PROTECTING AND RESTORING LAND 

OSWER FY 11 ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Message from the OSWER Assistant Administrator                               i

Overview                                                           1   

Who Are We?                                                      1

Preserve Land                                                       2

What are the OSWER Prevention & Preparedness Programs?                       2

How Many Facilities Are Addressed by OSWER Prevention Programs?               2

Advancing Resource Conservation                                         3

Advancing Hazardous Waste Management                                   6

Preventing Petroleum Releases                                          9

Reducing Chemical Risks and Releases                                     13

Restoring Land                                                       15

What are the OSWER Land Cleanup Programs?                               15

How Much Land Are the EPA Land Cleanup Programs Tracking?                    17

Who Lives Near Contaminated Sites?                                       18

Addressing Our Cleanup Programs In an Integrated Way                         18

Starting Cleanups                                                   19

Advancing Cleanups                                                 22

Completing Cleanups and Reusing Sites                                     24

Responding to Emergencies and Reducing Risks                                 27

What are the OSWER Response & Removal Programs?                           27

Preparing for and Responding to Emergencies                                 27

Acronym Glossary
Message from the Assistant Administrator for the

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

I am pleased to present the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response’s (OSWER) Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11)

Accomplishments Report.  OSWER, in partnership with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local government,

and communities strives to preserve land and clean up communities to create a safer environment for all

Americans.  Wastes on land can migrate to the air, groundwater and surface water, contaminating drinking

water supplies, causing acute illness or chronic diseases, and threatening human health and ecosystems in

urban, rural, and suburban areas.  It can also stymie economic opportunities on and adjacent to contaminated

properties.  The attached report summarizes OSWER’s significant achievements in FY11 and our progress in

meeting our 32 annual performance measures under the EPA’s Strategic Plan. It focuses on three facets of our

work: preserving land, cleaning up and restoring land, and responding to emergencies.    

Preserving Land

In FY11, OSWER met all of its commitments in our hazardous waste, petroleum, and oil spill prevention

programs.  Through these efforts we ensure proper management of hazardous waste and petroleum products,

and help prevent and prepare for oil spills, chemical accidents, and other emergencies to protect the health of

communities.  OSWER currently oversees and manages, with the states, permits for 10,000 hazardous waste

units at 2,466 facilities and sets standards for approximately 590,000 federally‐regulated underground storage

tanks in order to prevent potentially dangerous releases. In FY11 confirmed releases from underground storage

tanks fell 6%. Since 2007 the number of releases has fallen 21%. OSWER and other Agency programs conduct

prevention, preparedness, compliance assistance, and enforcement activities associated with more than

640,000 non‐transportation related oil storage facilities through its spill prevention program (SPCC) and 13,000

Risk Management Program (RMP) facilities which handle highly toxic and flammable chemicals.  In FY11,

although the SPCC universe is large and self‐implementing, the number of SPCC facilities brought into

compliance increased by 9%.  

In FY11 OSWER transitioned to a sustainable materials management (SMM) framework to encourage

approaches that consider the human health and environmental impacts associated with the full life cycle of

materials.  In FY11, we announced, together with the General Services Administration and the White House

Council on Environmental Quality, a new National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship.  Already, three major

electronics manufacturers – Dell, Sony, and Sprint – have made commitments to increase the use of third party

certified electronics recycling, to ensure safe recycling of electronics.   

In FY11, OSWER proposed revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste rule to foster private sector engineering

solutions to the recycling of hazardous waste and a rigorous transparent system for ensuring such recycling is

protective of public health and the environment.  

Restoring Land  

OSWER has made substantial progress restoring the land.  OSWER’s land cleanup programs track over 500,000

sites and 22 million acres; this translates to almost 22% of all developed land in the United States.  In FY11 the

Superfund and Brownfields Programs exceeded their site assessment targets providing the community with

valuable information regarding the environmental condition of sites that provides certainty that sets the stage

for cleaning up and redeveloping contaminated properties.   The RCRA Corrective Action and Superfund

Programs addressed any unacceptable exposures and eliminated acute risks at approximately 200 sites, while

continuing to pursue long‐term permanent cleanups.  The Brownfields Program’s funding for cleanup and

redevelopment activities, working in partnership with local and state governments, local communities and the

Page i 
private sector, leveraged $2.1 billion and 6,447 jobs.  As of FY11, OSWER and its partners made over 2.1 million

acres (over 417,000 sites) available for communities to reclaim for ecological, recreational, commercial,

residential and other purposes.  If a property is cleaned up and revitalized, the reuse may result in new income

to the community in the form of taxes, jobs to local residents, increases to the values of properties nearby

cleaned up sites, or it may provide recreational or other services to make the community a better place to live.

The positive impact of these actions can be seen in communities across the country.   For example, in June 2011

work commenced to dredge and dispose of sediment contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the

Upper Hudson River creating an estimated 500 jobs.  A Brownfields cleanup project funded in FY11 at a former

gas manufacturing plant in Ohio will be redeveloped as an office hotel and retail complex that will employ over

1,000 people.  

Responding to Emergencies

Every year, more than 20,000 emergencies involving the release (or threatened release) of oil and hazardous

substances are reported in the United States.  Our first priority during these emergencies is to eliminate any

danger to the public.  OSWER’s role is a fundamental part of the national response system and is heavily relied

upon by all levels of government to deal with any environmental emergency. OSWER completed or oversaw the

completion of more than 400 removal actions in FY11. These cleanups were of varying complexity and contained

a wide range of contaminants that posed a threat to human health and the environment.  OSWER responded to

several nationally significant incidents, including a category F‐5 tornado in Joplin, Missouri and the Yellowstone

River Oil Spill.

Engaging the Community and Working for Environmental Justice  

As OSWER and its partners produced these outcomes, we strove to be transparent and deliver information that

communities could use to participate meaningfully in the decision‐making process.  For example, OSWER

established pilot projects in each region to provide technical information about the cleanup of contaminated

sites using a simplified color coding approach that all parts of the community can understand and use.   In FY11,

to accompany the proposed Definition of Solid Waste Rule, OSWER released the first complete environmental

justice analysis evaluating a proposed rulemaking’s specific impact on low‐income and minority communities.  

Improving a community’s ability to make decisions that affects its environment is at the heart of OSWER’s

community–centered work.

Challenges

While OSWER has made progress over the past year, challenges still lie ahead.  In FY11 OSWER did not meet its

goal to clean up 12,250 leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) nor did we meet our target for 104 final

remedial decisions at federal facility superfund sites.  OSWER is working with states to target reduction to the

cleanup backlog in the LUST program through efforts such as expedited site assessments, remedy optimization,

and exploring financing options.  Also, meeting the inspection targets for SPCC facilities and facilities required to

prepare a risk management plan (RMP) or a facility response plan (FRP) will be a challenge. OSWER is

undertaking an evaluation of the direction of our Oil Spill Prevention Preparedness and Response Program to

focus inspections of the SPCC and FRP facilities on those that are higher risk.  

EPA's FY12 budget and the FY13 budget proposal reflect a government‐wide effort to reduce spending and find

cost savings. Funding for a number of the OSWER programs has been reduced making it more difficult to attain

our performance targets.  For example, the Superfund Remedial program is taking significant cuts in FY12 and

potentially in FY13. These budget reductions will have an impact on program performance, reducing the number

of site assessments, site characterizations, remedial designs, remedial actions and post‐construction operations

Page ii 
carried out.  To help manage the reduction, we are pursuing program efficiencies through the Integrated

Cleanup Initiative, such as adopting new contracting practices; optimizing site investigation, design and

construction practices; and conducting pilots to explore cost‐effective options for accelerating projects and

improving the way projects are managed.  

I am proud of OSWER’s committed and skilled work force and our accomplishments in FY11.   There is still much

to do but through continued collaboration with other federal agencies, states, tribes and communities and the

private sector, we can embrace these challenges and put our energy and expertise to improve human health,

protect and restore land, and create economic opportunities for all Americans.  

Page iii 
(This page intentionally left blank)
P a g e  | 1

OVERVIEW OF THE DOCUMENT

This report summarizes the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response’s (OSWER) significant

accomplishments in FY11 and our progress in meeting our 32 annual performance measures under the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strategic plan. This report will replace two reports developed in OSWER

for FY10: the OSWER End of Year Report and the OSWER Cross Program Revitalization Measures Report. This

report is a key deliverable under EPA’s Integrated Cleanup Initiative.

Section I, Preserve Land, describes EPA’s continued successes in preventing future environmental contamination

and protecting the health of communities by considering the human health and environmental impacts

associated with the full life cycle of materials. The section also describes how EPA programs and supporting

enforcement activities ensure appropriate management of generated wastes and petroleum products, and

emergency preparedness and planning.

Section II, Restore Land, describes how EPA is making strides in assessing and cleaning up contaminated sites to

maintain or put them back into productive use. The section demonstrates how EPA is using the relevant tools

available in each of the cleanup programs, including enforcement, to better leverage resources that are

available to address needs at individual sites.

Section III, Responding to Emergencies, describes how EPA helps respond to environmental emergencies.   

WHO ARE WE?

The EPA and its state, tribal and local government partners strive to clean up communities to create a safer

environment for all Americans. Wastes on the land can migrate to the air, groundwater and surface water,

contaminating drinking water supplies, causing acute illnesses or chronic diseases, and threatening healthy

ecosystems in urban, rural, and suburban areas.  

OSWER manages and implements EPA’s solid and hazardous waste, land cleanup, and emergency response

programs through its headquarters and regional offices.  OSWER administers EPA’s programs whose objectives

are:

• Protect public health and the environment by cleaning up the nation’s most toxic sites.

• Conserve resources and prevent land contamination by reducing waste generation, increasing recycling,

and ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products.

• Support sustainable, resilient, and livable communities by working with local, state, tribal, and federal

partners to promote redevelopment of contaminated areas and emergency preparedness and recovery

planning.

• Respond to releases of contaminants, as well as cleanup and restore polluted sites, through emergency

response programs.
P a g e  | 2

I. PRESERVE LAND

A central mission of EPA is to conserve resources and prevent land contamination by:

• Reducing waste generation;

• Increasing secondary materials reuse and recycling;  

• Ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products; and

• Reducing chemical risks and releases.

This section will review our programs, including enforcement efforts as appropriate, and demonstrate how they

have achieved significant strides in preserving land and, preventing releases to the environment. This section

reviews EPA’s programs in four areas: Advancing Resource Conservation; Advancing Responsible Management

of Hazardous Waste; Preventing Petroleum Releases; and Reducing Chemical Risks and Releases.  

TABLE 1.  OSWER PREVENTION & PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS

RCRA Solid Waste Program The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) solid waste program 

encourages states to develop comprehensive plans to manage nonhazardous industrial solid waste and 

municipal solid waste, sets criteria for municipal solid waste landfills and other solid waste disposal facilities, 

and prohibits the open dumping of solid waste. This program is also looking for more sustainable ways to 

manage our materials, prolonging the life of materials as usable commodities for as long as possible. 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Program The RCRA Hazardous Waste program issues comprehensive, national 

regulations define solid and hazardous wastes, and imposes strict standards on anyone who generates, 

recycles, transports, treats, stores or disposes of hazardous waste. This program also monitors the movement 

of hazardous waste in and out of U.S. borders and works to ensure the waste that is exported is properly 

recycled or disposed of. 

UST Program The Underground Storage Tank (UST) program works with state, tribal and inter-agency 

partners to set and implement standards to prevent and detect releases from USTs, thereby reducing cleanup 

costs while protecting human health and the environment. 

The Oil Spill Program protects U.S. waters by preventing, preparing for and responding to oil spills. Section 

311 of the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 provide EPA with the authority to establish a 

regulatory program for preventing, preparing for and responding to oil spills that occur in navigable waters of 

the United States. 

The EPA Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program is the national regulatory 

framework to prevent, prepare for and respond to catastrophic accidental chemical releases at industrial 

facilities throughout the United States. 

HOW MANY FACILITIES ARE ADDRESSED BY OSWER PREVENTION PROGRAMS?

EPA regulates and/or oversees facilities across the United States. For example,     

♦ To protect the health of the estimated three million people living within a mile of hazardous waste

management facilities, EPA and states oversee and manage Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

permits for 10,000 hazardous waste units at 2,466 facilities.  

♦ Across the United States there are approximately 590,000 federally‐regulated Underground Storage Tanks at

213,000 sites.  

♦ EPA has identified approximately 13,000 Risk Management Program facilities nationwide. These facilities

represent the largest identified stockpiles of highly toxic and flammable industrial chemicals in the United

States.  

♦ EPA estimates that over 640,000 facilities are covered by the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure

rule.  Approximately 4,400 of these facilities are required to have Facility Response Plans as a discharge of oil

from any of these facilities could cause substantial harm to the environment.
ADVANCING RESOURCE CONSERVATION

What is it?

Land is one of America’s most valuable resources.  The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) calls for

the conservation of valuable materials and energy resources.  To that end, EPA has developed tools and

programs to implement RCRA that promote resource conservation, specifically waste reduction and recycling.  

For example, EPA developed tools to help consumers and industry calculate the benefits of recycling, such as

recycling one aluminum soda can saves the energy equivalent of having a CFL light bulb on for 20 hours.1

Accessible tools that quantify these savings help the government and businesses calculate the benefits

(environmental and financial) of resource conservation.  

Figure 1 shows the total tons recycled and the recycling rate since 1960. Over the past five years, the recycling

rate has not changed significantly. In 2010, the U.S. recycled and composted 85 million tons of municipal solid

waste (MSW). This provides an annual benefit of 186 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents

(MMTCO2e) avoided, comparable to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from almost 36 million passenger

vehicles. To date, the average American recycles or composts one‐third of the waste generated each day.

P a g e  | 3

                                                           

In FY11, EPA transitioned from a waste and end‐of‐life approach to a sustainable materials management (SMM)

framework. This framework considers the human health and environmental impacts associated with the full life

cycle of materials – from the amount and toxicity of raw materials extraction, through transportation,

processing, manufacturing, use, re‐use, recycling and disposal. In FY11, EPA developed targeted initiatives

involving stakeholders who expressed a desire to make environmental commitments and focused on materials

where SMM will have an immediate, measurable impact.  The initiatives are: 1) federal green challenge to

reform government purchasing practices in an environmentally friendly manner; 2) sustainable food

management to help capture and prevent food from being disposed in landfills; and 3) safe handling of used

5.6 6.5 8 9.3

14.5 16.7

33.2

55.8

69.5

79.9

85.1

6.40% 6.20% 6.60% 7.30%

9.60%10.10%

16%

25.70%

28.60%

31.60%

34%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Percent of generation recycled

Total MSW recycling (million tons)

Tons Percentage

Figure 1. MSW Recycling

1960‐2010

1 Calculated in iWarm (epa.gov/iwarm)
electronics, primarily by increasing the amount of used electronics managed by accredited third party

electronics recyclers.  EPA targeted working with federal agencies in its Federal Green Challenge, due to the

government’s purchasing power and the successful Federal Green Challenge that took place on a regional basis

in the western regions over the past two years.  Furthermore, EPA chose to focus on food waste as another

initiative, because 34 million tons of food waste is generated each year by Americans and more than 97 percent

of the waste goes to landfills, instead of being donated or composted.

Why is EPA doing this?

EPA’s commitment to the environment includes preserving our nation’s natural resources—including fossil fuels,

minerals, precious metals and other renewable and non‐renewable resources. Conserving these materials

requires attention at every step of the manufacturing process to prevent the unnecessary use of materials,

decrease the use of toxins and prevent materials from going to landfills. Some projections are that between

2000 and 2050, our global population will grow 50 percent, economic activity will grow 500 percent, and energy

and materials use will grow 300 percent.2 On the front end, such a significant increase will greatly stress our

resources as we strive to meet the associated demand for additional goods and services. On the back end, the

amount of waste created could increase significantly as well. Integrating SMM into the business practices of our

stakeholders, on a broad, national level is the only way for the U.S. to conserve its own natural resources and

stay competitive globally.

Accomplishments

Progress Towards Meeting Strategic Plan

EPA has three measures for advancing resource conservation.  FY11 results will be available in December 2012

for two of the measures.  The third target, priority chemicals reduced from the manufacturing life cycle, was

met.

Status Measure Target FY11 Value 

Increase in percentage of coal combustion ash that is beneficially used 

instead of disposed 

1.4% NA 

Pounds of municipal solid waste reduced, reused or recycled 21 NA 

Number of pounds of priority chemicals reduced from all phases of the 

manufacturing life cycle through source reduction and/or recycling 

2 million 12.25 million 

Legend:     Data Unavailable         Goal Not Met         Goal Met

Creating a new national strategy for electronics stewardship  

On July 20, 2011, EPA, General Services Administration and the White House Council on Environmental Quality

announced a new National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship. The Strategy details a comprehensive set of

actions to be taken by federal agencies to advance responsible electronic design, purchasing, management and

recycling.  Every year, Americans generate almost 2.5 million tons of used electronics, which are made from

valuable resources, such as precious metals and rare earth materials, as well as plastic and glass.  Under the

Strategy, EPA is working with industry to encourage businesses and consumers to use third‐party certified

electronics recyclers, and for recyclers to become certified. Certified recyclers are regularly audited to ensure

                                                            

2 World Resources Institute, The Weight of Nations: Material Outflows from Industrial Economies (Washington, DC, 2000).

P a g e  | 4
P a g e  | 5

that electronics are recycled in a way that is protective of human health and the environment.  Three major

electronics manufacturers – Dell, Sony, and Sprint – made commitments to increase the use of third party

certified electronics recycling, to ensure safe recycling of electronics. EPA is also hoping to minimize harm

created by mismanagement of U.S. exports of e‐waste and improve safe handling of used electronics in

developing countries.
ADVANCING HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

What is it?

Hazardous waste is waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to our health or the environment. It can be

discarded commercial products, like cleaning fluids or pesticides, or the by‐products of manufacturing

processes.

Comprehensive, national regulations define hazardous waste, and impose strict standards on anyone who

generates, recycles, transports, treats, stores or disposes of hazardous waste. Some key aspects of the

hazardous waste management program include: controlling transportation of hazardous waste through a

manifest system; ensuring the safe treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes by establishing specific

requirements/permits that must be followed when

managing those wastes; and inspecting facilities to

ensure compliance with regulations. This

comprehensive regulatory framework is implemented

in partnership with states to prevent exposure to

hazardous waste and contamination. (The next

section, Restoring Land, will describe how the

Superfund program‘s liability provisions also act as a

powerful deterrence to mismanaging hazardous

waste.)

In FY11, EPA continued to assist tribes in 

developing sustainable waste management 

programs in Indian Country through integrated waste 

management plans (IWMPs); supporting the 

cleanup, closure, or upgrading of open dumps in 

Indian country and other tribal lands; and 

collaborating with the Indian Health Service and 

EPA Regions to complete an inventory of open 

dumps on tribal lands. We also assisted tribes in 

developing and implementing hazardous waste 

management programs. Outreach materials were 

developed specifically for tribes, such as the Tribal 

Waste Journal and fact sheets, which can be found 

on the Waste Management Indian Country Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/wastes/wyl/tribal/index.htm). 

Advancing Waste Management in Indian Country 

Permits for the treatment, storage or disposal of

hazardous wastes are issued by authorized states or

by EPA regional offices. The national RCRA program

provides leadership for meeting our legal obligation

to:

 Renew all permits at least every 10 years,  

 Maintain permits by modifying them to address changes in operations, and  

 Monitor facility performance to ensure that permits continue to protect people and ecosystems from

harmful exposures to hazardous pollutants.

The RCRA program requires facility owners or operators to demonstrate that they have financial mechanisms in

place to cover the closure, post‐closure and clean‐up activities. This is critical to protecting taxpayer dollars by

ensuring that money will be available to properly close, cleanup and monitor the site if, for example, the facility

is abandoned or the owner goes bankrupt.   

Financial Assurance - Protecting Taxpayer Money 

A rulemaking now underway under authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act Section 108(b) seeks to protect taxpayer dollars by requiring protective 

financial mechanisms for active hard rock mines and mineral processing facilities. The acid rock drainage 

and other contamination from some mines creates actual or potential threats to human health or 

ecosystems that has led to their designation as Superfund sites. This regulation will minimize the burden on 

taxpayers for the cleanup of these sites by providing the financial funding needed should a response be 

required. 

P a g e  | 6
Furthermore, EPA promotes the management of waste in more environmentally beneficial and cost‐effective

ways. It is important for EPA to strike a balance between recovering valuable materials and preventing loopholes

that could lead to unsafe disposal under the guise of recycling. EPA is working to provide regulatory flexibilities

designed to encourage hazardous materials recycling with adequate safeguards. In order to protect human

health and the environment, EPA must ensure that materials are destined for legitimate recycling.

Why is EPA doing this?

The hazardous waste program protects human health, communities and the environment through enforceable

controls; prevents the release of hazardous constituents from generators and management facilities; and

provides for its safe management.  EPA’s hazardous waste management activities play a key role in supporting

U.S. industries and small businesses. By facilitating the safe management of waste, it provides a critical service

to the U.S. economy and safeguards valuable drinking water resources by preventing hazardous contaminants

from polluting ground water and surface water.   

New technologies, waste streams and new Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act regulations have meant that the

RCRA program must evolve to address new challenges.  Since RCRA was enacted, there has been a wide‐ranging

expansion in the variety of products and services available to consumers; these advances have led to many new

chemicals coming into the market and many new waste streams that must be addressed.  Fortunately, there

have also been tremendous advances in the science involved with assessing risks from waste (showing, for

example, that some chemicals are actually more toxic than previously determined), the technologies for

managing waste and the methods for recycling or reusing waste. The challenge for the hazardous waste

program is the need to incorporate these advances into the current regulatory structure in a lasting and

effective manner.

Accomplishments

Progress Towards Meeting Strategic Plan

EPA has three measures related to waste management in the strategic plan. All three measures were exceeded

in FY11.  

Status Measure Target FY11 Value 

Number of hazardous waste facilities with new or updated controls. 100 130 

Number of closed, cleaned up or upgraded open dumps in Indian Country 

or on other tribal lands. 

45 82 

Number of tribes covered by an integrated solid waste management plan. 14 17 

Legend:     Data Unavailable         Goal Not Met         Goal Met

Carbon sequestration

The efforts across EPA to prevent climate change include carbon sequestration.  Geologically sequestering

carbon dioxide (CO2) is a method of preventing greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere.  EPA created a

new class of underground injection well to specifically handle the safe injection of carbon dioxide into the

ground. EPA proposed excluding this injection from regulation as hazardous waste because it concluded that the

management of CO2 under these conditions does not present a substantial risk to human health or the

environment.  With the removal of this potential regulatory barrier, EPA is providing industry with the regulatory

P a g e  | 7
P a g e  | 8

certainty needed to promote full‐scale deployment of carbon capture and storage projects, while still protecting

human health and the environment.   

Environmental justice analysis in the rulemaking process

In FY11, to accompany the proposed Definition of Solid Waste Rule, EPA released the first complete

environmental justice analysis evaluating a proposed rulemaking’s specific impact on low‐income and minority

communities. EPA involved stakeholders throughout the development process – including holding public

roundtable meetings and web conferences for input on the methodology that should be used. In addition, EPA

took comment on the analysis when released as part of the proposed rulemaking.  

Fewer Superfund sites from our regulated hazardous waste facilities

The RCRA permitting program has been successful in one of its key aims, which is to prevent hazardous waste

treatment, storage and disposal (TSD) facilities from turning into Superfund sites due to new contamination

from their hazardous waste management activities.  A study in 2007, Analysis of 40 Potential TSDs, looked at the

group of the 40 potential RCRA TSD facilities that were proposed to the Superfund National Priorities list after

1990, to determine whether current (as opposed to legacy) problems at RCRA TSDs pose a burden to Superfund.  

The report concluded that the contamination associated with the most recent RCRA regulated facilities

proposed as Superfund sites primarily occurred before the RCRA requirements were established and began to

regulate TSD activities, and that the RCRA regulations worked as intended.  

Electronic Exchange of import/export waste notices

In FY11, under the Mexico Border 2012 Plan, EPA successfully exchanged electronic test data with Mexico on

hazardous waste exports and imports. This was an important milestone in an overall initiative to develop a new

data system for electronic exchange of import/export notices among the U.S./Mexico and Canada. EPA has been

a driving force behind a North American electronic data exchange which will soon enable governments to

exchange export notice and consent information electronically. This will increase government efficiency,

improve data quality, and help the governments provide more timely and coherent information on what crosses

our national borders. Additionally, the project will achieve a U.S./Mexico Border 2012 Program milestone to

improve the oversight of hazardous waste exports and imports between the two countries.   

   
PREVENTING PETROLEUM RELEASES

Underground Storage Tanks

What is it?

EPA works with state, tribal and inter‐agency partners to

prevent releases from Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)

from occurring, thereby reducing cleanup costs while

protecting human health and the environment.   The UST

Program develops federal regulations governing the program,

provides needed funds to state and tribal partners to support

their programs and implements the program in Indian

country. The UST Program provides important oversight of

state and tribal grant funding to ensure performance goals

are effectively achieved. In addition, the UST Program

provides technical information/guidance, forums for

information exchanges and training opportunities to states,

tribes and intertribal consortia to encourage program

development and/or implementation.3

   Providing such

guidance and training at the national level is the most

efficient and effective approach, since this work can help all

states and tribes, without requiring duplicative effort across

the country.  In addition, EPA provides national guidance for emerging issues, such as the impact of alternative

fuels on tank infrastructure and cleanup of higher blend releases.   

EPA is proposing revisions to strengthen 

the 1988 federal UST regulations by 

increasing emphasis on properly 

operating and maintaining UST 

equipment. These revisions will help 

improve prevention and detection of UST 

releases, which are one of the leading 

sources of groundwater contamination. 

The revisions will also help ensure all 

USTs in the United States, including 

those in Indian country, meet the same 

minimum standards. This is the first time 

EPA is proposing significant revisions to 

the federal UST regulations since they 

were first promulgated in 1988. 

Rulemaking in Action: Underground 

Storage Tank Revisions 

The states, in turn, are the front‐line implementers of the UST program. The states conduct the majority of

inspections, enforcement and site‐specific compliance assistance. In Indian Country, EPA works closely with

tribes to implement the program.

Why is EPA doing this?

Preventing petroleum releases into the environment has been one of the primary goals of the UST program

since its inception. The release of gasoline‐containing contaminants of concern, such as benzene, methyl‐

tertiary‐butyl‐ether (MTBE), alcohols, lead or lead scavengers, can cause potential adverse effects and has

significant costs associated with cleaning up these contaminants. Therefore, OSWER and its partners strongly

promote compliance with all UST requirements, including the requirements described in the Energy Policy Act of

2005. While OSWER and its partners have made major progress in reducing the number of new releases,

thousands of releases are still discovered each year (about 6,000 in FY11). A main cause of releases from USTs is

the lack of proper operation and maintenance of UST systems. As of the end of FY11, there were approximately

88,000 open releases still in the cleanup process or waiting to be cleaned up. Given that remediation costs

average between $100,000 and $400,000 per release (depending on the presence of ground water

contamination), a robust prevention program saves resources in the long run.

P a g e  | 9

                                                           

3 Refer to http://www.epa.gov/oust/ustsystm/index.htm
Oil Spill Program

What is it? 

The Oil Spill Program protects U.S. waters by preventing, preparing for and responding to oil spills.  Section 311

of the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act provide EPA with the authority to establish a regulatory

program for preventing, preparing for and responding to oil spills

that occur in navigable waters of the United States.  The Oil

Pollution Prevention regulations apply to certain non‐

transportation‐related facilities that could discharge oil into

navigable waters of the United States.  These regulations require

each owner or operator of a regulated facility to prepare a Spill

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan

addressing the facility's design, operation and maintenance

procedures established to prevent oil spills, as well as

countermeasures to control, contain, clean up and mitigate the

effects of an oil spill that could affect navigable waters.   In

addition, some facility owners and operators are also required to

prepare facility response plans (FRPs) addressing response

actions for discharges of oil that present the potential for

substantial environmental harm.  EPA uses the information in

the FRPs to develop Area Contingency Plans (ACPs) under the

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan (NCP). EPA conducts oil spill prevention, preparedness,

compliance assistance and enforcement activities associated

with more than 640,000 non‐transportation‐related oil storage facilities through its spill prevention program.   

Oil Spill Program 

EPA is in working on different products 

and guidance documents to enhance and 

improve the national preparedness for oil 

spills in both inland and coastal zones by 

incorporating lessons learned from the 

Enbridge Pipeline and Deepwater Horizon 

Responses. To help address inland 

preparedness, EPA is developing an Area 

Contingency Plan (ACP) Handbook that 

focuses on statutory requirements and 

promotes the development of consistency 

among regional plans. Lessons learned 

from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill 

Response have resulted in guidance for 

coastal zone spills, including guidance on 

waste management, sub-sea dispersant 

application, and daily dispersant use 

monitoring. 

Why is EPA doing this?

Discharges of oil into U.S. waters from facilities often result

in environmental damage and financial loss to businesses,

and even human injuries and death. They cause losses to

governments at all levels. EPA’s efforts protect human

health from the harm associated with oil discharges.

Because states, tribes, and communities may lack the

infrastructure and resources to respond to emergencies or

to work with oil facilities to prevent accidents from

happening in the first place, EPA and the Coast Guard

provide a safety net essential to protecting communities.

Preventing Petroleum Releases 

More than 30,000 oil discharges and 

hazardous substance releases occur in 

the U.S. every year, with a large number 

of these spills occurring in the inland zone 

for which EPA has jurisdiction. EPA 

responds to about 200 spills each year. 

On average, one spill of greater than 

100,000 gallons occurs every month from 

EPA-regulated oil storage facilities and 

the inland oil transportation network. For 

more information, refer to 

http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/. 

P a g e  | 10
Accomplishments  

Progress Towards Meeting Strategic Plan

EPA has four measures in the strategic plan for preventing petroleum releases.  In FY11, EPA met or exceeded all

four targets.

Status Measure Target FY11 Value 

Percent of all FRP inspected facilities found to be non-compliant which are 

brought into compliance. 

30% 48% 

Percent of all SPCC inspected facilities found to be non-compliant which 

are brought into compliance. 

30% 45% 

Reduce the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities to 5% fewer 

than previous year. 

<8,550 5,998 

Increase the percentage of UST facilities that are in significant operational 

compliance with both release detection and release prevention 

requirements by 0.5% over the previous year's target. 

66% 71% 

Legend:     Data Unavailable         Goal Not Met         Goal Met

P a g e  | 11

Releases from underground storage tanks are going down

OSWER's goal is to prevent future releases of wastes in the environment.  Accidents happen. EPA understands

this but proper prevention leads to fewer and fewer releases.  For example, the number of confirmed releases

from USTs has dropped 21 percent, from 7,570 in FY07 to 5,998 in FY11. The number of active tanks over that

period dropped 6 percent, from 629,866 to 590,104. Figure 2 shows the decline in recent years.   

7,570 7,364 7,168

6,328 5,998

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Number of confirmed releases

Figure 2. Confirmed Releases From USTs

FY07 ‐ FY11
Compliance is improving in spill prevention

Making sure facilities that store oil are compliant under EPA’s SPCC and FRP rules is a crucial part in preventing

oil spills.  The percentage of SPCC facilities found in compliance during their initial inspection is increasing due to

EPA outreach activities while the percentage of FRP facilities, which are high risk, found initially compliant with

the FRP rule is remaining steady (figure 3).   As a result of EPA's inspection efforts, SPCC and FRP facilities that

are not initially compliant are being brought into compliance. EPA continues to exceed its yearly targets for

bringing facilities into compliance, helping to improve facility oil spill preparedness and prevent oil spills.   

15%

30%

15%

30%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2010 2011 2010 2011

SPCC FRP

Percent

Facility Type & Year

Found Initially Compliant Brought Into Compliance Brought into Compliance Target

Figure 3. Oil Facility Compliance

FY10 &FY11

More efficiency in reporting and record‐keeping  

EPA has put a strong focus on increasing the use of electronic reporting and record‐keeping. This leads to more

efficient data use, but more importantly, electronic efforts lead to lower costs to industry (small and large) and

regulators. In FY11, EPA launched the Emergency Management Portal Oil Database application, which enables

users to search for and add facilities, generate reports and store critical information such as inspection data,

discharge history and compliance data.  

P a g e  | 12
REDUCING CHEMICAL RISKS AND RELEASES

What is it?

EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program is the national regulatory framework to

prevent, prepare for and respond to catastrophic accidental chemical releases at industrial facilities throughout

the United States. This program includes the Clean Air Act Section 112(r) RMP and the Emergency Planning and

Community Right‐to‐Know Act (EPCRA) program. In addition to the measures taken by facilities to prevent

accidents, these programs also collect and share data to assist other stakeholders in preventing  and responding

to releases of all types, and as such, RMP provides the foundation for community and hazards response

planning. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA regulations require that facilities handling more than a threshold quantity

of certain extremely hazardous substances implement a risk management program and submit a risk

management plan to EPA. The RMP describes the approach the facility is taking to prevent and mitigate

chemical accidents. The plan addresses the hazards of the chemicals used by the facility, the potential

consequences of worst case and other accidental chemical release scenarios, the facility’s five year accident

history, the chemical accident prevention program in place at the site and the emergency response program

used by the site to minimize the impacts on the public and environment should a chemical release occur.  The

year 2011 marked the 25th anniversary of EPCRA, a program that has played a significant role in protecting

human health and the environment over the last quarter century by providing communities and emergency

planners with valuable information on toxic chemical releases in their area.    

Why is EPA Doing This?

Accidents at chemical facilities have resulted in injury and death, environmental damage and financial loss.  

Public demand for chemical release information skyrocketed in the mid‐1980s after a deadly cloud of highly

toxic pesticide killed thousands of people in Bhopal, India. Shortly thereafter, a serious chemical release at a

plant in West Virginia hospitalized 100 individuals. Accidents reported to EPA since FY05 by the current universe

of RMP facilities have resulted in approximately 60 worker and public deaths, over 1,300 injuries, nearly 200,000

people sheltered in place and more than $1.6 billion in on‐site and off‐site damages. States and communities

may lack the strong infrastructure needed to address these emergencies or to prevent them from happening in

the first place. Together, the RMPs and EPCRA, establish a structure, within which federal, state, local and tribal

partners work together to protect the public, the economy and the environment from chemical risks. They also

play an important role in increasing transparency and communication among facilities, governments and

communities to facilitate the prevention of accidents when possible and plan for effective emergency response

actions when they are necessary.   

Accomplishments

Progress Towards Meeting Strategic Plan

EPA has one measure in this area, which was exceeded in FY11. In FY11, EPA exceeded its target for number of

risk management plan audits and inspections completed.

Status Measure Target FY11 Value 

Number of risk management plan audits and inspections completed. 560 630 

Legend:     Data Unavailable         Goal Not Met         Goal Met

P a g e  | 13
Accident reports at risk management facilities are decreasing  

There has been a significant decrease in accidents reported at RMP facilities since FY96 (figure 4)4

. Overall

accident reductions could be attributed to a number of factors including those actions taken by facilities to

prevent spills.  EPA has worked to increase inspection activities at high‐risk facilities, made it possible to submit

RMPs online, and increased the number of RMP inspectors. These activities, along with consistent outreach with

regulated communities, advancing technologies, and improved safety systems, have helped to maximize the

effectiveness of prevention and preparedness at chemical facilities.   

500

463 473

335

263 252

294 284 268 237 210

283

218 188

109

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number of Accidents

Figure 4. Accidents by Year at RMP Facilities

FY97 ‐ FY10

While the RMP program has made progress over the years, challenges remain.  Of the approximately 13,000

RMP facilities nationwide, 1,900 facilities have been designated as “high risk” based upon their accident history,

extremely large quantity of chemicals on site, or proximity to large residential populations.  Since high risk

facilities have the potential for causing great damage to the public and environment in the event of an accident,

EPA plans to focus our inspections at these facilities to address problems before they become disasters.  

   

P a g e  | 14

                                                            

4

  These data are current as of January 23, 2012.  The FY10 number may slightly change due to lag in reporting.  
II. RESTORING LAND

Accidents, spills, leaks and past improper disposal and handling of hazardous materials and wastes have resulted

in tens of thousands of contaminated sites in the United States. Contaminated land can threaten human health

and the environment, and potentially hamper economic growth and the vitality of local communities. While EPA

is not involved in all contaminated areas, EPA tracks over 500,000 sites and 22 million acres across the 50 states,

the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. EPA and its state and tribal partners work to address contamination

at these sites and restore them for productive use. It is a goal of EPA to work with communities to ensure that

they can become involved with decisions and have a say in how contaminated areas are reused. Section I

described EPA’s effort to prevent releases and contamination. This section will review our programs and

describe our progress in restoring land that has been contaminated.  

P a g e  | 15

WHAT ARE THE LAND CLEANUP PROGRAMS?

Sites are often described and categorized based on the level

and type of contamination and the regulations under which

they are monitored and cleaned up. Some contaminated sites

pose little risk to human health and the environment,

because the level of contamination is low, as is the chance of

exposure to toxic or hazardous contaminants. Other

contaminated sites are of greater concern because of the

chemicals that may be present and their propensity to persist

in or move through the environment, exposing humans or the

plants and animals in the ecosystem to hazards. These sites

must be carefully managed to prevent contamination from

causing harm to humans, wildlife or ecological systems, both

on and off site.

EPA has six major land cleanup programs that address

contaminated sites (See Table 2).  These programs are the

Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities Programs,

Superfund Removal Program, the Brownfields Program, the

RCRA Corrective Action (CA) Program, the Leaking

Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program and the

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Cleanup Program.  

   

Achieving Results on the Ground: 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA) 

In FY 11: 

3⁄4 A Brownfield site in the Port of Monroe, 

Michigan received $150,000 in ARRA 

funds and leveraged a $2.25 million loan 

from local developers. 

3⁄4 Montana is using Recovery Act funds to 

clean up contamination from leaking 

underground storage tanks at the former 

Pepco facility in Roundup, Montana. 

3⁄4 ARRA funds started the construction for 

groundwater cleanup activities at a 

Superfund site in Huffs Church, PA. 

Approximately 2,530 feet of the total 6,000 

feet has been completed. Soil removal will 

continue with approximately $2.57 million 

of the $6.478 million in Recovery Act funds 

expended. 

3⁄4 The Mattapan Community Health Center 

received a Recovery Act sub-grant to fund 

environmental cleanup activities on a site 

for their new LEED® certified building. The 

Boston Redevelopment Authority will 

supplement its existing Brownfields 

Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund to remove 

hazardous materials, demolish multiple 

buildings, and remediate soil and 

groundwater. The new site will create over 

60 new construction jobs, 45 retail jobs, 

and 20 new permanent positions and is 

expected to open in 2012. 
P a g e  | 16

TABLE 2.  OSWER CLEANUP PROGRAMS

                                                            

5 This program is a part of EPA’s cleanup and EPA’s emergency response functions. An additional description of this

program’s responsibilities is described in section III.

Superfund Remedial Programs The Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities Program addresses long-term 

risks to human health and the environment resulting from releases of hazardous substances at Superfund sites 

representing the nation’s highest priority sites. Superfund sites are found in hundreds of communities and can 

encompass very large land areas. The Federal Facilities Program works with federal entities to ensure fast and 

effective cleanup at federally owned sites, and facilitates partnerships between the other federal agencies and the 

surrounding communities. The Superfund Remedial Program works on non-federally owned sites. 

Superfund Emergency Response and Removal Program The Superfund Removal Program functions as the 

backbone federal response to many contamination events; providing response support to state, local, tribal and 

potentially responsible parties when their response capabilities are exceeded; and managing risks to human 

health, the environment, and the economic viability of communities. Removal actions are typically immediate 

short-term responses intended to protect people from threats posed by hazardous waste sites.5

Brownfields Program The Brownfields Program addresses environmental site assessment and cleanup of 

abandoned and potentially contaminated sites that are not Superfund sites, through grants, cooperative 

agreements, and technical assistance to communities, states, and tribes. Funding to states and tribes helps 

develop and enhance their voluntary cleanup programs. In addition, the program provides environmental 

workforce development and job training funding to recruit, train and place local, unemployed residents of solid 

and hazardous waste-affected communities with the skills needed to secure full-time employment in the 

environmental field. 

RCRA Corrective Action Program An essential element of EPA’s hazardous waste management program is the 

statutory requirement that facilities managing hazardous wastes must clean up releases of hazardous 

constituents that could adversely impact human health and the environment. A cleanup under RCRA is referred to 

as Corrective Action (CA). The RCRA Program directly implements the CA program in 13 states and territories, 

and performs as lead regulator at an increasingly significant number of facilities undergoing CAs in 42 states 

across the country that are authorized for the RCRA CA Program. The CA program is critical to preventing 

Superfund sites and the associated resources and expenditures. 

PCBs Cleanup Program The national Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) cleanup and disposal program is 

implemented by EPA, and works closely with other EPA cleanup programs and state and local governments to 

ensure cleanups are conducted efficiently and that human health and the environment are protected. Prior to the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), PCBs were widely used across many commercial industries and 

significant PCB contamination resulted from spills, releases and from products. 

LUST Program The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program works with state and tribal partners to 

clean up releases from LUST sites, many of which impact ground water resources. Cleaning up LUSTs is a key 

part of protecting our environment. Even a small amount of petroleum released from an underground tank can 

contaminate groundwater, the drinking water source for nearly half of all Americans. States are the primary 

implementing agencies. EPA provides resources to support the infrastructure of state LUST programs so that 

private and state resources can directly finance the field work necessary to address contamination at federallyregulated tank releases. EPA also provides regulations, guidance and policy to support cleanup of tank releases. 
HOW MUCH LAND ARE THE EPA LAND CLEANUP PROGRAMS TRACKING?

As indicated earlier, EPA tracks over 500,000 sites representing about 22 million acres. The number of sites and

acres for which EPA is involved in by program is provided in figures 5 & 6. These figures show the universe of

sites under EPA’s purview. The number of sites and acres tracked in the universe changes over time as more

sites are identified and/or brought under the jurisdiction of the different programs (e.g., when a site receives a

Brownfields’ grant). The FY11 universe translates to almost 22 percent of all developed land in the United

States.6

LUST

501,723

Superfund

Remedial

1,654

Brownfields

8,000

RCRA CA

3,747

Overall Universe: 515,124 sites

Figure 5. Sites by Program

P a g e  | 17

There are many other sites that are tracked only at the state and local level. The full scope of the land in the U.S.

that is currently contaminated and in need of assessment and cleanup is not shown in figures 5 & 6.  For

example, the 2004 Government Accountability Office report entitled Brownfield Redevelopment: Stakeholders

                                                            

6 Developed land accounts for 102.5 million acres or 5 percent of total land in the U.S. EPA’s 2008 Report on the

Environment. Chapter 4‐ Exhibit 4‐2.

LUST

501,723

Superfund

Remedial

3,974,565

Brownfields

69,646

RCRA  CA

17,946,593

Overall

Universe:

22,492,527 acres

Figure 6. Acreage by Program
Report that EPA’s Program Helps to Redevelop Sites, but Additional Measures Could Complement Agency Efforts

states that there were about 450,000 to 1 million brownfields.   

WHO LIVES NEAR CONTAMINATED SITES?

Recently EPA conducted a population assessment of communities living within a mile of more than 5,300

Superfund and RCRA CA sites across the country.  The assessment revealed that populations near sites include

people of all races and all income brackets.  The very young and the very old and adults with and without college

educations are present in nearly the same proportions as they are in the population at large.  At the same time,

the assessment found that communities near these sites include a disproportionate number of poor and racial

and ethnic minority people, who may have fewer resources with which to address concerns about their health

and environment (figure 7).  

P a g e  | 18

Figure 7. Populations near Superfund and

RCRA Corrective Action sites

64.6%

70.4%

15.3%

12%

13.8%

11.9%

3.54%

2.9%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

white black hispanic asian NHOPI AIAN other race multirace

Overall Population

Population Near Sites

In addition to describing the demographic characteristics near sites, the assessment suggested that communities

near sites can be thought of as more vulnerable to potential risks from contamination because many of these

communities are near multiple environmental stressors.  For example, over 30 percent of the areas examined

were near more than one Superfund or RCRA CA contaminated site, 67 percent of the areas also had a known

source of air pollutants nearby and over 80 percent were urban areas commonly associated with high levels of

traffic and industry. Understanding these vulnerabilities, EPA provides technical assistance to help communities

understand the risk from contaminated lands as well as the benefits of cleanup.  

ADDRESSING OUR CLEANUP PROGRAMS IN AN INTEGRATED WAY

Integrated Cleanup Initiative  

In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of the EPA’s cleanup programs, in

FY10 the EPA initiated a multi‐year strategy called the Integrated Cleanup Initiative (ICI), to integrate and

leverage the Agency’s land cleanup authorities to address a greater number of sites, accelerate cleanups where

possible, and put those sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. EPA

is also focusing on enforcement activities and continues to seek accountability from those responsible for

cleaning up contaminated sites. Since the ICI was launched, the EPA’s cleanup and enforcement programs have

been addressing the actions identified in the ICI Implementation Plan to put into action what we learn and

engrain the components of ICI into the way we function day to day. One example is the pilot study conducted at

Ellenville Scrap Iron and Metal site in New York, which streamlined the cleanup remedy design and construction
process reducing the duration of work compared with traditional approaches by as many as two years.   EPA

plans to apply the lessons learned at Ellenville and other ICI pilots to the broader cleanup program.

As identified in the ICI, the three stages of the cleanup process are used in this report to describe our activities

and progress (figure 8). The cleanup continuum is:

♦ Starting cleanups – focusing on site identification and assessment activities in the early stages of the cleanup

continuum.         

♦ Advancing cleanups – emphasizing coordination activities and activities intended to assure that

unacceptable human exposures are eliminated as soon as possible while site cleanup progresses.

♦ Completing Cleanups & Reusing sites – achieving the goal of providing long‐term human health and

environmental protection, and promoting land revitalization to return sites to communities for their

intended use.

Figure 8.  The Cleanup Continuum

Starting Cleanups Advancing Cleanups Completing Cleanups & 

Reusing Sites 

STARTING CLEANUPS

What is it?

EPA’s involvement in the site investigation and cleanup process begins with notification of potential

contamination.  EPA can be notified by states, tribes, community members, other federal agencies, or other

sources of a potential hazardous waste site or incident.  EPA, the implementing state, tribe, local government or

regulated entity assesses releases at sites to determine whether there is in fact a release and, if so, the extent of

the contamination. These assessments help eliminate the uncertainty associated with potential or actual

contamination at a property. If contamination is found, a series of progressively more complex assessments may

be conducted to determine whether cleanup is needed and design appropriate cleanup and reuse strategies for

the site.  Additionally a removal action may be completed to reduce immediate threat to human health or the

environment.  A removal may occur along any part of the cleanup continuum.  For more information on the

removal program see the next section, Responding to Emergencies and Reducing Risks.  

Why is EPA doing this?

Assessment activities under all six of the land cleanup programs are intended to determine the extent and

degree of contamination at these sites, to resolve the degree of uncertainty regarding any contamination and to

determine the need for additional environmental work. This represents an important milestone in the overall

cleanup process.

P a g e  | 19
Accomplishments

Progress Towards Meeting Strategic Plan  

EPA has two measures to gauge the progress in completing assessment activities. One measure is for the

Superfund program and the other is for the Brownfields program. In FY11, both assessment measures exceeded

their targeted levels.

Status Measure Target FY11 Value 

Number of Superfund remedial site assessments completed 900 1,020 

Brownfield properties assessed 1,000 1,784 

Legend:     Data Unavailable         Goal Not Met         Goal Met

P a g e  | 20

Assessment may result in a positive impact early in the cleanup continuum

A significant percentage of sites require no further action after the site assessment process is complete. By

making this determination early in the cleanup process, there is great value derived from the site assessment

process. If no contamination is found, uncertainty regarding its environmental condition is removed and the

community or facility is in a better position to move forward with its plan for reuse. Many of the sites assessed

for potential inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) under Superfund do not require cleanup. As shown in

figure 9, 65 percent of the Superfund remedial assessments completed in FY11 determined that no further

federal action is needed under the Superfund program. Twenty‐eight percent indicated a need to collect more

information before a final assessment decision could be made.  The remaining seven percent were referred to a

cleanup program for further attention, e.g., the NPL, state environmental cleanup programs or EPA’s removal

program.  

661

287

72

No Further  Action under Superfund ‐

65% (661)

Further Remedial Assessment Needed

‐ 28% (287)

Referred to Cleanup Program ‐ 7% (72)

Figure 9. Results Superfund Site Assessments

Completed in FY11
P a g e  | 21

Area‐Wide Planning

In FY10, EPA launched the Brownfields Area‐Wide Planning Program (AWP) to strengthen community

involvement and promote better health and economic redevelopment on a broader scale. EPA launched 23

enhanced Brownfields projects that will help communities develop plans to integrate the cleanup and reuse of

brownfields sites in larger, coordinated efforts to revitalize their neighborhoods. In FY11, these communities

have been using EPA resources successfully to generate community input, evaluate existing environmental

conditions, local market potential, and support area infrastructure. As an example, Ranson, WV received an

AWP pilot grant to identify reuse strategies at brownfields sites within the Commerce Corridor between Ranson

and Charles Town, WV. The sites investigated in the AWP pilot were the result of a previous assessment grant

and six assessments, which ultimately led to cleanup of those brownfields.  Furthermore, EPA has been

coordinating with other Federal and state agencies to leverage technical assistance and resources.  For example,

the Department of Housing and Urban Development‐Department of Transportation‐EPA Partnership is in the

process of incorporating criteria into their grant funding competitions that will give some preference to

applicants who are already receiving related resources from the partner Agencies.
P a g e  | 22

ADVANCING CLEANUPS

What is it?

After the site has been assessed and it is determined that cleanup is required, there is a substantial amount of

progress and protection of human health and the environment that occurs before the cleanup is completed.  A

cleanup remedy may contain multiple actions depending on the nature of the remedy selected, and cover

discrete areas of contamination such as ground water, sediments, or soil.  Numerous activities take place to

address the contamination, reduce risk to human health and the environment, and move the site along the

cleanup continuum to return the site to use or reuse.  These include engaging local communities in decision‐

making, and selecting and designing the remedy.  The proposed continued use or anticipated future use of sites

plays an important role in the cleanup process.  EPA works collaboratively with other federal agencies, states,

tribes, local governments, communities and the regulated entities to integrate appropriate future use

opportunities into cleanup remedy options.  Additionally, EPA uses permits and enforcement authorities to

implement RCRA CA. Similarly, Superfund uses enforcement authorities to obtain commitments from Potentially

Responsible Parties (PRPs) to perform or pay for cleanup actions at Superfund sites, and ensure that PRPs

comply with these commitments and complete cleanups in a timely and protective manner.  This ensures that

limited Superfund resources are preserved for sites with no viable or liable PRPs.   

The length and complexity of cleanups across cleanup programs can vary widely, and some sites can take a

significant amount of time to clean up.  Many of our Superfund sites and RCRA CA facilities are highly

contaminated, technically challenging, and cover large areas.  For example, historic mining practices in the

Coeur d'Alene River Basin in Idaho generated an estimated 70 to 100 million tons of heavy metal laden mining

waste that has spread over approximately 900,000 acres throughout regional streams, rivers, flood plains, and

lakes. Over 5,000 affected properties, including homes, schools, and recreational areas, have been cleaned up to

date and hundreds more are cleaned up every year. Consequently, these sites can require decades to clean up.  

Therefore, during the cleanup process, when a potential pathway for human exposure (air, water, soil) is

identified, a process is normally initiated for exposure to be minimized or eliminated as soon as possible.  EPA

cleanup programs, or authorized delegated state programs, undertake or oversee interim site specific actions

(e.g., fencing, capping of source areas, providing alternate water supplies, or constructing containment walls,

etc.) and cleanup activities (e.g., excavation and ground water treatment, etc.) to reduce or eliminate exposure

to protect people and the environment from the acute threats posed by uncontrolled hazardous wastes or

contaminated ground water while cleanup is ongoing.   

Why is EPA doing this?

Cleanups are undertaken to address threats to public health from hazardous substances and petroleum, and to

prevent the migration of contaminated ground water. Substances commonly found on contaminated sites have

been linked to a variety of human health problems, such as birth defects, cancer, and changes in neuro‐

behavioral functions. These cleanup activities are intended to assure that unacceptable human exposures are

eliminated as soon as possible and contaminated ground water migration is controlled while the longer‐term

controls are being designed and/or constructed and site cleanup progresses towards reuse.  
Accomplishments

Progress Towards Meeting Strategic Plan  

EPA established five measures to gauge progress in advancing cleanups. Three of the targets were met, including

sites with human exposures and contaminated groundwater migration under control. The measure related to

Federal Facility Superfund sites was not achieved. The measure was not met due to a variety of factors including

delayed cleanup schedules, new contamination, funding shortfalls, documentation issues, weather conditions,

and change of site personnel.

Status Measure Target FY11 Value 

Number of Superfund sites with human exposures under control 10 10 

Number of Superfund sites with contaminated ground water migration 

under control 

15 21 

Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins 

under control 

72% 77% 

Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with migration of contaminated 

ground water under control 

64% 67% 

 Number of Federal Facility Superfund Sites where the final remedial 

decision for contaminants at the sites has been determined 

104 82 

Legend:     Data Unavailable         Goal Not Met         Goal Met

Number of sites protective for people is increasing  

EPA is making significant progress in assuring that prior to completion of cleanups, unacceptable human

exposures are eliminated or controlled as soon as possible.  As can be seen in figure 10, the RCRA CA and

Superfund programs have made significant progress in stabilizing exposure, while longer‐term cleanup

progresses.  At these sites, EPA has taken action to address any unacceptable exposures and eliminate acute

risks while continuing to pursue long‐term, permanent cleanups.  These actions demonstrate EPA’s commitment

to protecting human health and the environment from possible short‐ and long‐term effects of site‐related

contamination.  Since FY02, the number of Superfund and RCRA CA sites determined to be Protective for People

(PFP) has increased by 89 percent.   

P a g e  | 23

1,199 1,227 1,247 1,235 1,269 1,282 1,306 1,320 1,338 1,348

1,028 1,248 1,440 1,649 1,745 1,830 1,893 2,439 2,681 2,870

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of sites

SF CA

Figure 10. Number of Superfund Sites and

RCRA CA Sites Protective for People

FY02 ‐ FY11
COMPLETING CLEANUPS AND REUSING SITES

What is it?

One of EPA’s top priorities is to support sustainable, thriving communities by cleaning up sites and returning

them to productive reuse or maintaining the viability of the operating facility.  During this phase of the cleanup

continuum, cleanup activities are completed.  However, for some sites, removing or destroying all of the

contamination is not possible.  Some remaining contamination must be managed on‐site, creating the need for

site‐specific long‐term stewardship activities. EPA employs several different types of controls at these sites,

including institutional controls and engineering controls, to assure that any contamination is contained and

stabilized, and that human or environmental exposure to contamination is limited.  Significant attention is given

to these activities to ensure long‐term protection of human health and the environment.       

Why is EPA doing this?  

There are multiple economic and social impacts that could be linked to cleanup activities. Land is a resource to

communities.  Cleaning up land, so that it can be put to productive use, be it commercial, industrial, residential,

recreational, greenspace or other, provides many benefits to the community, including reduced morbidity  and

mortality risks. If a property is cleaned up and revitalized, the reuse may result in new income to the community

in the form of taxes, jobs to local residents or it may provide recreational or other services to make the

community a better place to live. Lastly, reusing contaminated property often means that greenspace is not

developed.   

Accomplishments

Progress Towards Meeting Strategic Plan   

EPA established eleven measures related to completion of cleanups and site reuse.  All but the LUST cleanup

target was met in FY11.  The LUST program was only able to complete 91 percent of the targeted cleanups

primarily because many states are facing significant staff and resource constraints, while at the same time

cleanup costs are rising.  

Status Measure Target FY11 Value 

Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for 

human exposure and ground water migration 

12,250 11,169 

Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for 

human exposure and ground water migration in Indian country 

32 42 

Annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed 22 22 

Number of Federal Facilities where all remedies have completed construction 70 70 

Number of remedial action projects completed at Superfund NPL sites 103 132 

Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding 60 130 

Acres of Brownfields properties made ready for reuse 1,000 6,617 

Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities 5,000 6,446 

Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at 

Brownfields sites 

.9 2.14 

Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with final remedies constructed 38% 42% 

Number of Superfund sites ready for anticipated use site-wide 65 65 

Legend:     Data Unavailable         Goal Not Met         Goal Met

P a g e  | 24
Over two million acres of formerly contaminated land in reuse or ready to be reused  

Each of EPA’s cleanup programs annually reports the number of sites ready for anticipated use (RAU). Since EPA

began measuring our progress obtaining RAU status in FY08, the number of sites RAU has steadily increased

(figure 11). Today, EPA has made over 2.1 million acres and over 417,000 sites RAU, which is approximately 81

percent of all sites within the EPA universe. As a result, communities are able to reclaim these properties for

ecological, recreational, commercial, residential and other purposes.

P a g e  | 25

Leveraging the private sector  

378,741 390,447 404,550 417,057

994,254 1,059,886

1,101,686

2,152,057

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Total acres/sites

Sites Acres

Figure 11. Sites and Acres

Ready for Anticipated Use

FY08‐FY11

In FY11, the Brownfields Program's funding for cleanup and redevelopment activities leveraged 6,447 jobs.

Cumulatively, the program has leveraged 72,000 jobs since its inception in 1995. These projects can have a large

positive impact on communities.  For example, EPA funded a cleanup project in Michigan in FY11 that is

employing 20‐25 people, and will ultimately reach 150 people.  Similarly, a cleanup project funded in FY11 at a

former gas manufacturing plant in Ohio will be redeveloped as an office hotel and retail complex that will

employ over 1,000 people.   

Managing to project completion

In FY11, the EPA began reporting on a new Superfund Program measure that tracks remedial action project

completions at NPL sites. The new measure augments the program’s sitewide construction completion measure

by emphasizing incremental progress in reducing risk to human health and the environment. In FY11, the EPA

achieved 132 project completions, exceeding its target of 103 by 28 percent.  
P a g e  | 26

Increased Property Values Attributed to EPA Program 

In January 2011, researchers at Duke University and the University of Pittsburgh estimated the social 

benefits of land cleanup by examining how property values near contaminated sites change as a result of 

cleanup activities. The study looked at residential properties within 1 kilometer of Superfund sites across 

the United States from 1990 – 2000 and estimated that median economic housing values appreciated by 

13.1 percent at listing and 19 percent at deletion, when evaluated at the Census block level. 

0%

‐25%

13%

19%

‐30%

‐20%

‐10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Pre‐proposal Proposal Listing Deletion

Percentage change

Change in Property Values

Continuing to reduce the backlog of LUSTs

The LUST Program has achieved significant success in closing releases since the beginning of the program.  Of

the approximately 501,723 total confirmed releases, by the end of FY11, 82 percent were closed.  As indicated in

figure 12, the LUST program continues to make progress decreasing the overall backlog; however, the pace of

cleanups is declining.  In FY11, the program only completed 91 percent of the annual cleanup goal of 12,250

sites by finishing 11,169 cleanups.  Achieving these cleanup rates in the future will be more challenging.   In

FY11, the LUST Program completed a study of its cleanup backlog.  This study will form the basis for discussion

with EPA’s partners in identifying potential opportunities to further reduce the backlog such as expedited site

assessment, remedial optimization, integrated funding opportunities and leveraging petroleum brownfields

opportunities where applicable.   

Figure 12. National LUST Backlog

FY00 ‐ FY11

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of tanks
P a g e  | 27

III. RESPONDING TO EMERGENCIES AND REDUCING RISKS

Each year, more than 20,000 emergencies involving the release (or threatened release) of oil and hazardous

substances are reported in the United States, potentially affecting both communities and the surrounding

natural environment. These emergencies may occur from transportation accidents, events at chemical or other

facilities using or manufacturing chemicals, or as a result of natural or man‐made disaster events. EPA responds

to immediate threats from releases of hazardous substances and oil, and its first priority is to eliminate any

danger to the public.

There is a complex system of responsibilities for these types of emergencies.  In general, responsibilities are

spread across federal, state and local governments, depending upon the size and type of the emergency and

involve the environmental, emergency management, public safety, and public health agencies of the three levels

of government. In addition, industry has a very important role to play in preparing for and responding to such

emergencies.  This section will review our programs and describe our progress responding to emergencies.   

TABLE 3.  OSWER RESPONSE AND REMOVAL PROGRAMS

Superfund Emergency Response and Removal Program The Superfund Removal Program functions as the 

backbone federal response to any contamination event; providing response support to state, local, tribal and 

potentially responsible parties when their response capabilities are exceeded; and managing risks to human 

health, the environment, and the economic viability of communities. Removal actions are typically immediate 

short-term responses intended to protect people from threats posed by hazardous waste sites.7

Preparing for and Responding to Emergencies

What is it?  

The Superfund Emergency Response and Removal Program trains, equips and deploys resources in order to

contain and remove contaminants.  Under this Program, trained and equipped EPA personnel respond to or

oversee the responsible party’s clean up of thousands of releases, regardless of their cause.  EPA manages

and/or provides support for emergency responses, removal assessments, site stabilizations and cleanup

response actions at NPL and non–NPL sites.  This 24‐hour per day capability is a cornerstone of the National Oil

and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, more commonly called the National Contingency Plan

(NCP).  The NCP is the federal government's blueprint for responding to both oil spills and hazardous substance

releases.   EPA maintains national and regional response centers for 24‐hour reporting of hazardous material or

petroleum releases.  EPA deploys many advanced technologies and other assets during disaster responses, such

as the National Decontamination Team, the portable laboratories or the airborne sensor platform called ASPECT.  

Annually, EPA reviews its response and removal preparedness via the Core National Approach to Response (Core

NAR) assessment. The Core NAR addresses day‐to‐day preparedness for removal actions for Regions, Special

Teams and Headquarters, as well as national preparedness for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear

incidents.  The Core NAR score is intended to measure our level of emergency preparedness for many various

types of incidents. In addition, OSWER supports EPA’s Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness and

                                                           

7 This program is a part of EPA’s cleanup and EPA’s emergency response functions. An additional description of this

program’s responsibilities is described in section 2.
Response Program through multiple efforts including participating in the National Incident Coordination Team,

response training and exercises, and providing technical capabilities.

Why is EPA doing this?

While threats confronted by the emergency response program vary greatly in size, nature and location, there is

a common element in all cases—time.  Prompt action is crucial.  The Program's first priority is to eliminate

dangers to the public.  EPA’s role as a backbone is a fundamental part of the national response system and is

heavily relied upon to deal with any environmental emergency.    

Accomplishments

Progress Towards Meeting Strategic Plan

There were three measures associated with preparing for and responding to emergencies. The targets for all

three measures were exceeded.

Status Measure Target FY11 Value 

Number of Superfund lead removal actions completed annually 170 214 

PRP removal completions overseen by EPA 170 191 

Score on annual Core National Approach to Response 60% 78% 

Legend:     Data Unavailable         Goal Not Met         Goal Met

EPA response provides a backbone  

EPA completed or oversaw the completion of more than 400 removal actions in FY11. These cleanups were of

varying complexity and contained a wide range of contaminants that posed a threat to human health and the

environment.  If the party that spilled the chemical cannot clean it up, EPA responds. If the local authorities, fire

department or local Emergency Management personnel cannot clean it up, EPA responds.   

EPA responds to tornados in Joplin, MO

On May 22, 2011, tragedy struck Joplin, Missouri, after an F‐5 tornado damaged approximately 8,000 structures

in its wake. In the aftermath of the tornado, EPA worked with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources

and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as well as other state and local partner agencies and

nongovernmental organizations, to reuse and recycle more than 156 tons of electronic equipment, 104,000

containers and 257 tons of white goods, such as housing materials and propane cylinders. In addition, EPA

coordinated with partner agencies to conduct rapid needs assessment, air monitoring for asbestos and

particulates, and household hazardous waste operations, as well as provide long‐term community recovery

support. EPA maintained public outreach efforts throughout the response, conducting more than 70 news media

interviews that have resulted in several hundred news stories mentioning the agency’s efforts.   

P a g e  | 28
ACRONYM GLOSSARY

ACP – Area Contingency Planning

ACRES – Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment

Exchange System

ARRA – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

AWP – Area Wide Planning

CA – Corrective Action

CCR – Coal Combustion Residue

CERCLA – Comprehensive, Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act  

EJ – Environmental Justice

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

EPCRA – Emergency Planning and Community Right‐

to‐Know Act

FRP – Facility Response Plan

GHG – Greenhouse Gas

ICI – Integrated Cleanup Initiative

IWMP – Integrated Waste Management Plan

LUST – Leaking Underground Storage Tank

MBTE – Methyl‐tertiary‐butyl‐ether

MSW – Municipal Solid Waste

NAR – National Approach to Response

NCP – National Contingency Plan

NPL – National Priorities List

OSWER – Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response

PCB – Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PFP – Protective for People

PRP – Potentially Responsible Party

RAU – Ready for Anticipated Use

  

RCRA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RMP – Risk Management Plan

SMM – Sustainable Materials Management

SPCC – Spill Prevention, Control and

Countermeasure

TSCA – Toxic Substances Control Act

TSD – Treatment, Storage and Disposal