1. United States Office of Solid Waste and EPA 540-K-96/004
Environmental Emergency Response June 1996
Protection Agency (5204G)
EPA Superfund Today
Superfund Today
Focus On Cleanup Costs
The Buck Stops Here Did You
Polluters are Paying for Most Know...?
Hazardous Waste Cleanups
Cleaning up hazardous waste situations where the public is ♦ In 1995 alone, over $670
is Superfund’s highest priority. at immediate risk from the million was spent cleaning
And the public’s demand that contamination, EPA will use the up hazardous waste.
polluters pay for cleanup also Trust Fund to pay for initial ♦ In 1995, polluters performed
makes it critical that EPA find cleanups and look for and 75% of new Superfund
those who are responsible. At negotiate with the polluters later. cleanups.
more and more Superfund sites, Whenever the Trust Fund is
♦ 78% of the Superfund Trust
polluters are “stepping up to the used, EPA attempts to recover Fund has come from chemi-
plate” to clean contaminated air, the cost of cleanup by taking cal, petroleum, and corpo-
soil, groundwater, and surface legal actions, if necessary, rate taxes.
water. This cooperation, coupl- against those responsible.
ed with EPA’s enforcement Regardless of who is res- ♦ 62% of the Trust Fund has
activity, is increasing the number been spent on site cleanup
ponsible for contaminating the
response.
of polluters involved in cleanup environment and who pays for
activities. In fact, in 1995, the cleanup in the long run, ♦ 700,000 tons of hazardous
those responsible for contam- reducing the threat to the public waste are produced in
ination performed 75% of new and the environment is EPA’s America every day.
Superfund cleanups and, since first and foremost concern.
1980, have committed to pay
more than $11 billion toward
these cleanups (see graph).
When those responsible for Those Responsible for Contamination
hazardous waste contamination Have Committed to Pay Over $11 Billion
cannot be found or are unable to From 1980 to 1995
pay, EPA uses money from the
Trust Fund, known as the
Superfund, to clean up the worst
of these sites. The Trust Fund is
financed mostly through a
special tax on the petroleum and
chemical industries, and from
environmental taxes collected
from industries whose
production has an impact on the
environment. In emergency
•June 1996• 1

2. A Nation Dealing With Hazardous Waste
What is the Problem... per year—enough to fill the manufacturing, such as gov-
Superdome in New Orleans ernments, the military, hospi-
Even though we know more about reducing and 1,500 times. tals, and universities. Munici-
controlling hazardous waste today than we did in the The waste comes from pal landfills, a combination of
past, America still produces 700,000 tons of hazard- many sources. Most of it is relatively harmless household
ous waste every day. That adds up to 250 million tons produced by manufacturers waste and some industrial
including makers of chemi- waste, also are a part of the
cals, petroleum, metal, tex- hazardous waste problem.
Municipal Manufacturing tiles, and electric equipment, Certain hazardous wastes are
Landfills as well as businesses that treat more harmful than others.
16% wood, produce food and pa- Some of these wastes have not
per, and undertake construc- been safely handled and have
tion. Other sources are non- polluted the environment.
56%
28%
Non-
manufacturing ...Who is Responsible...
Today we have the technol- parties did not break existing
Types of PRPs at Superfund Sites ogy and the laws to control laws when they disposed of
hazardous waste production and their hazardous wastes. How-
disposal. But yesterday’s waste ever, under today’s tougher
...and How Do We sites still exist. Figuring out environmental laws, they are
who is responsible for cleanup is considered responsible if they
Pay for Cleanup? a big job. caused the waste or even car-
Superfund requires those The public has demanded ried waste to a site. The PRPs
responsible for hazardous that those who produced and for a Superfund site can in-
waste sites to pay for or per- handled the waste clean it up. clude large or small compa-
form the cleanup. After a site At Superfund sites, EPA tries nies, past or present owners,
is discovered and any imme- to identify those likely to be individuals, and even Federal
diate dangers are taken care responsible for causing or con- agencies. Often a site, such as
of, EPA begins to search for tributing to the hazardous waste a landfill, will have hundreds
the PRPs. Some of the search contamination. They are called of PRPs because many differ-
techniques EPA uses are re- “potentially responsible par- ent individuals and groups
viewing site files, looking for ties,” or PRPs. Many of these have stored or sent waste there.
names on drums or other
materials on site, and inter-
viewing former employees or and money in the long run. If the PRPs do not cooperate, EPA can
neighbors of the site. Once either get a court order requiring them to perform the cleanup or
PRPs are located, EPA sends conduct the cleanup itself using the Trust Fund. If EPA conducts
them notice letters. A notice the cleanup, the Agency can then recover in court up to three times
letter summarizes informa- the amount of the cost of cleanup plus penalties. The Trust Fund
tion EPA has used to identify also pays for cleanup if PRPs cannot be found or if they are unable
the PRPs and encourages or unwilling to pay.
them to work with EPA to Sharing in Federal cleanup costs are the states where sites are
agree on cleanup responsi- located. States must contribute at least 10% of these cleanup costs
bility for the site. and are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the sites.
PRPs may be responsible When EPA does negotiate a cleanup plan with the PRPs, site
for the entire cost of the work begins under EPA supervision. This agreement with PRPs
cleanup; therefore, negotiat- enables the parties involved to develop a fair cleanup plan and
ing a fair cleanup plan with quickly and efficiently make sites safe again for people and the
EPA early will save them time environment. t
•June 1996• 2

3. Superfund’s Trust Fund
Aiming Dollars at Cleanups
People sometimes imagine How has the Trust Fund used to research and develop
expensive lawyers, endless money been spent? The illustra- new cleanup technologies, and
courtroom battles, and lawsuits tion below shows that most of were distributed to other EPA
when Superfund is discussed. Superfund’s 1995 budget was offices and Federal agencies.
In fact, EPA spends 62% of the spent on site cleanup response. For example, every year the
Trust Fund on actual site This includes testing and sam- Agency for Toxic Substances
cleanup. Enforcement activi- pling, relocating affected people and Disease Registry receives
ties, such as suing potentially or providing them with alternate Trust Fund money to perform
responsible parties (PRPs) to water supplies, running com- critical health studies at
recover cleanup costs and munity outreach programs, as Superfund sites. The remain-
negotiating court orders, use well as managing and conduct- ing 9% of the Trust Fund was
only 15%. Since 1987, ing site cleanups. Some of the used to manage Superfund pro-
Superfund has collected $1.6 Trust Fund dollars also were gram activities. t
billion through cost recovery
efforts.
In most cases, Trust Fund
money is used to clean up sites
where there is very little hope
of either finding those respon-
sible, or getting them to pay
for or conduct the cleanup. For
example, if a site or an area of
contamination is discovered
but the polluting company has
gone bankrupt, the Trust Fund
takes over. The Trust Fund is
authorized by Congress as part
of the Superfund law, and the
money pays for everything re-
lated to cleanup from bulldoz-
ers to file folders. How Superfund $$ Were Spent (1995)
What About the Little Guy?
EPA considers the amount and be a neighborhood dry cleaner that protect small hazardous waste
harmfulness of waste contributed sent a small amount of hazardous contributors from future legal
or the level of involvement at a waste to a landfill. For parties actions brought by EPA or by
site when negotiating a cleanup contributing an even smaller other PRPs. This is an important
plan with potentially responsible amount of waste than de minimis benefit, because parties some-
parties (PRPs). Some may have parties, EPA uses the term de times sue each other for money
only contributed a small amount micromis. in an effort to lower their cleanup
of hazardous waste. Others may EPA works closely with both costs. De minimis and de
have contributed a large amount, de minimis and de micromis PRPs micromis settlements save time
but it might not have been very when negotiating for the cleanup and money for all parties in-
harmful. De minimis, a Latin of a site. This allows small haz- volved and provide settlors with
term meaning “at the least,” de- ardous waste contributors to agree a high level of confidence that
scribes these two types of PRPs to their fair share of cleanup costs they have met their responsibili-
in the Superfund program. For and complete the negotiation pro- ties for a clean site.
example, a de minimis party might cess. These settlements also t
•June 1996• 3

4. Working Together at Bypass 601
EPA and Polluters Launch a
Successful Joint Cleanup Effort
CONCORD, NORTH CARO- local area (including private (defined as those who had sent
LINA—At first glance, the residences and small businesses). less than a truckload of batteries
Bypass 601 Groundwater Harmful contaminants such as or 40,000 lbs to the site). Many
Contamination Superfund site lead and sulfuric acid leaked into polluters could not be found.
in Concord, North Carolina the soil and groundwater. EPA Despite the variety and
seemed like a cleanup nightmare studies revealed that site cleanup number of PRPs at Bypass 601,
for EPA—4,000 possible would require solidification and EPA’s goal was to treat each one
polluters being investigated for stabilization of lead-contam- as fairly as possible. Highlights
serious lead contamination of inated soils, and pumping and of EPA’s cleanup settlement
the site’s soil and groundwater. treating of the contaminated included cleanup agreements
However, thanks to a groundwater—carrying an with 80 de minimis PRPs,
cooperative effort between EPA estimated $40 million price tag. protection for all de micromis
and the potentially responsible EPA identified the main and de minimis parties from
parties (PRPs), a fair being sued by other
settlement plan Working together, EPA and the PRPs, and allocation of
emerged that will potentially responsible parties $10 million from the
allow cleanup of the arrived at a cost-effective way to Trust Fund to cover
site to move forward. polluters who were not
The plan calls for move cleanup forward... found or could not pay
cleanup to be funded for cleanup. EPA also
by the polluters—based on the polluter at the site as the owner encouraged other larger polluters
amount of hazardous waste they and operator of the MSR facility. to join a steering committee,
contributed to the site—as well However, the list of PRPs which then negotiated a separate
as by the Trust Fund, for the costs included many more polluters. cleanup agreement with the
that cannot be covered by the Under Superfund law, people Agency. EPA will supervise the
polluters. who had sent or transported cleanup activities. The
For a number of years, batteries to the site were liable settlement also means EPA will
batteries were disposed of at for cleanup. This raised the get back 100% of the money it
the Martin Scrap Recycling number of PRPs to more than had already spent at the site.
(MSR) facility located on 4,000. EPA classified 2,400 of Working together, EPA and
Bypass 601. Once the lead them as de micromis parties (at the PRPs arrived at a cost-
plates were removed for scrap, this site, defined as those parties effective way to move cleanup
the leftover casings were buried who had sent fewer than 10 lead forward at the Bypass 601
in the ground at the facility, and batteries or less than 200 lbs) Groundwater Contamination
at ten other source areas in the and another 115 as de minimis site.
For More Information on the Superfund Program...
EPA Superfund Hotline
(800) 424-9346 or TDD: (800) 553-7672
Internet: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/
Information Resources Center
OWPE
(202) 260-5922, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460;
Printed on Internet: www.epa.gov/epapages/natlibra/hqirc/services.htm
recycled paper
•June 1996• 4