There are three readings here. The first, from EPA, lays out the basics of Superfund. The second and third are from senators who are working on policy changes. -- J.J. Pitney

Years ago, people did not understand how certain wastes might affect people's health and the environment. Many wastes were dumped on the ground, in rivers or left out in the open. As a result, thousands of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites were created. Some common hazardous waste sites include abandoned warehouses, manufacturing facilities, processing plants and landfills.

In response to growing concern over health and environmental risks posed by hazardous waste sites, Congress established the Superfund Program in 1980 to clean up these sites. The Superfund Program is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in cooperation with individual states and tribal governments. Superfund locates, investigates and cleans up hazardous waste sites throughout the United States.

The Superfund Trust Fund was set up to pay for the cleanup of these sites. The money comes mainly from taxes on the chemical and petroleum industries. The Trust Fund is used primarily when those companies or people responsible for contamination at Superfund sites cannot be found, or cannot perform or pay for the cleanup work.

HOW ARE SUPERFUND SITES DISCOVERED?

Hazardous Waste Sites are discovered by local and state agencies, businesses, the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and by people like you. You can report potential hazardous wastes sites to the National Response Center Hotline or to your state and local authorities. To report a hazardous waste site, problem, or emergency, you should call the Hotline at 18004248802. This Hotline is operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS A CHEMICAL EMERGENCY?

A number of the sites reported to the National Response Center are emergencies and require immediate action. Emergency actions eliminate immediate risks to ensure your safety. Superfund's number one priority is to protect the people in communities near sites and their environment.

Superfund personnel are on call to respond at a moment's notice to chemical emergencies, accidents, or releases. Typical chemical emergencies may include train derailments, truck accidents, and incidents at chemical plants where there is a chemical release or threat of a release to the environment. Superfund may respond, or may help state and local authorities to deal with these emergencies quickly. The hazardous materials are hauled away from the site for treatment or proper disposal, or they are treated at the site to make them safe. The risk to the community is removed.

In an emergency situation, you and your community will be kept informed of the situation and what steps are being taken to ensure your safety. EPA then evaluates the site and determines whether additional cleanup is necessary.

WHAT HAPPENS TO SITES THAT ARE NOT EMERGENCIES?

When a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA screens the site to determine what type of action is necessary. EPA reviews existing data, inspects the site, and may interview nearby residents to find out the history and the effects of the site on the population and the environment. Many of the sites that are screened do not meet the criteria for Federal Superfund cleanup action. Some sites do not require any action, while others are referred to the states, other programs, other agencies or individuals for cleanup, or other action.

For the remaining sites, EPA tests the soil, water, and air to determine what hazardous substances were left at the site and how serious the risks may be to human health and the environment. Parties responsible for the contamination at the site may conduct these assessments under close EPA supervision. Their involvement in the study and cleanup process is critical in order to make best use of Superfund resources. EPA uses the information collected to decide what type of action, if any, is required.

At this point, EPA prepares a Community Relations Plan to ensure community involvement. This plan is based on discussions with local leaders and private citizens in the community. In addition, EPA sets up a local information file in the community so that citizens can have access to information about the site. The information file or "repository" is usually located at a library or a public school and contains the official record of the site, reports and activities (called the Administrative Record), as well as additional site-related information.

EARLY ACTION

Early Actions are taken when EPA determines that a site may become a threat to you or your environment in the near future. For example, there may be a site where leaking drums of hazardous substances could ignite or cause harm to you if touched or inhaled. In an instance such as this, EPA takes steps to make sure the situation is quickly addressed and the site is safe. Typically Early Actions are taken to:

prevent direct human contact with contaminants from the site; remove hazardous materials from the site; prevent contaminants from spreading off the site; provide water to residents whose drinking water has been contaminated by the site; or temporarily or permanently evacuate/relocate nearby residents.

Early Actions may take anywhere from a few days to five years to complete depending on the type and extent of contamination. EPA also determines if Long-Term Action will be necessary.

WHO IS INVOLVED IN SUPERFUND CLEANUPS?

Superfund cleanups are very complex and require the efforts of many experts in science, engineering, public health, management, law, community relations, and numerous other fields. The goal of the process is to protect you and the environment you live in from the effects of hazardous substances.

WHAT IS THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST?

The National Priorities List is a published list of hazardous waste sites in the country that are eligible for extensive, long-term cleanup under the Superfund program.

HOW DO THE SITES GET ON THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST?

To evaluate the dangers posed by hazardous waste sites, EPA has developed a scoring system called the Hazard Ranking System. EPA uses the information collected during the assessment phase of the process to score sites according to the danger they may pose to public health and the environment. Sites that score high enough on the Hazard Ranking System are eligible for the National Priorities List. Once a site is scored and meets the criteria, EPA proposes that it be put on the List. A site may also be proposed for the National Priorities List, if the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a health advisory for the site or if the site is chosen as the stat's top priority site. The proposal is published in the Federal Register and the public has an opportunity to comment in writing on whether the site should be included on the National Priorities List. To obtain more information on a proposed site, contact your Community Relations Coordinator.

WHAT HAPPENS DURING A LONG-TERM CLEANUP?

Long-term cleanups are extensive. Built into this process are several phases that lead to the ultimate goal of cleaning up the site and providing a safe environment for the citizens living near the site. Throughout the process, there is opportunity for citizen involvement.

First, a detailed study of the site is done to identify the cause and extent of contamination at the site, the possible threats to the environment and the people nearby, and options for cleaning up the site.

EPA uses this information to develop and present a Proposed Plan for Long-Term Cleanup to citizens and to local and state officials for comment. The Proposed Plan describes the various cleanup options under consideration and identifies the option EPA prefers. The community has at least 30 days to comment on the Proposed Plan. EPA invites community members to a public meeting to express their views and discuss the Plan with EPA (and sometimes state) officials.

Once the public's concerns are addressed, EPA publishes a Record of Decision, which describes how the Agency plans to clean up the site. A notice is also placed in the local newspaper to inform the community of the cleanup decision.

Next, the cleanup method is designed to address the unique conditions at the site where it will be used. This is called the Remedial Design. The design and actual cleanup is conducted by EPA, the State, or by the parties responsible for the contamination at the site. EPA closely oversees this design phase and the development of the cleanup at the site. When the design is completed, EPA prepares and distributes a fact sheet to the community describing the design and the action that will take place at the site.

EPA can put in place equipment and manpower necessary to clean up a site, but it may take a long time to return a site to the way it was before it was contaminated. Some sites, due to the extent of contamination, will never return to the way they were prior to the pollution; however, EPA will make sure that the site will be safe for the people living around the site now and in the future. EPA regularly monitors every National Priorities List site to make sure it remains safe. If there is any indication that a problem has arisen, immediate action will be taken to make the site safe again.

Long-Term Actions

Early Actions can correct many hazardous waste problems and eliminate most threats to human health and the environment. Some site, however, require Long-term Action. Long-term Actions include restoring groundwater and taking measures to protect wetlands, estuaries, and other ecological resources.

These sites were caused by years of pollution and may take several years, even decades, to clean up.

WHO PAYS FOR SUPERFUND CLEANUP?

Superfund Cleanup is either paid for by the parties responsible for contamination or by the Superfund Trust Fund. Under the Superfund law, EPA is able to make those companies and individuals responsible for contamination at a Superfund site perform, and pay for, the cleanup work at the site. EPA negotiates with the responsible parties to get them to pay for the plans and the work that has to be done to clean up the site. If an agreement cannot be reached, EPA issues orders to responsible parties to make them clean up the site under EPA supervision. EPA may also use Superfund Trust Fund money to pay for cleanup costs, then attempt to get the money back through legal action.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT SUPERFUND, CALL: 1-800-424-9346 (Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 7:30 pm EST; Closed Federal Holidays) URL address: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline.htm

The RCRA, Superfund, & EPCRA Information Hotline researches and provides information on 1) Superfund, including site assessment, cleanup, removals, and Superfund Reform Initiatives such as Brownfields; and 2) hazardous and solid waste management, recycling, and permitted facilities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and 3) emergency planning and preparedness under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). This hotline is also linked to Superfund's Home Page that contain site information.

2. Superfund Has Flopped Despite Good Intentions

By Sen. John Chafee and Sen. Bob Smith

Sen. John Chafee (R-RI) is chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) is chairman of its subcommittee on Superfund, waste control, and risk assessment.

Americans have spent more than $40 billion over the past 16 years to clean up hazardous waste. Yet only 125 of the more than 1,300 toxic waste sites nationwide have been fully cleaned up. That's not just an environmental disaster or a fiscal sinkhole; it's proof of a growing bureaucratic nightmare.

Spurred by the discovery of extensive hazardous waste contamination at Love Canal, N.Y., and the "Valley of the Drums" in Kentucky, Superfund -- or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) -- was enacted in 1980 to facilitate the cleanup of the nation's old and abandoned hazardous waste sites. The program's creation is indicative of its flaws. It was passed by a lame-duck Congress and signed into law by a lame-duck President.

Not exactly a propitious start.

Though the law was driven by good intentions, it has been run off the road by some bad results. It is inefficient and in many cases leads to unfair or unintended outcomes.

Under the current Superfund statute, a party that disposed of a single drum of hazardous waste at a facility in 1970, or even in 1870, long before the Superfund law was enacted, could be held liable for the cost of cleaning up the entire site, which might contain thousands of drums. In addition, that same party could be held liable even if the disposal was done in accordance with the law at the time of disposal (i.e., retroactive liability).

This liability scheme has created a perverse incentive for parties to litigate every issue at every opportunity in order to delay the incurrence of Superfund response costs and pass on responsibility for costs to third parties. Money that could be spent on cleanup is used to fund court battles, while contaminated sites are left intact. This is not the way to clean up our toxic waste sites.

We must move away from this "blame game" approach and toward a system that encourages and rewards swift and effective cleanups without constant and costly litigation.

The strict, retroactive joint and several liability scheme has led to the "browning" of many of our nation's cities. Fear of becoming entangled in Superfund's liability web has led to many industries and other potential developers and redevelopers shunning former industrial and commercial sites, and instead heading to greener pastures in the suburbs where undeveloped lands do not pose a contamination problem. The old, abandoned, or underused former industrial or commercial sites have come to be known as "brownfields."

Many municipalities, primarily in the Northeast and the Midwest, have vast tracts of land that are potentially contaminated, are not being investigated or cleaned, and are not being redeveloped. This has led to shrinking tax bases and increasing inventories of unused land, which, in many cases, has reverted to municipal ownership.

One effect of Superfund has been to foster greater development in formerly pristine areas, which will require a brand new infrastructure to accommodate the new development. Superfund was designed to clean up and improve the condition of the environment; however, it is having an opposite, unintended effect. Already developed land is not being redeveloped and, where necessary, cleaned up. Development is spreading further into formerly undeveloped areas.

Another goal of Superfund was to have those who contaminated the land or took actions that led to contamination pay for the cost of cleanup. The current liability scheme, however, has caused too much money to be spent on litigation between parties trying to determine how much each party should pay.

These "transaction costs" are estimated to constitute 25 to 30 percent of all private- sector expenses associated with Superfund and are particularly burdensome for small businesses. The money expended by private parties on litigation would be better spent on environmental remediation.

Another problem is that Superfund has created a system whereby state and local governments, which are most affected by the selection of cleanup remedies, have almost no role in determining the future of these contaminated sites.

The federal government has virtually complete control of selection and implementation of the Superfund program and has exclusive control over the money in the Superfund Trust Fund. States, however, play a role in the program's implementation and are often responsible for the operation, maintenance, and a share of the cleanup costs for a site.

This overlapping authority has caused many federal and state governments to disagree over the level of cleanup, the remedy to be used, and the allocation of costs among different government entities. These disagreements often add to the cost and duration of the cleanups.

Testimony we received during a series of seven hearings conducted in 1995 indicates that states that operate their own cleanup programs can do it three times faster, and at one-fifth the cost of the federal Superfund program.

As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and chairman of the Superfund, waste control, and risk assessment subcommittee, we have introduced legislation, S. 8, which is the result of nearly two years of bipartisan discussions with the Administration, Senate Democrats, environmental groups, industry groups, and state and local leaders.

This is a comprehensive proposal that restructures the program from top to bottom -- because today's Superfund problems require innovative and wholesale solutions to meet tomorrow's needs.

S. 8, the Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act, was included in the Senate Majority Leader's Republican agenda and introduced on Jan. 21 as one of the top ten priority bills for the 105th Congress.

To achieve meaningful Superfund reform, it is necessary to meet five goals:

* We must cut the transaction costs of the program. This means cutting out the lawyers and ensuring that every dollar meant for cleanup goes to cleanup.

* We must speed cleanups. Currently, it takes more than 12 years to clean up a site. We can do better than that.

* We must enhance the role for states and localities in the cleanup and listing processes. The states have a better track record in this area because they are closer to the communities that are directly affected by contamination, and are in a better position to ensure that cleanup actions fully protect human health, provide for local involvement in cleanup decisions, and ensure rapid reuse of sites once cleanup is complete.

* We must take future land use into consideration when remediating a site.

* We must inject common sense into our cleanup program to reach sensible levels that protect our children and the environment.

The bill we have introduced accomplishes these goals. The Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act will:

* Address the brownfields problem by providing grants for the identification and cleanup of contaminated sites; provide grants for states to create or strengthen their voluntary cleanup programs; remove the federal liability cloud for brownfield sites cleaned under state law; and protect potential investors and innocent landowners so that entrepreneurs will step forward to redevelop the sites.

* Let the states take as much of the Superfund program as they want or can handle.

* Protect our important groundwater resources.

* Streamline the cleanup process by eliminating overlapping studies of contaminated sites.

* Require the EPA to consider the future use of resources when it decides how clean a site must be.

* Provide significant liability relief to many parties that nearly everyone agrees were never intended to be caught in Superfund's liability net, such as those who legally sent their waste to a municipal landfill, small businesses, de minimis transporters and generators of hazardous substances, and anyone who sent common household trash to a disposal site.

* Eliminate the unfairness of joint and several liability for everyone else by having the fund, and not other parties, pay the share of those parties who cannot be found or who are bankrupt.

* Make restoration the goal of natural resource damages recovery, not speculative punitive damages.

Senate Democrats have also introduced a bill, but its scope is limited to brownfields redevelopment. This is an important goal, but one that rightly belongs as part of a comprehensive Superfund reform effort.

To address only a subset of abandoned and idled contaminated sites is a "feel good" measure that does not address the root problem that continues to create brownfields.

We make brownfields a priority in our own bill because we need to fix the underlying disease -- not just treat some of its symptoms.

For the past few years, the Administration has acknowledged that Superfund is broken and has been a strong advocate of fixing Superfund problems legislatively. EPA Administrator Carol Browner's statement at a Jan. 28 press conference on the introduction of the minority's brownfields bill, S. 18, indicated a strong willingness on the part of the Administration to work with us to achieve a significant overhaul of the Superfund program.

Both Republicans and Democrats acknowledge that there is a problem with Superfund. That's the easy part to agree on. We also agree that remediating and redeveloping brownfields is a priority.

But Superfund must be fixed in a comprehensive manner. This will take political will and may require that difficult decisions be made -- but reform cannot and should not be delayed any longer. The time has come for both sides to work together for the common goal of improving the environmental well-being of our nation.

by Sen. Frank Lautenberg Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works subcommittee on Superfund, waste control, and risk management.

For years, decaying industrial plants have defined the skyline and contaminated the land in many of our urban areas. Their rusting frames, like aging skyscrapers, are a silent reminder of the manufacturers that left, taking inner-city jobs -- and often inner-city hope -- with them. Suburban areas and rural landscapes are pockmarked with landfills that contain hazardous toxic soups from industry.

Yet in these fallow fields may lie the seeds of community revitalization. Brownfields cleanup can spur significant economic development and create jobs. This type of initiative makes good environmental sense and good business sense. To appreciate this, one need only look at a few of the brownfield success stories from across the country. In Buffalo, N.Y., a hydroponic tomato farm was built on a former Republic Steel site, bringing 300 new jobs to the area.

In Camden, N.J., a contaminated railroad yard was cleaned of contaminants. The cleanup led to a $56 million private equity investment for a world-class music and performing arts amphitheater. This center promises to help revitalize one of our nation's most distressed communities.

In Elizabeth, N.J., we will soon turn a former municipal landfill into a one million-square-foot retail outlet center with 5,000 employees.

In Detroit, Chrysler Corporation built a Jeep Cherokee plant in an area previously composed of contaminated scrap yards, gas stations, and abandoned lots. The plant represents a $1 billion capital investment and currently employs 3,100 workers.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Nationally, these cleanups have enormous potential for creating jobs. Brownfield redevelopment benefits urban, suburban, and rural areas alike. And every revitalized brownfield can represent a "field of dreams" to countless unemployed workers and their families. At the same time that brownfield cleanups create jobs, they also often remove dangerous contaminants from our environment. With that, public health and safety is enhanced.

The Superfund program provides federal authority to assist in cleaning up abandoned waste sites that pose the most serious threats. However, there are more than 100,000 brownfields that don't fall under Superfund because of lower levels of contamination. The risks posed by many of these sites may be relatively low. In others, there may be no dangerous levels of pollution, but there may be a perception that the area is contaminated.

Unfortunately, prospective purchasers, developers, and bankers are reluctant to get involved in transactions with these properties because of their concern, however minimal, about potential environmental liability. And, even when the owner of a property is ready, willing, and eager to clean up a property, there is no ready mechanism to do so.

To unleash brownfields' potential for economic development, several states, including my home state of New Jersey, have developed expedited procedures to clean up sites that don't pose a significant threat to public health or the environment. Under these cleanup programs, owners can volunteer to pay for the costs of remediation and of state oversight.

In return, they get a letter from the state that assures prospective buyers and lenders that the property has been cleaned up to the government's satisfaction, and that other parties need not worry about potential cleanup liability. This so-called "clean bill of health" removes a major impediment to economic development, and it can help revitalize stagnant local economies.

In New Jersey, thousands of parties have signed up for the state's voluntary cleanup program during its first four years.

However, states cannot protect these purchasers and developers from the threat of liability at the federal level. This remains a major source of concern for these parties. Without statutory relief protecting parties from federal suits by the Justice Department, or even third parties, the number of brownfield cleanups will be limited.

In an effort to address this problem in January, 21 Senators joined me in introducing the Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup Act of 1997, S. 18. This bill, which is similar to legislation I introduced in 1993, would limit the potential liability of innocent buyers of eligible properties. And it would set a standard to gauge when parties could not have reasonably known that the property was contaminated.

The legislation would also build on an existing administration pilot program by providing financial assistance, in the form of grants to local and state governments, to inventory and evaluate brownfield sites. Each grant, for up to $200,000, would allow local and state governments to locate their brownfields, evaluate what would be required to clean them up, and determine which type of reuse would best suit the properties.

S. 18 also would provide grants to state and local governments to establish and capitalize revolving low-interest loan programs. Under this bill, minimal seed money will garner a substantial economic harvest by turning lands that may be of negative value into assets for the future.

This legislation does not affect Superfund cleanup because contaminated sites on the Superfund National Priorities List are not eligible for assistance under this bill. The bill is narrowly constructed to facilitate the cleanup and development of less contaminated sites, while Superfund addresses the worst sites in the country.

My legislation is very similar to the Brownfield Title of S. 8, which was part of the Republican leadership package of bills introduced by Sen. John Chafee (R-RI). However, S. 8 is a comprehensive Superfund reform bill that will require extensive work before it can gain the bipartisan support.

Superfund has been very controversial, failing to secure approval from Congress in 1994, 1995, and 1996. I am hopeful that we can finally reach agreement on the Superfund reform during the 105th Congress. However, it would be a mistake, in my view, to delay action on brownfields legislation until an agreement can be reached on Superfund reform.

We should enact brownfields legislation now. It enjoys broad, bipartisan support, and could be enacted without delay. Prompt approval would promote a spirit of bipartisanship on environmental issues and help build momentum for a Superfund bill.

A bill that represents a strong marriage of environmental and economic goals deserves every Senator's support. It will allow states to achieve cleanups more quickly and to promote economic opportunities at a time when our citizens want progress on both fronts. It will spur economic development, revitalize local economies, and bring jobs back to communities across the country.