This study was conducted in order to learn more about superfund sites and the management of such sites

1. Superfund Sites
Vanessa Chappell
Physiology Seminar Abstract #3

2. Overview
 What is Superfund?
 What happens when a polluted site is discovered?
 Who pays to clean up the pollution?
 Process details

3. What is Superfund?
*CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act) was established in
1980 by the EPA to fund cleanup of sites
contaminated by hazardous substances and
pollutants.
*“Superfund” is the trust fund of the monies (mainly
from taxes) set aside to cover costs of cleanup if
responsibly parties cannot or will not pay for
remediation
*The act was passed after several sites made national
headlines

4. Love Canal, New York (1978)
 It started as a dream in 1910. A man
named William Love wanted to create
hydro- electric power near Niagara Falls by
digging a ditch (canal) between the 2
rivers. The project ran out of money before
it was completed. What was left was just a
big hole in the ground.
 From Dream to Nightmare. In the 1920s
the canal was turned into a municipal and
industrial chemical dumpsite. The Hooker
Chemical Company began using the
abandoned canal as a chemical disposal
dump in the 1930s. Between 1942-1953
Hooker Chemical buried 22,000 tons of

5. Lesson Learned at Love Canal: Timeline
• 1978 after residents noticed chemical pools in their yards
and basements a local protest was organized. As a result
Love Canal was declared a federal health emergency
• 1978 closed school & ordered evacuation. (pregnant
women and babies evacuated first)
• The country learned about one of the worst
environmental disasters and the disastrous impact of
chemicals on the environment & human health.
• 1983 –site was listed on the NPL
• 1999-clean up ended after 21 years and $400 million in
clean up costs
• 2004 removed from NPL and today the site has been

6. Valley of the Drums, Kentucky (1979)
 an uncontrolled dumping ground for all kinds
of industrial waste for years before the
authorities paid it any mind (which they did in
the late ’60s, when it caught fire)
 The site once held more than 15,000 leaky
drums. Many of the drums contained (and
thus, leaked) latex paint which resulted in PCB
contamination
 In 2003, the nearby creek sediment was
discovered to be saturated with deadly PCBs.
And in 2008, alarm was raised again when
more rusting chemical drums that the cleanup
crew missed were found on the periphery of
the property. Further analysis showed the
area is still contaminated by PCBs.

7. Times, Beach, Missouri (1982)
 A local businessman marketed used motor oil
that was mixed with dioxin as a dust deterant
 1982 a reported acquired an official document
detailing dioxin sites in Missouri and Times
Beach was near the top
 The soil in the area tested positive for both
PCB’s and Dioxin
 Just 3 days after the samples were taken the
town suffered a massive flood described as the
“500yr flood” due to it’s severity (water crested
at 43 ft)
 Homes were destroyed and locals were advised
not to reinhabit the area due to the dioxin
 1983 President Reagan granted a buyout
through the Superfund Program
1925

8. What happened to the town?
 Missouri had a record number of Dioxin
contaminated sites and Town Beach was home
to over 50% of the contamination
 1995 an incinerator was placed on site and
265,000 tons of dioxin containing material was
burned
 1997 clean up was complete The price tag was
close to $200, 000 million
 Today the site is home to a 419 acre state park
but the only building that remains is an old
road house that serves as a souvenir shop with
one dainty wall that serve as a haunting
reminder of the damage a single person can
cause to a community.

9. Goals of the EPA and Superfund
 Protect human health and the environment
 Make responsible parties pay for clean-up
 Return polluted land to productive use

10. Who Pays for clean up?
 The goal is for the responsible party (RP) to be held accountable and to pay for
clean up
 If the RP can not (or will not) pay then superfund will pay and afterwards sue the
RP to collect monies spent on their behalf.

11. How is the Superfund Trust Supported?
 EPA retains money received through settlements with PRPs in these site-specific
accounts to conduct planned future cleanup work at the site based on the terms
of the settlement agreement.
 More than $6.9 billion has been made available in special accounts through the
deposit of funds from PRP settlements and interest earned. Approximately $3.6
billion of that amount has been spent on Superfund site cleanups. The balance of
$3.3 billion is planned to be used for ongoing or future Superfund cleanup work.

12. Types of Response
 Removal reponse
 Time critical actions
 Remedial response
 Non critical action
 Emergency situations
 Tanker spills
 Toxic waste leakage
 Drinking water contamination

13. Non-emergency situations
 Remedial response action
 addresses long term cleanup actions that do not pose an immediate threat
 EPA process begins

14. Process
 Determine if site posses a threat
 Determine if the site qualifies for
clean-up under superfund
 Determine Hazard Ranking Score
(HRS)
 1-100; scores over 28.5

15. Risk Evaluation
 Generally, facilities with overall scores of 28.5 and greater on the HRS are eligible
for the NPL.
 This is based on how harmful the substance(s) are and:
 Whether they pose a threat to the human food chain
 Does it threaten the air or ground water?
 Is the substance migrating from the source?

16. National Priority List (NPL)
1844 Superfund sites on the National Priorities List
in the United States. 18 of which are in Alabama (2
of these are right here in Calhoun County!)

17. Feasibility study
 Once a site is placed on the NPL, further investigation into the
problems at the site and the best way to address them is required.
This is called a Remedial Investigation (RI) and the Feasibility Study
(FS). The RI usually involves gathering and analyzing
 numerous samples of soil, surface water, ground water, and waste
from locations throughout the site and near the site borders. The RI
also involves assessing risks posed by the site.
 The analysis of potential treatment methods or “cleanup
alternatives" is called a FS. During the FS, the advantages and
disadvantages of each cleanup method are explored.

18. Proposed Plan
 Summarizes cleanup alternatives studied in the FS Includes information on the site history,
community participation, the nature and extent of the contamination, and the reasonably
anticipated future land uses at the site
 Highlights EPA’s recommended cleanup method
 EPA provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the Proposed Plan in writing or in
person, and hosts a public meeting to discuss the recommended cleanup method.
 EPA prefers cleanups that will allow for reuse of the site if possible.
 Community input at this phase is critical to making good choices.

19. Record of Decision (ROD)
 The cleanup method ultimately chosen for the site, and the reasons for
the selection, are set forth in the ROD. The ROD is a document that is
available to the public and explains all the activities that occurred prior to
selection of a cleanup method, and describes how the cleanup method
will be protective of human health and the environment. It also contains
the responsiveness summary and shows how those comments were
factored into the final decision

20. Remedial Design (RD)
 The RD is the phase during which the plans for the cleanup method are
carefully designed. The RD is based on the cleanup method described in
the ROD. As the plans for constructing the cleanup are developed and
reviewed, more sampling may be needed to further define the location and
amount of contamination.
 EPA may provide the public a fact sheet and hold a briefing describing the
final remedial design.

21. Remedial Action (RA)
 The RA starts the actual cleanup at a site. For example, the cleanup
method may involve building wells to inject chemicals or organisms into
the soil that will break down the contamination.
 The RA phase is similar to building a house. Those responsible for the
cleanup obtain all the materials needed and follow the plans that were
developed during the RD phase. During the RA phase, construction
equipment will be operating on site to conduct the cleanup.
 During the RA phase, the community should be informed about the work
to be done including planned work hours, truck traffic, and health and
safety precautions.

22. Relisting and Return to Productive Use
 As early in the process as possible, EPA works with communities through
an array of communication techniques and partnerships to help to return
sites to productive uses.
 These uses can be industrial or commercial, such as factories and
shopping malls. Some sites can be used for housing, public works or
healthcare facilities, transportation, and other community infrastructure.
 Sites could also be redeveloped as recreational facilities such as golf
courses, parks and ball fields; or for ecological resources, such as wildlife
preserves and wetlands.
 Sites could even be used for generating energy from renewable sources
such as wind turbines or solar panels.

23. Deleting a Site from the NPL
 EPA may delete a site or portion of a from the NPL if all cleanup
goals have been met and no further cleanup action is required to
protect human health and the environment.
 EPA publishes a notice of its intention to delete the site, or portion of
the site, from the NPL in the Federal Register, and notifies the
community of the opportunity for comment.
 If, after the formal comment period, the site or portion of the site still
qualifies for deletion, EPA publishes a formal deletion notice in the
Federal Register and places a final deletion report in the
administrative record for the site.

25. Thank You
Any Questions?