Ul
O
Beneficial Effects of the
Superfund Program
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
This report was prepared for the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, United
States Environmental Protection Agency. It was prepared by Environmental Management Support, Inc.,
of Silver Spring, Maryland, under contract EP-W-07-037, work assignments B-01 and 1-01, managed by
Freya Margand. Mention of trade names or specific applications does not imply endorsement or
acceptance by EPA.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page i
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
Beneficial Effects of the
Superfund Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA Contract EP W-07-037
March 2011
OSWER Publication 9200.1-104
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page ii
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
Contents
1. Background 1
1.1 Potential Adverse Effects of Superfund Sites 1
1.2 Legislative and Regulatory Response 2
1.3 Superfund Program Response 2
2. Overview of Superfund Benefits and Impacts 3
3. Human Health Benefits 4
3.1 Population at Risk and Environmental Justice 5
3.2 Threats Posed by Superfund Sites 6
4. Ecological Benefits 8
4.1 Importance of Ecosystems 8
4.2 Threats Posed by Superfund Sites 9
4.3 Ecological Impacts of Superfund Actions: Some Examples 9
5. Community I mpacts and Property Values 11
5.1 Known Reuse Projects at Superfund Sites 12
5.2 Construction Complete Sites Not Yet Being Reused 12
5.3 Impacts of Superfund Site Investigation and Screening Activities 13
5.4 Off-Site Effects 13
5.5 Property Values as Indicators of Impacts and Potential Benefits 14
6. Reduction of Harm in Emergency Situations 15
6.1 Typical Emergency Response Actions 16
6.2 Removal Program Accomplishments 16
7. Contributions to Other Cleanup Programs 17
8. Improved Environmental Practices by Industry 20
9. Advances in Science and Technology 21
10. Reduced Unidentified Potential Future Threats 21
11. Summary: Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program 23
References 24
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page ill
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
The debate about whether the costs of the Superfund program are warranted has continued throughout
most of the nearly three decades of the program's existence. Following a series of administrative reforms
and legislative amendments affecting Superfund over the years, EPA has made considerable progress
toward cleaning up hazardous waste sites and responding to emergencies involving hazardous substances.
However, much work remains to be done. About one-third of National Priorities List (NPL) sites are not
construction complete and new sites continue to be added to the list. In addition, the nature of the work
may require a shift in emphasis within the program. Much of the site investigation and cleanup work
remaining is at very large, complicated sites likely to cost many millions of dollars per site to clean up. In
some cases, the costs may be hundreds of millions of dollars. Many sites that have completed
construction of a remedy also require long-term stewardship to ensure that the remedy remains effective
in protecting people and the environment.
This paper describes the beneficial effects of the Superfund program on people and the environment since
its inception 30 years ago. EPA believes that information on the impacts of its programs will help
government officials and the general public make better and more cost-effective policy and business
decisions. It discusses Superfund's accomplishments in terms of reduction of threats to human health and
ecological systems in the vicinity of Superfund sites; improvement of the economic conditions and
quality of life in communities affected by hazardous waste sites; and prevention of future releases of
hazardous substances1 by providing impetus for industry practices that better manage and reduce the
generation of hazardous substances. The information in this paper is drawn from government, academic,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and industry sources.
1. Background
Growing public awareness in the 1970s that areas, such as the Love Canal neighborhood in New York,
the "Valley of the Drums" in Kentucky, and the Stringfellow Acid Pits in California, were contaminated
with hazardous substances sparked a national controversy. Dramatic events, like the fire at an illegal
hazardous waste site in Chester, Pennsylvania that hospitalized over forty firefighters, added to the sense
of urgency. By 1980, it had become apparent that hazardous substances released at these sites and in
emergency situations have serious acute and chronic health effects on humans, and pose significant risks
to plants, animals, and other natural resources. Moreover, many of these contaminated properties in
populated areas have remained vacant or underutilized, thereby hampering economic and community
development and diminishing the quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods.
1.1 Potential Adverse Effects of Superfund Sites
Hazardous waste contamination can have significant adverse effects on people, communities, local
economies, and the environment:
> Hazardous substances found at Superfund sites can cause serious health effects, including fatalities
and injuries from fires or explosions; acute poisonings; cancer; congenital abnormalities (birth
defects); reduction in cognitive abilities as measured by decreases in IQ scores; and other long-term
effects, such as thyroid dysfunction and endometriosis.
> Hazardous substances can contaminate surface water and groundwater. About 66% of people in the
United States use surface water and the remainder are supplied from groundwater (EPA 2009d).
1 For this paper, hazardous substance is defined to also include pollutants and contaminants as defined in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 1
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
> Hazardous substances are harmful to plants, animals, and the functioning of ecological systems such
as wetlands, lakes, rivers, and grasslands.
> Left unattended, many hazardous waste sites remain vacant or underutilized, contributing to blight
in neighborhoods, and representing a forgone opportunity for communities to use potentially
valuable resources.
> The presence of Superfund sites may reduce the quality of life and value of other properties in their
vicinity.
> In addition to the documented effects of hazardous substance releases, the presence of uncontrolled
hazardous substances in the environment presents potential future risks that are not evident today.
1.2 Legislative and Regulatory Response
By 1980, federal laws regulated water quality, oil spills, drinking water, active waste disposal practices,
and air pollution, but did not yet address the full consequences of our historic industrial waste disposal
practices. The ensuing debate over how best to deal with these problems led to the creation of the
Superfund program under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), which was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. Under CERCLA
and related laws, the Superfund program identifies, investigates, and cleans up America's most
contaminated hazardous waste sites.
CERCLA provides broad response authorities for EPA to protect people and the environment from the
risks posed by releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants. For example, Section
104(a) of CERCLA provides EPA with broad authority to carry out response actions that the Agency
"deems necessary to protect the public health or welfare or the environment." In addition, Section 121 of
CERCLA includes some "general rules" for selecting cleanup standards and carrying out response
actions. These include a number of factors to consider in evaluating alternatives such as the toxicity and
mobility of hazardous substances and the short term and long term "potential for adverse health effect
from human exposure." In addition, this section of the statute requires that remedial actions selected by
EPA are "cost effective." EPA has incorporated CERCLA Section 121 provisions and other statutory
requirements into the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), the key
regulation addressing Superfund response actions. For example, many of the factors specified in section
121 are captured in the NCP's nine criteria used for evaluating remedial alternatives (see 40 CFR
§300.430(e)(9)). In assessing alternative remedies consistent with CERCLA and the NCP, EPA considers
the nine criteria, including cost effectiveness, where such action is deemed necessary to protect human
health. CERCLA also provides broad authority to take response actions to protect the environment. This
authority does not depend on the presence of human health risks.
1.3 Superfund Program Response
The Superfund program has permanently destroyed or isolated many millions of tons of contaminated
material; investigated about 40,000 sites to determine the extent of their contamination; developed,
promoted, and disseminated site investigation and cleanup technologies; worked to foster compliance
with other hazardous waste management laws; and assisted other federal cleanup programs and states in
developing and implementing their own cleanup programs. These actions have halted the exposure, or
potential exposure, of millions of people to hazardous substances; enabled thousands of acres of
previously vacant land to be made available for beneficial use and underutilized properties to be made
available for higher value uses; and encouraged industrial practices that prevent future releases of
hazardous substances.
The Superfund program has also been responsible for implementing a removal program, which conducts
or oversees emergency responses and short-term cleanup actions. The removal program operates an
emergency response center to which individuals and communities can turn for help in the case of a
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 2
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
hazardous substance emergency. It also provides training and technical assistance to police, firefighters,
and other state and local first responders to emergency incidents. For almost three decades, EPA has
responded thousands of times under the authority of CERCLA to deal with the problem of hazardous
substances in the environment; and the Agency continues to respond to over 300 new (or newly
discovered) releases every year.
2. Overview of Superfund Program Benefits and Effects
The Superfund program has three primary components: (1) cleanup of existing waste sites (through
removals and remedial actions, including natural resource damage actions where needed); (2) responses to
emergencies, including ensuring emergency preparedness (through the removal action program); and (3)
deterrence of practices that would lead to future hazardous waste releases (through reporting
requirements, CERCLA liability provisions, and EPA compliance efforts). Each of these program
components leads to many different types of benefits and impacts, some of which are not the primary
objectives of CERCLA.
While the program's primary objective is the
protection of human health and welfare and the
environment, cleaning up these sites has also resulted
in other positive impacts at many sites, such as the
reuse of vacant or underutilized properties, the advance
of new technologies to characterize and clean up
contaminated sites, and improved local and regional
economies, aesthetics, and quality of life. For example,
a cleanup that reduces the risk of disease also may
improve the area's aesthetics and property values.
The effects of Superfund response actions can be
described in terms of eight basic impact categories (see
box). Despite the conceptual distinction between these
different impact categories, the various categories are
intertwined. The first four categories are considered
direct beneficial impacts, because they are directly
associated with things of value to society, such as
improvements in local ecological resources and the
health and welfare of people who live and work in the
vicinity of Superfund sites. Some of these impacts are
difficult to measure. For example, it is clear that emer-
gency response and emergency preparedness are activ-
ities that contribute directly to reduction of health and
safety threats and protection of habitats. However, it is
less obvious that public knowledge that the government is prepared for emergencies also contributes
directly to a feeling of well-being among the protected population. This feeling is itself a direct benefit,
though difficult to measure.
The last four categories, labeled "indirect impacts," eventually lead to the direct impacts, but the relation-
ships are more difficult to trace. For example, the direct effects of advances in science and technology
include improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of cleanups. These improvements, in turn, affect
the nature and magnitude of the direct effects. CERCLA's liability provisions and EPA's efforts to
improve environmental practices throughout the economy contribute to a reduction in future releases of
hazardous substances, which in turn, will likely result in reductions in risk to human health and the
environment. Improvements to a state cleanup program resulting from the adoption of technologies used
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund
Program
Direct Effects
> Improved health of residents, workers,
and others near Superfund sites
> Reduction or reversal of damages to
natural resources
> Reduction of harm in emergency
situations
> Improved community economies and
quality of life
Indirect Effects
> Contributions to other cleanup
programs
> Improved environmental practices by
industry
> Advances in science and technology
> Reduced unidentified potential future
threats
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Page 3
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
at Superfund sites can lead to better, faster, and less costly cleanups. The indirect effects of the Superfund
program are substantial and may be no less important than the direct effects.
Some elements of these impact categories are "transfer payments," which do not contribute to the total
"national welfare" but are important to specific groups, individuals, or neighborhoods. For example, jobs
created at a redeveloped site may displace jobs in another community, or in the site's host community.
Although the site's redevelopment leads to increased employment in the site's host community, there may
not be a net change in the total number of new jobs in the national economy. Local benefits, however, are
important to specific communities and to specific socioeconomic groups near Superfund sites.
Superfund efforts have also contributed substantially to the development and implementation of cleanup
programs managed by other federal programs, states, and tribes through partnerships, research and
development (R&D), technical assistance, and funding. Moreover, it has been observed that the liability
and compliance provisions in CERCLA have provided impetus for many property owners to enroll in
state voluntary and other cleanup programs. Sites managed under state programs tend to have roughly the
same types of hazardous substances and resulting benefits as those in the federal Superfund program, but
are generally, though not always, less complex.
The final category of impacts refers to the reduction of the potential future threats arising from the release
of hazardous substances into the environment. Although much progress has been made in understanding
how substances move through the subsurface, the science and data available may be insufficient to predict
long-term impacts of many types of releases. Once substances are released into the subsurface, there may
be considerable uncertainty regarding how they will migrate, what chemical transformations they will
undergo, and what the effects will be on ecological systems and human health many years, or centuries, in
the future. By preventing, controlling, or cleaning up hazardous substance releases, Superfund actions are
leading to the elimination or reduction of these threats.
The environmental issues, cleanup techniques, and benefits vary widely from one site to another. The key
benefit of a cleanup action at site A may be avoidance of cancer or improved neighborhood development,
whereas at Site B it might be restoration or protection of a wetland habitat. Because of the complicated
mix of impacts and response actions, it is difficult to develop a single, comprehensive estimate of the total
value of all the impacts, or even for any single impact type. Nevertheless, it is useful to describe these
effects to the extent possible. The following sections further describe these eight impact categories.
3. Human Health Benefits
Uncontrolled releases of hazardous substan-
ces to the environment can increase the risk
of adverse health effects to exposed popula-
tions, including minority and poor commu-
nities and sensitive sub-populations, such as
children, pregnant women, and the elderly,
who can be disproportionately affected. The
Superfund program is well-positioned to
address environmental justice concerns at
communities where there are multiple
sources of contamination. The principal
inherent dangers to people exposed to
hazardous substances found at Superfund sites include acute effects, such as acute poisoning and injuries
from fires or explosions, and long-term effects, such as cancers and birth defects. More than 250
hazardous substances that have the potential of causing such effects have been found at Superfund sites.
Superfund cleanup actions prevent or reduce human health risks by cleaning up or isolating the hazardous
Hundreds of Hazardous Substances Have Been
Found at Superfund Sites. Some of the Most
Common Are:
> Lead > Cadmium
> Arsenic > Chloroform
> Trichloroethene (TCE) > Mercury
> Benzene > Polycyclic aromatic
> Tetrachloroethene hydrocarbons (PAHs)
(PERC) > Vinyl chloride
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 4
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
substances, thereby preventing
human exposure and further
migration of hazardous substan-
ces through groundwater, soil, or
Superfund conducts risk assess-
ments at many sites, which,
combined with research into the
ces, provide insight into the type
and extent of the human health
impacts. However, because of the
wide range of site characteristics
and contamination conditions
from site to site and community homes and businesses.
Health Benefits in Libby, Montana
Libby, Montana, is an example of a community benefiting from a
Superfund cleanup designed to address long-term exposure to a
otner media. carcinogen. The small town is set in the northwest corner of Montana,
35 miles east of Idaho and 65 miles south of Canada. Libby has a
population of less than 3,000 with 12,000 people living within a ten-
mile radius. EPA has been working in Libby since 1999 when an
Emergency Response Team was sent to investigate a concern about
health effects of various substan- asbestos-contaminated vermiculite from the local mine. Since that
time, EPA has been working closely with the community to remove
asbestos and reduce risks to human health. Miners and their families
who live in Libby have been diagnosed with asbestosis and
mesothelioma associated with exposure to asbestos. Since November
1999, EPA has removed the major sources of asbestos contamination
in the town and is now addressing smaller sources found around
to community, it is difficult to
fully articulate the entire range of adverse health effects that would have occurred had a site not been
cleaned up. In addition, information available on key variables, such as the nature and extent of
contamination; the movement of hazardous substances through soil, groundwater, and other media; and
the extent of potential human exposure, vary from site to site. A useful way to envision the potential
extent of health effects is to estimate the population potentially exposed and the toxicity of the hazardous
substances released into the environment at these sites.
3.1 Populations at Risk and Environmental Justice
Research based on site-specific investigations at NPL sites suggests that the most important pathways of
exposure are through groundwater, followed by soil, air, and other media. Generally, ingestion is the most
important exposure route, followed by dermal contact and inhalation, although the critical exposure route
varies by contaminant. Based on these types of exposures, people living in the vicinity of Superfund sites
are the primary population at risk of exposure to the hazardous materials released from the sites.
EPA has estimated that 67 million people live within four miles of the 1,504 sites that had been listed on
the NPL by December 31, 2004; and 38 million people live within 2.5 miles.2 In addition, there have
been approximately 9,100 short-term and long-term removal actions under the federal Superfund
program, as of May 2009. The large number of actions implies that there is significant potential for
human exposure to hazardous substances in the environment, although comprehensive data on the
percentage of the population that is potentially exposed are not available.
In February 1994, President Clinton established Executive Order 12898. The order required that "...each
Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of
its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations, and low-income populations...."
Researchers have documented environmental injustices across the country, and found minorities and the
poor living more frequently near environmental hazards. Many sites on the NPL are located in minority
and poor communities. Through the cleanup of these sites, the Superfund program has sought to ensure
that residents do not bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting
By the end of FY 2009, total listings had grown to 1,607; however, similar population estimates for the additional 103 sites
are not available. OSWER developed the population estimates by combining U.S. Census 2000 data with Superfund site location
data (EPA 2007).
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 5
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
Health Impacts of Lead Exposure at a Superfund Site
The RSR Smelter NPL site is an example of a cleanup addressing a health threat from lead. The smelting
facilities cover 6.7 acres amid residential, industrial, and commercial properties in west Dallas County, Texas.
Approximately 50,000 people, including 7,000 children under the age of seven, live within 2.5 miles of this site.
Almost immediately after discovery of the contamination, but well before the site was placed on the NPL, EPA
and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) began to conduct removal actions under
CERCLA. Together the TNRCC and EPA surveyed 6,800 potentially contaminated properties and undertook
cleanup at 420 private residences and other high-risk areas where children could be expected to play,
including playgrounds, schools, and parks. All soils contaminated with lead greater than 500 parts per million
(ppm), arsenic greater than 20 ppm, or cadmium above 30 ppm were removed and replaced with clean soil.
The cleanups, in the 1980s and early 1990s, greatly reduced exposure. By 1993, blood lead analyses indicated
that only 8% of children in the area exceeded the level of concern of 10 micrograms per deciliter (compared to
90% prior to cleanup), and testing of 305 randomly-selected children showed an average blood lead level of
5.5 micrograms per deciliter (compared to 20.1 prior to cleanup).
from past industrial, governmental, and commercial operations, and that they have meaningful
involvement in the decisions on how to clean up the site.
3.2 Threats Posed by Superfund Sites
The major health effects from exposure to contaminants found at Superfund sites include:
> Acute accidents and injuries
> Cancer
> Birth defects
> Other chronic non-carcinogenic effects (e.g., kidney, liver, nervous and endocrine systems).
A given hazardous substance can have many adverse health effects, depending on the route of exposure,
concentration levels, and individual exposed. For example, the health impacts of lead at a few Superfund
sites are fairly well documented, and there is good evidence of a general relationship between lead-
contaminated soil and elevated blood lead levels. Studies have shown associations between adult
exposure to low levels of lead and cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, hypertension, and a
decline in cognitive functions. Lead exposure has been associated with reproductive problems in women,
including neurobehavioral problems in offspring and neonatal mortality due to low birth weight. Children
under age six are most vulnerable to lead exposure because their nervous systems are still developing.
High blood lead levels in children are associated with diminished learning abilities as well as other
adverse effects. People residing near NPL sites that are contaminated with lead tend to be exposed to lead
through multiple exposure routes and to have higher blood lead levels than those not exposed. At homes
near lead-contaminated NPL sites, lead-contaminated soil in yards can be an important exposure pathway.
Fortunately, the Superfund program has been very successful in controlling this source of lead exposure
by isolating and removing contaminated soil and replacing it with clean soil.
The table on page 7 lists health effects known to be associated with some of the most commonly found
hazardous substances at NPL sites.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 6
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
Health Effects of Contaminants Frequently Found at NPL Sites*
Hazardous
Substance
%of
NPL
Sites**
Potential Health Effect
Arsenic
68%
> Irritation of the stomach and intestines, nausea, and vomiting
> Decreased production of red and white blood cells
> Infertility in women and miscarriages
> Known human carcinogen (skin, lung, liver, lymphatic system)
> Skin changes and lung irritation > Abnormal heart rhythm
> Damage to blood vessels > Damage to DNA
Benzene
59%
> Anemia
> Leukemia
> May be harmful to the reproductive organs and bone marrow
> Vomiting, stomach irritation, dizziness, sleepiness, convulsions, rapid
heart rate, coma, and death
Cadmium
53%
> Lung damage
> Fragile bones
> Stomach irritation, vomiting, and diarrhea
Probable human carcinogen
> Kidney disease
> Death
Chloroform
50%
r Dizziness, fatigue, headache > Liver damage
> Kidney damage > Skin sores
> Reproductive and birth effects in rats and mice, but unknown for humans
> Reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen
Lead
75%
> High blood pressure and hypertension > Kidney damage
> Miscarriages and subtle abortions > Decreased fertility of men
> Neonatal mortality due to low birth weight > Brain damage
> Diminished learning abilities of children > Probable human carcinogen
> Damage to the nervous system and the brains of unborn children
> Behavioral problems of children, such as aggression and hyperactivity
> Lung damage
> Skin rashes and eye irritation
Mercury
49%
> Permanent kidney damage
> Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
> Increases in blood pressure and heart rate
> Permanent damage to developing fetus
> Effects on brain function, resulting in irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in
vision or hearing, and memory problems
> Possible human carcinogen (mercury chloride and methylmercury)
Polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(PAHs)
42%
> Irritation of the nose, mouth, and eyes
> Vomiting, diarrhea, stomach cramps, nausea, and even death
> Kidney and liver damage
> Probable human carcinogen
Tetrachloro-
ethene (PERC)
54%
> Dizziness, headaches, sleepiness, confusion, nausea, difficulty in
speaking and walking, unconsciousness, and death
> Eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation
> Possible to probable human carcinogen
Trichloro-
ethene (TCE)
60%
> Nervous system effects
> Abnormal heartbeat
> Liver and lung damage
> Coma and possibly death
Notes:
* A site may contain more than one contaminant.
** Approximate percent of sites where the contaminant is found.
Source:
Percent of sites where a contaminant is found and health effects data are based on estimates by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/index.asp. June 2008.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Page 7
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
4. Ecological Benefits
Healthy ecosystems are important to all aspects of our lives. The status of ecosystems can be linked to the
central components of human well-being—health, material inputs, security, freedom of choice, and good
social relationships. Contamination of soil, groundwater, surface water, and other media degrade the
functioning of ecosystems by affecting the health of various species of plants and animals. The specific
effects vary widely among species, contaminants, and ecosystems. The overall impact is a change to the
composition of species, and the functioning of the ecosystem. These changes can lead to reductions in the
benefits that ecosystems provide humans. Changes in ecosystems also affect life on earth independent of
direct human uses of ecosystems.
4.1 Importance of Ecosystems
There are many types and configurations
of Superfund sites (e.g., former landfills,
industrial facilities, mining properties),
and they are located in all kinds of set-
tings, such as rural, suburban, urban,
wetlands, grasslands, forests, and ripar-
ian areas. Consequently, the effects of a
hazardous waste site on ecosystems vary
widely from site to site. Evaluation of
benefits of the Superfund program re-
quires a broad understanding of the be-
nefits derived from ecosystems.
Ecosystems provide many direct and
indirect benefits (often referred to as
services) to society. These services can
be divided into four areas, although there
is some overlap:
(1) Provision of goods and other services
for human consumption,
(2) Regulation of ecosystem processes,
(3) Supporting ecosystem processes, and
(4) Cultural services.
The goods and services that ecosystems
provide for human use, such as food,
fuel, materials, and water, are primarily
direct benefits. Most of these services
are readily identified as benefits to
individuals, and many are necessary for
daily activities.
Many regulating and supporting services
are indirect benefits, because their
contributions to our daily lives and
intrinsic values are not always obvious.
Nevertheless, these services are no less
important than direct benefits, because
they support or contribute to the basic
biological and biochemical processes
Superfund Actions Protect and Restore Ecosystems
that Provide Services Essential to Society
Benefit
Category
Provision of
Goods and Other
Services (direct
benefit of
ecosystems)
Regulating
Services (largely
indirect benefit)
Supporting
Services (mostly
indirect benefit)
Cultural Services
(includes non-use
benefits)
Examples
> Water (drinking, irrigation, industrial use)
> Food (animal, plant); materials (fiber,
timber, fur, leather)
> Fuel (e.g., wood, solar, wind)
> Genetic and medicinal resources (e.g.,
biotechnology, animal and plant breeding,
biochemicals, natural medicines, chemical
models and tools); pollination of crops
Climate and atmospheric regulation (e.g.,
greenhouse gas sinks, oxygen production,
air pollutant uptake)
Water regulation (runoff, flood
moderation, groundwater replenishment,
water filtration)
Storm protection
Control of human diseases, and crop and
livestock diseases and pests
> Soil formation and retention (e.g.,
prevention of damage from erosion and
siltation; maintenance of productive soils,
including soil fertilization and sediment
trapping, maintenance of arable land)
> Nutrient cycling
> Water cycling
> Pollination by wild birds and insects
> Provision of habitat and maintenance of
biodiversity (e.g., feeding and breeding
ground for harvested and other species;
maintenance of biodiversity and genetic
resources, including protection of
threatened, endangered and commercially
important species)
> Spiritual and religious values; cultural
heritage values; aesthetic values; other
nonuse benefits (e.g., passive-use, which
includes option, existence, and bequest
values)
> Recreational opportunities (e.g., fishing,
hunting, viewing, hiking, swimming)
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Page 8
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
needed to support life. Regulating services maintain ecosystem health by regulating the essential
ecological processes that occur through biochemical and biospheric processes. Examples of these services
include climate regulation (including carbon sequestration), disease and pest regulation, water regulation
(e. g, flood moderation), water purification, and pollination. Supporting services are processes, such as
soil formation, nutrient cycling, and provision of habitat and maintenance of biodiversity, that are
necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services.
Ecosystems also provide cultural services, which are non-material benefits that people obtain from
ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic
experiences. Although recreational opportunities, such as fishing, hunting, scenic vistas, wildlife viewing,
hiking, and boating, may be considered as a component of cultural services, many individuals also
consider them to be a good or service that provide benefits directly to individuals.
Cultural services may also include non-use benefits, which refer to the value that people place on a
resource, even though they may or may not use it. These "passive uses" include the value people place on
the ability to use a resource although they may not currently use it (option value); knowledge that the
resource exists in an undisturbed state (existence value); and knowledge that future generations will be
able to use the resource (bequest value). In addition, ecosystems support threatened, endangered, and
commercially important species.
4.2 Threats Posed by Superfund Sites
Threats to ecosystems presented by Superfund sites can be grouped into two broad areas: exposure of
plants, animals, soil, and water resources to contaminants, and the physical impacts of specific Superfund
sites. Exposure to contaminants at some sites has resulted in the immediate or short-term death of some
plants and animals. At other sites, contaminants (such as toxic metals, including copper, cadmium, zinc,
and lead; organochlorine pesticides; and a variety of chlorinated organic compounds) accumulate in the
tissues of organisms at abnormally high concentrations. These substances can reduce organism survival
and growth rates. The contaminants may also accumulate at increasingly greater concentrations in the
tissues of organisms higher up in the food chain. The amount of bioaccumulation of a contaminant can
vary widely among species. This process can alter the composition of species in an area, both on and off
the Superfund site; seriously damage or destroy the functioning of an ecosystem; and render fish, game,
and plants inedible.
Industrial activities at some Superfund sites have resulted in the removal or destruction of all vegetation
and topsoil, leaving little or no viable ecosystem. There are no permanent plant communities on these
sites that can provide erosion control and wildlife habitat, or reduce flooding and stormwater runoff.
Because wildlife species require a minimum habitat area necessary to thrive, and a minimum viable
population, the biodiversity in the area surrounding Superfund sites can be very low.
Biodiversity is required for the recycling of essential elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. It is
responsible for mitigating pollution, protecting watersheds, and combating soil erosion. Biodiversity is
intrinsic to the ecosystem qualities we value, such as physical beauty and harmony. Plants and animals
provide food, medicine, energy, and building materials. In recent years, entire species and natural areas
have been lost at unprecedented rates, primarily due to human activity.
4.3 Ecological Impacts of Superfund Actions: Some Examples
While the available data are insufficient to fully quantify all the ecological benefits for the Superfund
program, it is evident that many cleanups have included important features to ensure the creation,
restoration, or protection of ecosystems, both on site and off site. Some examples of projects that have
provided ecosystem benefits include:
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 9
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
> At Loring Air Force Base in northeastern Maine, site project managers removed soil and sediment
from wetlands and stream channels. Following a detailed plan using maps, records, and
photographs, they were able to reconstruct wetland topography, restore stream channels and in-
stream structures, and restore plant communities.
> At the Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Site, Kellogg, Idaho, three different types of
ecosystems were restored at this second largest Superfund site in the country. A grassy riparian
floodway, which was created on about 200 acres along a 11A- mile stretch of a river, is now home to
frogs, deer, birds, and other wildlife. A 1,000-acre hillside area, denuded of vegetation from former
smelter operations, was revegetated using innovative soil amendment techniques. This approach has
reduced the amount of sediment entering surface waters. The project has provided a healthy habitat
for elk and other native species, which are returning to the area. Native grasses were also planted in
a 27-acre wetland, and waterfowl and otters are coming back.
> At Silver Bow Creek/Warm Spring Ponds, Butte, Montana, wetland and riparian areas were
remediated and restored to provide a habitat for more than 230 types of resident or migratory
waterfowl, birds of prey, brown and rainbow trout, and terrestrial wildlife. The site is also used for
low-impact recreational activities, such as catch and release fishing and hiking.
> At Bowers Landfill, Pickaway County, Ohio, a seven-acre wetland was developed in a pit created
when clay was dug up for the landfill cap. The wetland functions as a buffer to protect the landfill
from flooding and prevent damage to the cap. The wetlands and a meadow also support waterfowl
and other species.
> At the Cherokee County Galena Subsite, Cherokee County, Kansas, native prairie grasses were used
to stabilize the clean soil that was placed over mine tailings. The tall, wavy grass stands have
encouraged the return of wildlife and now harbor birds and small mammals.
> At Army Creek Landfill, New Castle County, Delaware, grains, wildflowers, and other carefully
selected vegetation were planted to attract migratory birds for resting, nesting, and feeding. In
addition, high-quality wetlands that had become contaminated from hazardous substances in
groundwater were restored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the State of Delaware, which are trustees for these resources.
> The tidal marsh adjacent to the LCP Chemicals site in Brunswick, Georgia, became contaminated
with mercury-contaminated sludge, lead, PCBs, and semi-volatile organic compounds. Several
terrestrial wildlife species, including the endangered wood stork, were found to be at risk from
mercury and lead contamination. A removal action, which involved excavating 13 acres of
contaminated sediment, on-site soil, and waste piles, led to reduced environmental risks at the site,
including lower levels of PCBs and mercury in the site's aquatic species. A Georgia Department of
Natural Resources advisory against eating locally caught red drum was removed (although other
species remained unsafe for consumption). In addition, 13 acres of marsh were restored. Further
ecological benefits are anticipated.
> At the former Bailey Waste Disposal site in Bridge City, Texas, contaminants of concern included
metals and organic compounds present in soil, surface water, and groundwater on and surrounding
the site. An environmental assessment revealed a variety of marine fish and organisms that live on
or near the bottom of the estuary and 15 endangered or threatened species. Furthermore,
contamination from the site was found to affect 10 acres of estuarine marsh, freshwater marsh, and
terrestrial habitats. In addition to restoring the site to baseline conditions, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and other agencies
responsible for natural resources in the area constructed 28 acres of estuarine wetlands at a nearby
location in the lower Neches Wildlife Management Area as compensation for natural resource
injuries.
In addition to the impacts of Superfund sites on surrounding ecosystems, valuable habitats have been
created on some sites, after cleanup.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 10
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
Former landfills, abandoned dumps, mining areas, and other contaminated sites throughout the United
States, once thought to be of limited or no value, are being transformed into viable habitats where
terrestrial or aquatic plants and animals can flourish. As of January 2009, at least 10% of the
approximately 500 Superfund sites that have planned, continued, or actual new use are being
used for ecological purposes (EPA 2009a). Many of the sites in ecological reuse also support additional
use types. Likewise, sites being used in recreational, green space, commercial, or other capacities may
also have an ecological component.
Cleaned up Superfund sites are being used for wetlands, meadows, streams, and ponds, where they
provide habitat for terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals, and for low-impact or passive recreation,
such as hiking and bird watching. In developed areas, the Superfund program has conducted or overseen
the cleanup of waterfront industrial properties and their conversion to scenic trails and parks. It has also
remediated properties that connect smaller ecosystems or recreational areas, effectively enlarging the
habitat size and enhancing biodiversity in the region.
5. Community Impacts and Property Values
While the Superfund program's primary objective is the protection of human health and the environment,
cleaning up and redeveloping contaminated sites has resulted in positive economic and social impacts in
many communities. By eliminating or reducing real and perceived health and environmental risks
associated with hazardous waste sites, Superfund cleanups help convert vacant and underutilized land into
productive resources; reduce blight, uncertainty, and other negative perceptions; and improve the
aesthetics and general well-being in the communities surrounding the sites.
Community Impact Highlights
> As of January 2009, more than 500 Superfund sites are in various types of planned, continued, or
actual reuse. These sites support thousands of jobs with a payroll of billions of dollars (EPA 2009a,
2006).
> Cleanup and development of these properties often improve the local economy and government by
making available land for economic development; providing a catalyst for other development in the
area; and increasing efficiency in the use of public and private infrastructure, which reduces per capita
cost.
> These properties have improved the quality of life in many communities by eliminating blight and
uncertainty, and providing valuable amenities, such as commercial and industrial sites, residences,
sports fields, parks, green space, and public facilities.
> EPA has documented cases where the values of properties that contain Superfund sites have grown
substantially after cleanup (EPA 2009c and 2010e). There are also cases where the values have not
improved.
The nature and extent of the impacts vary widely from site to site and community to community. In some
communities, a cleaned up Superfund site may represent an opportunity for adding parks or recreational
facilities. Other communities may need the site to support expanding or new businesses that bring jobs to
the area or balance to the local economy. On the other hand, some communities do not have an immediate
demand for the property, because the local economy is stagnant, or because lingering concerns or
uncertainty discourages reuse. Because of this wide range of circumstances, it is difficult to quantify, or
even fully articulate the range of impacts. A useful way to envision community impacts is to examine
what happens to Superfund sites as a result of the cleanup process, and how the activities at the sites
affect communities. For this discussion, Superfund sites can be divided into four groups:
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 11
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
1. Over 500 NPL sites at which EPA is tracking actual or planned use;
2. Hundreds of NPL sites where cleanup construction has been completed, but the sites are not yet
ready for reuse;
3. Thousands of properties that have been made available for reuse, or continued use, following
investigations that resolved uncertainty regarding potential risk which, in many situations, had been
an obstacle to reuse; and
4. Thousands of properties that have been made available for reuse, or continued use, following
removal actions.
The community impacts and property values associated with NPL sites are described in the following
sections, and removal actions are discussed in Section 6.
5.1 Superfund Sites in Use
Former landfills, abandoned dumps, and other contaminated sites throughout the United States, once
thought to be of little or no value, are being transformed into viable commercial, industrial, and
residential developments, parks and other recreational areas, and wildlife habitats. A large number of
other Superfund sites, including removal sites, have potential for similar uses after they are cleaned up.
The Superfund program is tracking information on over 500 sites that are in actual or planned use. In
some cases the entire site is in use, while in others only a portion of the site is being utilized. The
Superfund Program developed the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use (SWRAU) measure that identifies
sites where the entire site is ready for reuse. At the end of Fiscal Year 2009, 409 sites had been designated
as SWRAU (EPA 2010d).3
Many communities are benefiting
from the revitalization of over 500
Superfund sites, which are being
used or prepared for use for
commercial, industrial, residential,
ecological, public service, military,
and agricultural purposes.
The Superfund site tracking information provides valuable
insight into the range of community impacts. Superfund sites are
being used for commercial, industrial, recreational, residential,
and other purposes. Many sites have mixed uses. For example, a
.... . , . , . , business park development may also include parkland or other
commercial, industrial, residential, ^i in ^ i •>. i • i c i • i
greenspace. Cleaned up Superfund sites are being used tor high-
rise office buildings, retail centers, intermodal transportation
facilities, port facilities, airports, restaurants, residences, and
indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including golf courses
and soccer fields. Thus, in addition to eliminating or reducing the disamenities associated with Superfund
sites, many communities have benefited from economic and other uses of the land.
5.2 Superfund Sites Not Yet Being Used
There are hundreds of NPL sites where cleanup construction has been completed, but the site is not
currently being used. Some sites are simply not ready for reuse. For others, there may be lingering
concerns that discourage reuse; the local economy may be too stagnant to warrant use at this time; the
local civic leaders, planners, and developers may not yet have come to agreement on local land use plans;
or institutional controls restrict the use too severely for many types of development and a specialized
project has not yet been proposed. While some of these sites may never be redeveloped, experience with
previous Superfund site redevelopments indicates that many of them can ultimately overcome these
obstacles and be put, partially or completely, into beneficial use. As with previous redevelopments, reuse
activities at these sites will also depend on community and market needs. Although little reuse and
community impact information is available for these sites, there is no reason to expect that redevelopment
of these sites would not be similar to the reuse that has occurred at other sites.
3 These estimates do not include redevelopment that might have occurred on the approximately 40,000 sites that have been
investigated, many of which were found to require little or no federal cleanup activities.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 12
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
Meanwhile, the site investigations and cleanups at these sites Thousands of sites have been
have reduced or eliminated the actual, perceived, and potential 'nvest'iated and made available
, ,., , • . , • , • . j -., ., .. , • for reuse. There are no data on
health and environmental risks associated with these sites and, in , ,
, . ., . „. ,. . . -,,.' . how many are in productive reuse.
many cases, improved site aesthetics. Ihe elimination or blight ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and uncertainty is a first step toward improved quality of life in
the affected communities.
5.3 Investigated Sites with Reuse Potential
Since the early 1980s, more than 40,000 sites with potential contamination have been reported to EPA.
Because these sites were suspected of being contaminated, property owners and developers were reluctant
to market or develop them and prospective buyers looked elsewhere. Through the Superfund program,
these sites were assessed and the extent of the risk determined. By defining the risk or lack of risk,
Superfund has removed a major obstacle to their reuse. There is little information on the reuse of these
properties because they were never included on the Superfund National Priorities List (EPA 201 Of).
5.4 Off-Site Effects
The cleanup and reuse of a Superfund site also affects the surrounding community. Abandoned dumps,
contaminated industrial facilities, and landfills can hamper both on-site and off-site development, are
unsightly, emit odors, and may be associated with both real and perceived health and environmental risks.
As a result of this negative perception, businesses are reluctant to locate or expand in the area, and the
general quality of life and property values are diminished. By removing the sources of this negativism and
uncertainty, cleanup and redevelopment of these sites have led to the following positive impacts for many
communities:
> Reduced disamenities and uncertainty associated with contaminated sites can lead to reductions in
actual and perceived health risks, and improvements in the area's aesthetics and general quality of
life.
> A redeveloped Superfund site, in combination with improved neighborhood quality of life, can
function as a catalyst for additional development in the area.
> Both on-site and off-site development generates jobs, income, and tax revenue for local
communities.
> Superfund sites have been revitalized to provide sports fields, green space, and other amenities.
> Increased off-site, as well as on-site, development can increase the efficiency in the use of local and
regional infrastructure. Increased efficiency results in better services and lower cost per capita when
infrastructure is spread over a greater number of individuals and businesses.
> Since most Superfund sites are in built up areas, their redevelopment contributes to Smart Growth
objectives, by diverting development that might have gone to greenfield sites in less accessible
locations with lower housing and employment densities. This type of tradeoff generally results in
reduced energy use, emissions of greenhouse gasses and other substances, and stormwater runoff.
> Studies have indicated that real estate values are often diminished by the presence of Superfund
sites in an area and that, after cleanup, values may eventually recover, in whole or in part, at many
sites. Thus, property values are, to some extent, an indicator of value of cleanup and redevelopment.
However, the interpretation of this indicator, which does not necessarily measure all of the value of
a cleanup, is not straightforward. This indicator is discussed in greater detail in Section 5.5.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 13
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
Why Are There So Many Different Estimates of Superfund's Impact on Property Value?
The following factors confound estimates of Superfund's property value impacts, contributing to the
difficulties encountered in collecting and analyzing data to evaluate impacts, and to the disparity of
results. Many previous studies did not address one or more of these factors.
> The characteristics of the site, which often can influence market reaction (sites that are more
visible, have noxious odors or a history of fires, explosions, or other events, or contain especially
fearsome environmental contaminants such as radioactive materials, may be more likely to have
negative property value effects)
> Site size, which was not always explicitly considered in some previous property value studies
> Perceptions of buyers and sellers regarding the extent of the real and perceived health and
environmental effects
> Media attention and interest of local and national public interest groups
> Knowledge and perceptions of the local population regarding hazardous waste sites,
remediation approaches, and future prospects for cleaned up sites
> Socioeconomic characteristics of the neighborhood
> Economic conditions in the area
> Population density and other measures of neighborhood characteristics
> Cleanup approach and timeliness
> Nature and extent of redevelopment
> Stage of cleanup (Property value effects can operate differently depending on the stage of the
cleanup. For some sites, a significant impact occurs prior to discovery; for others, the news of
the discovery triggers a negative market reaction. The release of site investigation and feasibility
studies, or the publication of the ROD can trigger a partial or complete price rebound, because
these events are signs that the "problem" will be resolved. Completion of construction or
delisting can also lead to rebound, although sometimes price rebound could take years.)
5.5 Property Values as Indicators of Impacts and Potential Benefits
The disamenities associated with Superfund sites often result in a general decline in the quality of life and
property values for both residential and non-residential properties in the area. Thus, property values are a
powerful indicator of the extent of the real and perceived negative impacts of Superfund sites on
communities. Estimating the extent of this effect is complex and subject to extensive qualifications and
explanation. Nevertheless, the available information provides useful insight regarding property values.
The information indicates that the impact of a Superfund site on property values varies widely from site to
site and area to area. Generally, the presence of a site tends to reduce property values in the vicinity of a
site, and various response actions may eventually lead to a recovery of these values, in whole or in part, at
many sites. These results are not universal, the recovery is not always complete, and, for revitalized sites,
it is uncertain how much of the recovery is due to the cleanup versus the redevelopment. For some insight
into the nature of the uncertainty of the property value impact, see the text box (EPA 2009c)
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 14
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
6. Reduction of Harm in Emergency Situations
While remedial efforts at large sites with long-term cleanup projects (mostly NPL sites) is the most
visible part of the Superfund program, the removal program has also been active in protecting millions of
people from releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances. This program is at the center of the
nation's efforts to respond to emergencies involving hazardous substances. It is responsible for short-term
cleanup actions and emergency responses involving hazardous substances. Because of the variety of
activities under this program, this section provides a primarily qualitative discussion of the program.
The Superfund Program Plays a Central Role in Emergency Response and Emergency
Response Planning in the United States:
> Superfund staff responds to hundreds of spills and accidents involving hazardous substances
each year.
> EPA maintains teams of emergency response personnel who provide on-scene technical advice
and assistance in all 50 states and territories.
> Superfund plays a leading role in contingency planning for all types of emergencies with other
federal, state, and local organizations.
> EPA provides training to police, fire, and other first-responders.
Most removal and emergency actions are conducted at sites that are not on the NPL. EPA classifies
removal actions into three categories: emergency responses, time-critical actions, and non-time critical
actions. Non-time critical actions generally follow procedures and practices similar to that of NPL sites.
Emergency and time-critical removal actions involve a system of partnerships and coordination with a
network of federal, state, and local agencies and EPA staff in all 10 regions. Some of the key components
of this system are:
> On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs). EPA staff includes 250 OSCs in its 10 regional offices. The OSC
is the federal official responsible for monitoring or directing responses to all oil spills and hazardous
substance releases reported to the federal government. The OSC coordinates all federal efforts with,
and provides support and information to, local, state, and regional response communities. These
individuals assist and support police, fire, public health, medical emergency management, public
works, and other first-responders and related organizations. EPA OSCs have primary responsibility
for spills and releases to inland areas and waters, while U.S. Coast Guard OSCs have responsibility
for coastal waters and the Great Lakes.
> EPA's Environmental Response Team (ERT). The ERT is a group of EPA technical experts that
provide around-the-clock advice and assistance at the scene of hazardous substance releases,
offering expertise in such areas as waste treatment, biology, chemistry, hydrology, geology, and
engineering. The ERT can provide support to the full range of emergency response actions,
including unusual or complex emergency incidents. For example, they maintain a diving team that
is capable of performing underwater hazardous substance recovery. The ERT has been active in all
50 states, all U.S. territories and Commonwealths, and 28 foreign countries.
> Contingency Planning. Through the National Response Framework and National Contingency
Plan, EPA plays a leading role in coordinating with federal, state, and local agencies in developing
and maintaining contingency plans with different levels of geographic scope. These plans form the
backbone of the country's efforts to prepare for and coordinate responses to emergency incidents.
> Training First Responders. EPA has provided first-responder training for thousands of state and
local personnel.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 15
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
Superfund Technical Assistance for National Emergencies
> Anthrax Contamination in a Senate Office Building. Shortly after the discovery of anthrax contamination
in the Hart Senate Office Building in 2001, EPA-led efforts to determine the extent of the problem in all
Congressional office buildings and to decontaminate the Hart Building. This type of monitoring and
decontamination of anthrax in public buildings had never been attempted previously.
> World Trade Center Response. EPA had an important role in responding to terrorism after the World
Trade Center and Pentagon attacks on September 11, 2001. Within hours, the On Scene Coordinators
(OSCs) and Emergency Response Team (ERT) staff were monitoring air and water quality to determine
whether they posed residual threats to human health and the environment. EPA staff provided worker
health and safety support, made respirators available to all on-scene personnel, and worked to remove
residual hazardous substances, such as fuel in tanks, in the collapsed buildings.
> Hurricane Katrina Response. In the aftermath of this massive hurricane that devastated the Gulf Coast in
August 2005, EPA emergency response personnel and contractors worked closely with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and state and local agencies to assess the damage, test health
and environmental conditions, and coordinate cleanup activities.
6.1 Typical Emergency Response Actions
Because each release incident is different, EPA's emergency response activities vary widely in terms of
the method of response and site-specific situations, such as weather conditions, accessibility, and
proximity to nearby communities. Some typical emergency response actions may include the following:
> Removing hazardous substances in soil or containers;
> Burning or otherwise treating and destroying hazardous substances;
> Draining waste ponds or repairing leaky waste disposal pits so that hazardous substances do not
seep into the ground;
> Using chemicals to neutralize, absorb, or otherwise stop the spread of the hazardous substances;
> Encasing hazardous substances in place or otherwise ensuring that winds or rain do not move them;
> Providing a safe supply of drinking water to people affected by hazardous substance contamination;
> Temporarily relocating residents affected by hazardous substance contamination while cleanup
activities take place; and
> Installing fences to prevent direct contact with hazardous substances.
6.2 Removal Program Accomplishments
Since 1980, the Superfund Removal Program has responded to numerous and diverse threats:
> EPA has conducted over 9,400 removal actions, most of which were time-critical or emergency
actions.
> EPA has responded to a variety of incidents involving hazardous substances, including:
• Fire and explosions at operating or abandoned facilities, such as tire fires;
• Truck accidents and train derailments;
• Cleanup and monitoring of mercury contamination at schools and private residences;
• Removal and disposal of chemicals abandoned on roadsides in vehicles or in abandoned or
bankrupt facilities or warehouses; and
• Cleanup and monitoring of hazardous substance releases due to natural disasters, such as floods
(e.g., Hurricane Katrina in 2005).
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 16
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
> Since 1980, EPA has participated in the development and management of a system of federal, state,
and local responders who field thousands of reports of hazardous substances releases each year from
all over the country.
> Over two million people have been provided with a safe supply of drinking water (either bottled
water or hook-up to safe local water systems) when their drinking water became contaminated.
> Thousands of people have been moved from the vicinity of dangerous sites and given temporary
housing. Most of these people were able to return home as soon as the EPA made the site safe.
When necessary, the emergency response program permanently relocated people.
> Superfund actions have resulted in the containment or treatment of hazardous wastes to make sites
safe, including: millions of cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris, billions of gallons of
contaminated liquids, and hundreds of million gallons of polluted water (EPA 2008).
In addition to the direct benefits of protecting the public health and safety and the environment, the
emergency response program contributes to the general psychological health of the public. By ensuring
the public and businesses that the government has systems and procedures in place in case of an
emergency, the Superfund program improves the general sense of security, which is needed for peace of
mind and a healthy business climate.
7. Contributions to Other Cleanup Programs
While the Superfund program is primarily focused on
remedial and emergency responses, it has directly and
indirectly made substantial contributions to the
development and operations of other cleanup programs.
Other hazardous waste cleanup programs in the U.S. can
be grouped into six major categories—RCRA corrective
action, Underground Storage Tanks (UST), Department
of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), other
federal agencies, and state and brownfield cleanups. Over
the past 2-1/2 decades, approximately 500,000 sites have
been remediated under these pro-grams.4 The cleanup
and, in many cases, redevelopment of these sites have
had substantial impacts that parallel those described
earlier for Superfund on human health, community
revitalization, the environment, and emergency response
and preparedness.
Other Cleanup Programs Influenced by
Superfund are Substantial
> Other hazardous waste cleanup programs
(RCRA corrective action, UST, DOD, DOE,
other federal agencies, and state and brown-
field cleanups) collectively have addressed
hundreds of thousands of contaminated
sites in the past and, over the next 30 years,
will address an estimated nearly 300,000
sites.
> The impacts of these programs on human
health, the environment, and the vitality of
communities, are enormous, though diffi-
cult to quantify in terms of social welfare
benefits measures.
It would be difficult to formally quantify the impacts of the cleanups addressed under all the cleanup
programs, and to quantify the role of Superfund's influence on them. The sites in these programs
represent a heterogeneous mix of thousands of different situations around the country. Nevertheless, it is
of interest to qualitatively discuss Superfund's impacts on these programs:
> The regulations and technical guidance developed under the Superfund program have helped shape
those used by other federal cleanup programs and state Superfund and other hazardous waste
programs. Some states, such as Illinois, New Jersey, and Washington, have adopted or adapted a
Approximate number of sites already cleaned up = 1,080 Superfund sites (EPA 2010a) + 22,000 DOD sites (DOD 2009) +
6,000 DOE sites (DOE 2010 and EPA 2004a), + 96,000 state and private party sites as of 2001 (ELI, 2002) + 388,000 UST sites
(EPA 2010b) = 513,000. This estimate does not include state sites cleaned up after 2001, civilian (non-DOD and non-DOE)
federal agency sites, and RCRA corrective action sites.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Page 17
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
number of EPA technical and management guidance materials for their cleanup programs, such as
EPA's risk assessment guidance and soil screening guidance.
Examples of Superfund Regulations and Guidance Adopted by Illinois
> "Regulated Substance" means any hazardous waste as defined under Section 101(14) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-510) and petroleum products
including crude oil or any fraction thereof, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable
for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas). [14 ILCS 5/58.2]
> "SSL" means soil screening levels as defined in EPA's Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide and So/7
Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document, as incorporated by reference in Illinois regulations
governing cleanup.
> Risk Assessment guidance for Superfund, Vol. I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance:
Standard Default Exposure Factors," OSWER Directive 9285.6-03 (March 1991).
> Risk Assessment guidance for Superfund, Vol. I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance,
Dermal Risk Assessment Interim Guidance, Draft (August 18,1992).
> Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document, EPA Publication No. EPA/540/R-95/128, PB 96-
963502 (May 1996).
> Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, OSWER Directive 9355.4-24
(December 2002).
> Superfund's cleanup levels have driven research and development efforts by government and the
private sector. For example, R&D to develop less expensive, faster site characterization and cleanup
technologies has been driven by the Program's requirement to meet maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) in all actual or potential drinking water aquifers, except when it is technically impractical
as well as by Superfund's nine remedy-selection criteria. Many of these technologies have been
adopted by state, brownfield, UST, and RCRA programs.
The Departments of Defense and Energy have large environmental research programs supporting their
CERCLA cleanups. These programs, plus EPA-funded research, development, and demonstration efforts,
have led to improved site characterizations, cleanup practices, and risk assessments that have helped make
cleanups more effective, cheaper, and faster. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
These efforts have led to implementation of useful
technologies, such as in situ chemical oxidation
(ISCO), bioremediation, and advanced site
characterization approaches.
During the 1990s, the approach to site characteri-
zation involved a phased series of site mobili-
.• T- i u * u-i- +• j j j expensive, quicker cleanups with a lower
zations. Each subsequent mobilization depended . ' , . . .
. , . ^ carbon and energy footprint.
upon the results of the previous samples taken,
with the results not becoming available until two
to three months after collection. Now the approach
is to use new equipment which provides results
immediately. Tasks that used to take years can
now be done in months, increasing the speed and
accuracy of the site investigation.
To meet the MCL cleanup goals for aquifers,
groundwater pump and treat (P&T) systems were
the technology of choice in the 1980s and 1990s. There were no good alternatives. Pump and treat
systems are expensive to build and operate, require considerable amounts of fuel or electricity, and can
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 18
Superfund, DOD, and DOE Sponsored
Research Has Led to a More Efficient
Program and Better Cleanups
> In-situ chemical oxidation can replace or
reduce the need to pump and treat ground-
water in many applications, resulting in less
> Today's approach to site characterization
enables more accurate delineation of subsur-
face conditions at lower cost and at a fraction
of the time it previously took.
> Bioremediation of chlorinated solvents, which
was thought to be impossible in the 1990s, is
now the remedy of choice at many sites,
allowing the reduction or elimination of long-
term pump and treat remedies.
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
take long periods of time for aquifer cleanup. Today, there are a number of alternatives. For example,
bioreme-diation of chlorinated solvents, which was not thought possible in the 1990s, is now the remedy
of choice at many sites. In-situ chemical oxidation is now being used to accelerate treatment of contami-
nants at source zones. This technology is becoming common at UST and dry cleaner sites.
Superfund's routine collaboration with other federal agencies and state programs, combined with its
technical, management, and community involvement activities have contributed to the success of all
waste cleanup programs currently operating in the U.S.
> The Superfund program's technology transfer and assistance efforts have helped other cleanup pro-
grams become aware of and adopt the latest and most effective techniques. Superfund operates one
of the world's most extensive collections of site characterization and cleanup information on its
CLU-IN web portal (www.cluin.org). The program also sponsors conferences, training, and
publication of numerous informational documents. Superfund training programs address all aspects
of environmental response, site characterization and management, cleanup approaches, and
community involvement. Thousands of people have attended Superfund training events. In addition
to Superfund staff, participants have included other federal, state and local government personnel,
consulting and engineering firms, technology vendors, and others.
> Most cleanup programs follow site management practices that parallel those of Superfund, including
requirements for initial assessments, emergency response, site investigations to determine cleanup
needs, evaluation of alternative cleanup approaches, efforts to ensure public participation in deci-
sion making regarding site cleanup and reuse, and remedy decision criteria. For example, the RCRA
Facility Investigation (RFI) and Corrective Measures Study (CMS) process is modeled on the Su-
perfund Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) (EPA 1989). Although state Superfund
programs vary from state to state, many have authorities similar to the federal program (ELI 2002).
> EPA has shared the lessons it has learned in developing effective methods for involving
communities and collaborating among stakeholders at Superfund cleanup projects with other federal
and state cleanup officials. EPA has developed comprehensive procedures and guidance for
community involvement activities, and these procedures have become a model for other federal and
state cleanup programs. For example, one of EPA's goals in funding state and tribal response
programs is to have states and tribes include in their ^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^
response program mechanisms and resources to provide
meaningful opportunities for public participation, at the
local level... (EPA 2010c). The funding guidance for
this program references Superfund's community
involvement policies.
In addition to the sites where cleanup has been completed, a
significant amount of cleanup work remains to be done. A
December 2004 report estimated that under current
regulations and practices, nearly 300,000 hazardous waste
sites will need to be cleaned up over the next three decades
(see table). This estimate does not include sites where cleanup
is completed or ongoing, nor does it include estimates for
removal actions or oil spills. It is anticipated that the lessons
learned in Superfund cleanups will significantly benefit the
cleanups at these sites.
Estimated Number of Sites to
be Remediated: 2005-2034
NPL (non-federal) 736
RCRA corrective action 3,800
UST 125,000
DOD 6,400
DOE 5,000
Other federal agencies > 3,000
States and brownfields 150,000
Total 294,000
Source: U.S. EPA, Cleaning up the Nation's
Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends,
EPA542-R-04-015, December 2004.
Clu-in.org/marketstudy
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Page 19
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
8. Improved Environmental Practices by Industry
It has been argued that prevention of pollution is the most cost-effective way to protect the public and the
environment from exposure to hazardous substances. Prevention generally involves improving waste
management practices and modifying industrial and commercial processes to (a) use less hazardous
substances, (b) use less materials in general, and (c) reuse and recycle materials to the extent practicable.
Thus, a significant benefit occurs when industry improves its industrial practices to produce less waste,
better manage its waste, and use fewer hazardous substances. Such practices will avert hazardous waste
releases in the future. The reporting requirements and liability provisions of CERCLA, serve as powerful
incentives to deter risky industrial and commercial practices that can result in releases: Some factors that
deter risky practices include:
> EPA has often used its authority to identify parties responsible for creating or contributing to the
pollution at a site.
> EPA has often used its authority to either compel responsible parties to conduct necessary
hazardous waste cleanups, or to recover the cost of such actions.
> Citizens may bring suits to enforce CERCLA provisions.
> Federal agencies, states, and tribes may bring actions for damages to natural resources.
> Liability can extend to site owners, facility operators, waste transporters, or anyone who generates
hazardous substances.
> The liability is strict, joint, and several. There is no requirement for the responsible party's
hazardous substance to be the sole cause of the need for a cleanup. Legal proof of negligence is not
required, and conducting activities in accordance with standard industry practices is not considered
an adequate defense.
The potentially costly litigation and liabilities that may result from these provisions serve as a powerful
deterrent to poor environmental practices. This deterrence has contributed to the substantial improvement
in industrial processes and waste management practices over the past 30 years. However, it is difficult, if
not impossible, to determine how much of this improvement is also attributable to other factors that have
been important over the past three decades. Some other factors that have contributed to deterrence
include:
> RCRA and state regulations that directly specify requirements for the management of hazardous
substances, as well as penalties for non-compliance.
> Under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), EPA has
established an inventory of routine toxic chemical emissions from certain facilities (Toxic Release
Inventory, or TRI). This source makes information on a company's environmental performance
readily available to the general public, regulatory authorities, and the investment community.
> In recent years, there has been a general trend of more complete public environmental reporting by
corporations, which impacts the investment evaluations and advice in the financial community, and
highlights a moral responsibility to protect the environment adopted by many corporate managers.
Although it is impossible to determine the amount of the improvement in industry's environmental
performance that is attributed solely to the Superfund liability provisions, anecdotal evidence indicates
that it is substantial.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 20
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
9. Advances in Science and Technology
The Superfund program conducts and sponsors research, development, and demonstration efforts to (a)
advance site investigation and cleanup technologies, (b) expand the understanding of toxicology and
environmental processes associated with hazardous substances in the environment, and (c) examine the
epidemiology and health impacts associated with contaminated sites. These efforts have led to substantial
improvements in the efficiency and accuracy of site investigations and more effective, faster, and less
costly cleanups. A number of innovative treatment technologies allow cleanups to be conducted with
minimal physical disturbance to a site, thereby reducing potential disruptions to nearby communities and
ecosystems. Examples of successes of these efforts include:
> Advances in site investigation and cleanup technologies have improved our ability to respond to
emergency situations. For example, based upon results of EPA's research program, the Exxon
Corporation used bioremediation applications on many miles of shoreline in Prince William Sound,
Alaska to help remediate the materials spilled during the March 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. The
bioremediation technique applied involves adding nutrients to enhance the growth of bacteria
naturally present in the environment. These bacteria degrade certain toxic hydrocarbons in oil.
> Using information developed in EPA's research program and extensive experience gained from
cleanups of chemical spills and hazardous waste sites, EPA was able to develop and implement a
timely response to anthrax contamination in the Hart Senate office building in Washington, DC, and
other buildings in 2001. EPA selected, tested, and applied fumigants to successfully decontaminate
these buildings, the first cleanup of office buildings contaminated by a lethal form of anthrax.
> EPA has been instrumental in advancing the use of direct push rigs to replace rotary drilling in
many applications for the collection of subsurface soil and groundwater samples during site
investigations. Compared to conventional rotary drilling, direct push techniques employ more time-
saving tools, avoid use of drilling fluids, generate less investigation-derived waste and no drill
cuttings, require less field mobilization efforts and site disturbance, and generally require less than
half the drilling time. Employment of these technologies has resulted in faster, more appropriate,
and less costly cleanups.
> EPA has advanced methods for treating waste in place and for using natural processes, such as
bioremediation and phytoremediation, which have enabled the remediation of contaminated
materials to be conducted with a minimum of on-site and off-site physical disruption.
The Superfund program encourages the use of these and other advanced approaches through the operation
of cleanup technology databases, participating in public/private partnerships, sponsoring forums, and
supporting research and development projects conducted by EPA's Office of Research and Development,
the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and universities. For example, the Hazardous
Waste Clean-up Information (CLU-IN) web site is a tool frequently used by hazardous substance
remediation professionals and other parties for information about innovative site characterization and
treatment technologies.
10. Reduced Unidentified Potential Future Threats
The final category of impacts refers to reduction of the potential future threats that are not yet fully
defined, but may result from the release of hazardous substances into the environment. Although much
progress has been made in understanding how substances move through the subsurface, the science and
data available may be insufficient to predict long-term impacts of many types of releases. For example,
releases into very heterogeneous soil strata or fractured bedrock are difficult to delineate and may pose a
serious threat. One class of substances, known as dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs), can have
unpredictable effects many years into the future if not cleaned up. Once released into the soil or
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 21
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
groundwater, DNAPLs are difficult to detect. They are only marginally soluble in water (parts per
million) but are toxic at even lower levels (parts per billion).
Once substances are released into the subsurface, there may be considerable uncertainty regarding where
they will migrate, the chemical transformations they will undergo, and the effects they will have on
ecological systems and human health many years, or centuries, in the future. By preventing, controlling,
or cleaning up hazardous substance releases, Superfund actions are leading to the elimination or reduction
of these threats.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 22
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
11. Summary: Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
Under the Superfund program, vast amounts of hazardous substances have been cleaned up or isolated
from the environment, and incentives have been created to encourage good environmental practices.
The effects of these actions are summarized below:
Direct Effects
1. Improved Human Health. The reduction of potential hazardous substance exposure of people in the vicinity of
Superfund sites is likely to translate into diminished rates of a number of known and unknown acute and
chronic adverse health conditions. Many of these conditions are quite onerous, including cancer, congenital
abnormalities, reduced cognitive abilities in children, and cardiovascular disease.
2. Reduction or Reversal of Damages to Natural Resources. Damage to valuable natural resources in the vicinity
of Superfund sites has been mitigated and reversed. Many of these natural resources provide valuable services
necessary to sustain humans, including food and water, recreational opportunities, groundwater
replenishment, water filtration, and nutrient recycling. Superfund cleanups have also contributed to the
maintenance of habitats and ecological diversity.
3. Improved National Security. In thousands of emergency response efforts Superfund has reduced the risk of
harm when emergencies strike. EPA is using the experience in this work to improve emergency response
capabilities at all levels of government. These efforts have helped to (a) minimize or reverse harm to exposed
or injured persons, (b) prevent exposure of others, (c) enhance the capabilities of state and local first
responders through training, R&D, and technical assistance, and (d) improve emergency preparedness,
especially for emergencies that involve hazardous substances and biological contagions.
4. Improved Community Economics and Quality of Life. The evaluation, cleanup, and revitalization of Superfund
remedial and removal sites have increased the usability of land and led to substantial improvements in the
economy, aesthetics, and quality of life in many communities.
> Superfund actions have made hundreds of vacant or underutilized NPL sites and thousands of non-NPL
properties available for productive reuses of all kind, which has contributed to economic and community
development, improved quality of life, and reduced energy use in many communities.
> Through the Superfund program, the status of about 40,000 sites suspected of containing hazardous
substances has been determined, resolving uncertainty regarding potential risks, and removing a major
obstacle to the reuse of these sites.
Indirect Effects
5. Contributions to Other Cleanup Programs. Superfund has contributed substantially to the development and
operation of cleanup programs managed by states, tribes, and other federal programs, through funding, R&D,
technical assistance, and partnerships.
6. Improved Environmental Practices by Industry. The liability provisions in CERCLA, combined with EPA
compliance, outreach, and enforcement efforts have provided impetus for industry to (a) participate in state
voluntary and other cleanup programs, and (b) modify industrial processes and waste management practices
to reduce the risk of future hazardous substance releases into the environment.
7. Contributions to Environmental and Health Sciences and Technology Innovation. Through research,
development, demonstration, and technology transfer efforts, the Superfund program has advanced site
investigation and cleanup methods, knowledge of toxicology and environmental processes associated with
hazardous substances in the environment, and knowledge of the health impacts of hazardous substances.
8. Reduced Unidentified Potential Future Threats. Superfund actions reduce or eliminate threats that are not
fully defined at this time, primarily because we do not have the capability to fully predict the movement of
hazardous substances through groundwater, soil, and other media, the chemical transformation they undergo
in these media, and the ultimate environmental and human health impacts. In addition to providing a safer
environment, avoiding these threats results in a positive sense of well-being.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 23
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
References
DOD 2009. Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2008,
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), July 2009.
www.denix.osd.mil/portal/page/portal/denix/environment/cleanup/DERP
DOE 2010. Office of Environmental Management, Budget and Performance, DOE web site, April 2010.
www.em.doe.gov/pdfs/EM%20Corporate%20Performance%20Measures_Complex%20Level%20Re
v%2027_07_14_09.pdf
ELI 2002. An Analysis of State Superfund Programs, 50-State Study 2001 Update, Environmental Law
Institute, p. 13, November 2002.
EPA 1989. Interim Final RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Guidance, Volume I of IV, Development of
an RFI Work Plan and General Considerations for RCRA Facility Investigations, Waste Management
Division, Office of Solid Waste, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), EPA
530/SW-89-031, Volume I Page XXVI, May 1989. www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/correctiveaction/
resources/guidance/sitechar/
EPA 2004. Cleaning up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends, EPA 542-R-04-015,
OSWER, December 2004. www.cluin.org/marketstudy
EPA 2006. Reusing Superfund Sites, EPA-540-R-06-063, OSWER, October 2006. www.epa.gov/
superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/reusingsites.pdf
EPA 2007. Estimating U.S. Population Proximity to Superfund Sites, OSWER, March 15, 2007, p. 15.
EPA 2008. Emergency Response Program Accomplishments, OSWER web site, September 2008.
www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/er/hazsubs/accomps.htm
EPA 2009a. Analysis of Sure Database, OSWER, April, 2009.
EPA 2009b. State Brownfields and Voluntary Response Programs: An Update from the States, OSWER,
Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, 2009. http://earthl .epa.gov/swerosps/
bf/state tribal/pubs .htm
EPA 2009c. What does the Evidence Say about NPL Listing and Home Prices, OSWER, 2009.
www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/effects/property.html
EPA 2009d. Drinking Water sources and Protection, FAQs, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
web site, April, 2009. www.epa.gov/safewater/faq/faq.html#source
EPA 2010a. Superfund National Accomplishments Summary Fiscal Year 2009, EPA Web site, April
2010. www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/numbers09.html
EPA, 2010b. FY 2009 Annual Report on the Underground Storage Tank Program, OSWER, 2010.
www.epa.gov/oust/pubs/fy09_annual_ust_report_3-10.pdf
EPA 2010c. Funding Guidance for State and Tribal Response Programs Fiscal Year 2010, EPA-560-F-
09-520, OSWER, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, November 2009.
www.epa.gov/brownfields/proposal guide s/fylOST final.pdf
EPA 2010d. Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Reuse - Measure Outcome Highlights, Superfund
Redevelopment web site, OSWER, May 2010. www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/
effects/swrau.html#summary
EPA 2010e. Superfund redevelopment case studies and profiles, Superfund Redevelopment web site,
accessed April 1010. www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/info/index.html
EPA 201 Of. 40,000th Superfund Final Assessment Decision reached, OSWER web site, accessed May
2010. www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/news/fadstory.htm
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 24
-------
Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program
UCC. 1987. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socio-
Economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. New York: United Church of
Christ, Commission for Racial Justice.
U.S. GAO, 1983. Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial and Economic
Status of Surrounding Communities. RCED-83-168. Washington, DC: US Government Accounting
Office.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Page 25
------- |