilliorify
niissioih ! !uvu/ii'.v in luinJ
liof, join utlit1.' s in lircu,
•:d 'or tin; Sruport fndustnoJ J'mpJ
-------
percent of remedial actions have been
completed at confirmed sites in the 45
states surveyed, and that figure includes
cleanups funded and managed by EPA.
The difficulty arid the expense of
cleaning hazardous waste sites are
readily apparent to state government
officials and taxpayers. Fundamental
principles of fairness dictate that the
party responsible for creating the waste
in the first place should also bear the
burden of cleaning it up.
As a result, most state laws that have
set up mini-Superfunds follow the
basic principle behind EPA's
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA). CERCLA insists that
wherever a solvent private party can be
proved responsible for a hazardous
waste problem, that party should both
fund and complete the site cleanup
required.
State governments are taking the same
route: 74 percent of the respondents to
the ASTSWMO survey have statutes
that can require responsible parties to
clean up the damage they have inflicted
on the environment.
A new enforcement tool is becoming a
useful weapon in a growing number of
states. Several states have recently
passed laws prohibiting the sale of real
estate contaminated with hazardous
waste. New Jersey's Environmental
Cleanup Responsibility Act, the
best-known of these laws, requires the
complete restoration of a contaminated
site prior to its transfer to another party.
Businesses eager to turn a profit on
valuable pieces of property now have
every incentive to invest in a cleanup;
the penalty for not doing so is to
experience a freeze-out on the
real-estate market. Legislative analysts
predict that legal restrictions of this
kind will become even more popular as
a state enforcement tool in the next few
years.
The emergence of mini-Superfunds in
the states is an extremely promising
development. EPA's Superfund program
can only deal with the very worst
hazardous waste sites. But sites
presenting an intermediate level of
hazard also demand attention, and
responsible private parties are not
always willing or able to assume the
burden. Thus, a large part of the
cleanup burden falls on the shoulders of
state governments, many of which
clearly have a great need for more
resources if they are to succeed. States
that have not yet begun gearing up to
fight the war against hazardous waste
need to emulate those that have, a
Challenges for the Future
^
The next five years present EPA and
the nation with a complex set of
challenges:
Speeded-Up Pace of Superfund
Cleanups
The Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
gave EPA some very difficult deadlines.
The Agency has until 1989 to complete
275 remedial investigations and
feasibility studies. By the same year.
EPA must have 175 remedial actions in
the final cleanup stage. Two hundred
more must have reached that stage by
1991,
Even with the quintupling of
Superfund from $1.6 to $8.5 billion, the
managerial and technical challenge will
be intense. Fortunately, the Agency has
already completed a great deal of the
preliminary work that will put an
accelerated pace of cleanup completions
within reach.
More Permanent Cleanup
Remedies
"More permanent" remedies are not
necessarily slower or more expensive
remedies. But some major readjustments
in thinking will be necessary. It is no
longer possible to fall back on some of
the "solutions" of the past, for example,
excessive reliance on landfills.
Intensified Research and
Development
There are bound to be frustrations and
delays until alternative technologies can
handle all the waste no longer
earmarked for land disposal. That is
why EPA regards research and
development geared to alternative
technologies as an important challenge
in the years ahead.
34
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Improved Management
Without streamlined management, EPA
will be unable to meet its statutory
deadlines, or to make those deadlines
stick by implementing permanent
cleanup remedies. The vastly increased
scale of the new Superfund—five times
larger than in the first five years—will
impose managerial burdens of its own.
To ensure that the money goes for
cleanups, not for overhead, Superfund
plans to introduce a project
management approach to cleanups. This
will centralize managerial control for
each individual cleanup under the
authority of a single management
organization. Centralized control will
minimize transition time and expedite
work on Superfund projects, while at
the same time improving its quality.
Another managerial goal for
Superfund is improved coordination
with EPA programs authorized by the
the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. Both Superfund and RCRA are
managed by EPA's Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
Strong Enforcement
Enforcement has always been a major
challenge of Superfund because of the
unique nature of the CERCLA statute. In
1980, Congress decreed that responsible
parties should, wherever possible, be
identified and held responsible for
cleanups at Superfund sites.
Currently, settlement agreements and
cost-recovery lawsuits have netted $657
million for Superfund. The next five
years promise to yield even better
results.
Greater Involvement by State
Governments
SARA also involves state governments
in Superfund decision-making to a
greater extent than ever before. The
states must now be involved in the
entire process from site identification to
cleanup, including negotiations, and
EPA must develop regulations to assure
this involvement.
Continued Emphasis on
Community Involvement
EPA established an aggressive
community relations program for
Superfund in 1983. Congress has now
mandated an even more active role for
the public in the Superfund
decision-making process.
Two other initiatives will also be
major challenges of EPA's Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response in
the years ahead:
Improved Emergency Planning
Title III legislation appended to SARA
will lead to better preparation at the
state and local levels of government for
emergencies related to hazardous waste.
The community right-to-know
provisions of this statute reinforce
Superfuud's commitment to citizen
rights by allowing the public to obtain
information on the hazardous chemicals
in its communities.
The Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund
The establishment of a Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
gives EPA's Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act program funds to address
the problem of petroleum pollution
resulting from defective storage tanks.
The LUST Trust Fund will provide $500
million over the next five years to clean
up eligible sites contaminated by leaks
from underground storage tanks.
The future: of hazardous waste
management and cleanup is a challenge
that can and will he met. EPA's
Superfund program has built up a
sizable reservoir of knowledge in its
first six years. And a great deal of
preliminary work was completed during
those years that can now be brought to
bear as we finish cleanups. These
factors should help make it possible for
the Superfund program to successfully
meet the complex range of new
challenges that loom ahead, o
JANUARY FEBRUARY 1987
35
-------
EPA's Budget
for FY 1988
by Carol Panasewich
EPA's budget request for 1988 will
rapidly expand the Superfund
program, increase grants to states,
expand tin; enforcement program, and
emphasize several other Agency
initiatives, must notably the Safe
Drinking Water program.
In announcing the Agency's 1988
budget request, Administrator Lee M.
Thomas characterized it as "a budget
that provides growth for the Agency in
order to address the nation's most
critical environmental problems." It
maintains or increases support for
virtually all EPA programs while
dramatically increasing funds for the
recently-revised Superfund program.
"Our proposed 1988 budget will bring
about substantial environmental
progress over the next several years,"
said Thomas.
Overall, the Administration is
requesting almost $2.7 billion for EPA
in 1988, supported by 14,323 workyears,
excluding construction grants. This
level of support represents an increase
of four percent in dollars and one
percent in personnel, or an additional
$97 million and 158 workyears over the
1987 budget level. EPA's strengthened
budget comes at a time of funding
reductions throughout the federal
government. Said Thomas, "I believe the
proposed budget reaffirms tin?
President's strong commitment to this
Agency and to our mission to protect
human health and the environment."
The budget request is just the first
step in the budget process; nothing is
final until Congress fully considers the
proposal and passes an appropriations
bill which is signed by the President.
However, Thomas expressed pleasure
'
with the budget process so far, and said,
"1 am optimistic...that Congress will act
favorably on this budget. It provides
significant increases to meet the new
requirements that Congress has placed
on us and it continues sufficient
resource levels to meet our ongoing
program needs."
"Our proposed 1988 budget
will bring about substantial
environmental progress over
the next several years."—Lee
M. Thomas.
Key budget areas include:
• Superfund - One of the most critical
environmental problems currently
facing the nation is uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites, and the newly
reauthorized Superfund statute greatly
expands federal and state program
authorities,
EPA's 1988 budget provides resources
for the second year of a major, two-year
ramp-up of the reauthorized Superfund
program. The total funding for
Superfund in 1988 will exceed all of the
funding provided during the first five
years of the program. Specifically, EPA
is requesting $1.2 billion and 2,801
workyears for the Superfund and
Underground Storage Tanks programs.
With the addition of previously
appropriated funds, these programs will
total $1.0 billion in 1988. or more than
the funding requested in 1988 for all of
EPA's other operating programs
combined.
• Safe Drinking Water Program - The
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments
of 1986 expanded EPA's responsibilities
in ensuring that the nation's drinking
water supplies are free of
contamination. This legislation requires
EPA to regulate new contaminants and
develop a program to monitor state and
local government compliance with
public water supply standards.
To meet these responsibilities, EPA's
1988 budget calls for an expanded
drinking water program, including $8
million for a new wellhead protection
grant program with the states. Overall,
$112.3 million and 753 workyears are
provided for the Safe Drinking Water
program.
• Acid Rain - The U.S. and Canadian
Special Envoys' Report called for
cooperation between the U.S. and
Canada, recommended a five-year, $5
billion demonstration program for clean
coal technologies, and placed increased
emphasis on research related to
transboundary acid rain issues. The
proposed budget allows EPA to
maintain a continuing exchange of
information with our Canadian
counterparts, work closely with the
Department of Energy on a clean coal
demonstration program, and devote $55
million to the U.S. government's overall
$86 million acid rain research program.
• State Grants - An effective
partnership between EPA and the states
is essential to the successful
implementation of an increasing number
of Agency activities and programs. The
1988 budget therefore increases EPA's
state grant monies by almost $10
million to a total of $296 million. These
increases will go primarily to the Water
and Pesticide programs.
• Enforcement - To better ensure
compliance with EPA's regulations, the
1988 budget substantially increases
support for the Agency's enforcement
program, providing a 12 percent
increase in funding and a four percent
increase in workyears.
36
LPA JOURNAL
-------
• Research and Operating Programs -
Increased funding for EPA's Research
and Development program and for most
other operating programs also is
provided by the 1988 budget.
In summary, the proposed 1988
budget strengthens environmental
protection programs. Assuming that
Congress is willing to support EPA at
the increased funding levels proposed,
the Agency will be able to deliver
accelerated, more aggressive protection
programs to the American public in
1988. As Lee Thomas said, "We believe
this budget will provide the Agency
with resources necessary to continue to
successfully achieve our statutory
objectives to protect human health and
the environment." n
i i!!i l-.'f. \
!n//s
Mimplor Inn n it'i pi
idniiii absorption
.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987
37
-------
Sparks of
Bilateral Congeniality
by Fitzhugh Green
The latest bilateral environment
conference with the Soviet Union
sparked a congeniality befitting the
holiday season. It took place at EPA
headquarters December 15-18. 1986, and
resulted in a rich array of planned
collaboration.
Academician Yuriy A. I/rael told his
fellow Co-Chalrman Lee M. Thomas that
he was delighted both with the
professional success of the meeting and
the warm fellowship American
participants shared with their Soviet
counterparts. "Not only do we admire
the expertise the Americans brought to
our joint projects, "he commented, "but
we especially appreciate the way they
take time to allow good human relations
to develop as well." Israel is Chairman
of the USSR State Committee for
Until recently, our
environmentul collaboralion
was sustained mostly by
individual scientists and
technicians working without
policy-level leadership.
Hydrometeorology and Control of the
Natural Environment (Hydromet).
The Joint Committee has been in
existence since 1972, but like many
other bilateral efforts, it has mirrored
the ups and downs of U.S.-U.S.S.R.
relations over the years. Until recently,
in fact, our environmental collaboration
was sustained mostly by individual
scientists and technicians working
without policy-level leadership.
Reinvigoration of the long-time
program began in Munich in June 1984.
West Germany was holding a conference
on acid rain. Despite some sharp
disagreements during the conference,
Dr. l/ratil invited then-EPA
ntal
Administrator William Ruckelshaus to
drop by his hotel room after the final
state dinner of the conference and
discuss the lagging bilateral program.
The late session with the Soviets
started after a four-and-a-half hour
German government dinner of
sumptuous Bavarian dishes and fruited
wines. Ruckelshaus and two aides,
Philip S. Angell and I, trudged heavily
to the top of the Four Seasons Hotel at
the invitation of Dr. Izrael. His suite
under the eaves looked like a hunting
lodge with rustic furniture and dark
wooden struts across the ceiling.
Although we had just folded our
napkins downstairs, Dr. Izrael and Dr.
Valentin G. Sokolovsky (Hydromet
Deputy Chairman) and Y. Kasakov
(Hydromet Counselor), immediately
broke out iced vodka and generous
portions of salami, black bread, butter,
and caviar. The admixture of traditional
Russian fare and our hosts' joviality
soon had its effects. Old acquaintance
was renewed among us, and after long
conversation the two principals decided
to resume personal management of the
Agreement. Dr. Kazakov and Dr. Gary
Waxmonsky of EPA's international
office would still serve as executive
secretaries as they had for several years.
Lee Thomas replaced Ruckelshaus
shortly thereafter and he joined Izrael
for their first full dress meeting in
Moscow in November 1985. Forty-two
projects which had been limping along
were pared to 38, with instructions to
streamline and improve their
effectiveness. The meeting last
December brought new initiatives and a
tighter focus to the program, as
representatives of Soviet and American
government agencies, research
institutes, and universities crafted an
ambitious 1987 work plan. (See box.)
In addition, a symposium held before
the meeting itself resulted in the signing
of a protocol to deal with current global
concerns about man-made pollution.
38
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The protocol pinpoints possibilities of
climate change from uncontrolled
burning of fossil fuels, ozone depletion
from release of chlorofluorocarbons,
contamination of the world's oceans,
acid rain, and the need for total
assessment of the global state of the
environment. It also urges U.S.-U.S.S.R.
study and monitoring of the open ocean,
and requires both parties to coordinate
their national programs and analyze all
information collected under the joint
agreement.
The Committee promised cooperation
on other ecological matters, including
management of national parks,
conservation of endangered species,
joint response to oil spills in northern
waters, climate modeling, earthquake
and tsunami predicting, environmental
law and policy, and training for
environmental education and
management.
John Negroponte, Assistant Secretary
of State for Oceans Environment and
Science,-noted at the final session that
the environmental agreement is the
most active of all the current U.S.-Soviet
bilaterals on science and technology.
Negroponte added that it also "fully
comports with the wishes for expansion
of such activities expressed by President
Reagan. The present Soviet spirit of
'gJasnost' (openness) projected by
Chairman Gorbachev bodes well for the
health of our environmental
cooperation."
The conference ended positively as
Izrael and Thomas tentatively agreed to
co-chair the next meeting of the Joint
Committee in Moscow later this year.
The Soviet participants seemed to
share our feeling of accomplishment
after the meeting. They went happily to
Orlando, FL, to inspect the
Experimental Prototype Community of
Tomorrow (EPCOT) at Disney World.
We believe our bilateral efforts
contribute to EPCOT's vision of a future
civilization in harmony with nature, a
The 1987 Agenda for
Working Together
Air Pollution
Run U.S. data on a Soviet model
characterizing dispersion over
complex terrain
Review mobile source control
issues, including engine design,
alternative fuels, and diesel
emissions
Conduct joint studies of the impact
of air pollution on vegetation
Plan possible joint research on
hazardous emissions from urban
solid waste incinerators and
resource recovery operations
Water
Compare water quality
management strategies in selected
U.S. and Soviet river basins
Discuss U.S. and Soviet models for
predicting ground water pollution
processes
Evaluate at pilot scale each other's
innovative wastewater treatment
technologies
Continue joint experiments on
microbiological transformations of
organic chemicals in soil and
surface water
Research the effects of toxics
bioaccumulation in marine
organisms, and model marine
pollutant transport, transformation,
and effects in continental shelf and
estuarine waters
Ozone, Climate, and Other
Review recent findings on
stratospheric ozone depletion,
followed by collaborative efforts to
monitor, measure, and model
ozone
Specify methodology and data
requirements for a joint assessment
of the impacts of climate change in
the areas of agriculture, terrestrial
ecosystems, and water resources
Discuss new approaches for
regional cross-media studies,
ecological risk assessment, and
ocean monitoring
Resume joint studies of genetic
monitoring and mammalian germ
cell mutagenesis associated with
exposure to various types of
pollutants
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987
39
-------
Update
A review of recent major EPA activities and developments in the pollution control program areas
AIR
Auto Recall
Ford is recalling
approximately 314,000
LTD and Mercury Marquis
automobiles which exceed
the federal hydrocarbon and
carbon monoxide exhaust
emissions standards.
The affected models
include 1981 and 1982 Ford
LTDs and LTD wagons,
Mercury Marquis and
Marquis wagons. The cars are
equipped with 4.2 and 5.0
liter V-8 engines.
The repair involves a
modification of the air
injection system to achieve
more complete hydrocarbon
and carbon monoxide
oxidation.
ENFORCEMENT
Record Number of Cases
EPA announced a record year
in numbers of enforcement
cases developed, referred to
the Department of Justice,
and filed.
EPA Administrator Lee M.
Thomas said, "We have
Appointments
Robert E. I .avion. Jr.
EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas
has named Robert I',. Layton, Jr., to
be the new Regional Administrator tor
EPA's Region (> office, headquartered in
Dallas.
Layton has been president and owner
of the Layton Engineering Co. in Tyler,
Texas, since H)5(). lie has also served as
Mayor and City Councilman of Tyler,
where he initiated and completed a
20-year master plan for water, sewage,
and growth requirements.
lie is a graduate of Texas A & M
University with a U.S. in Aeronautical
Engineering.
significantly increased our
enforcement efforts to put the
regulated community on
notice that violations of the
nation's environmental laws
will not be tolerated."
In fiscal year 1986, the
Agency referred 342 judicial
cases to the Justice
Department, compared with
276 last year. Cases involving
violations of the federal
Clean Air and Water Acts
accounted for over 200 of
these referrals; over 80 case
referrals involved violations
under federal hazardous
waste laws. The states
referred 543 cases to state
courts compared with 513
referrals last year.
A Record Fine
A New Bedford, MA. metals
company has agreed to pay a
million dollar fine for
violating federal
environmental laws, the
largest such fine ever levied.
The USM Corporation,
subsidiary of the Emhart
Corporation, pleaded guilty
to all 41 counts of the federal
indictment.
The fine imposed was
$1,025,000, of which
$225,000 would be
suspended if the company
completes construction of a
system to treat wastewater
by October 3, 1987.
USM, formerly United
Shoe Manufacturers, makes
eyelets for shoes and other
applications at its J.C. Rhodes
plant in New Bedford. USM
previously admitted dumping
toxic metals, including
copper, nickel, and zinc, into
the sewer system of New
Bedford.
The standards it violated,
part of the Clean Water Act,
took effect in 1984 and 1985.
EPA has confirmed that the
fine was the largest ever
imposed for a criminal
violation of federal
environmental law.
Interim Policy for Grapes
The Agency announced an
interim, one-year policy for
the use of sulfur dioxide
pesticides on grapes.
Under the new policy,
grapes treated with sulfiting
pesticides will be allowed
temporarily to be marketed
without a tolerance level,
provided shippers and
growers have a valid analysis
certifying that the grapes
contain no detectable
residues of sulfur dioxide.
Sulfiting pesticides are
used as fumigants on
domestic and imported
grapes to prevent grey mold
or bunch rot spoilage during
shipping and storage.
Label Modifications for
Cyanazine
The Agency is proposing
numerous label modifications
to all cyanazine pesticide
products in order to reduce
the associated exposure risks.
The proposed changes would
be imposed as a condition of
continued registration.
The Agency began a
Special Review of cyanazine
in April 1985. The
risk/benefit review was based
on animal studies which
showed that the pesticide
causes birth defects in the
offspring of laboratory
animals and may pose a
significant risk to women of
child-bearing age who handle
cyanazine products. EPA's
principal concern is with
risks to mixer/loader
personnel resulting from
dermal exposure to
cyanazine.
At this time, the Agency
does not consider dietary
exposure from cyanazine to
be significant.
40
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Springtime conies lo Hluc
I.mird. Ml).
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use S300
Third-Class Bulk
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
" "
------- |