- Home
- Agencies
- Department of Agriculture
- Department of Housing and Urban Development
- General Services Administration
- Department of Commerce
- Department of the Interior
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Department of Defense
- Department of Justice
- National Science Foundation
- Department of Education
- Department of Labor
- Office of Personnel Management
- Department of Energy
- Department of State
- Small Business Administration
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Department of Transportation
- Social Security Administration
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of the Treasury
- U.S. Agency for International Development
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Veterans Affairs
- Goals
- Initiatives
- Programs
Primary tabs
Key to Changes
This text is Revised text
This word has been added to the text
This text is Last Published text
This word has been removed from the text
Modifed styling with no visual changes
Strategic Objective
Restore Land
Strategic Objective
Overview
Challenging and complex environmental problems persist at many contaminated properties. These include contaminated soil, sediment, and groundwater that can cause human health concerns. Together with our federal, state, and tribal partners, EPA’s Superfund program, RCRA corrective actions, leaking underground storage tank and brownfields cleanup programs, and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) cleanups of PCBs reduce risks to human health and the environment through site cleanup and the return of restored land to productive use. EPA is establishing an Agency Priority Goal for FY 2014-2015, which is a continuation of the Priority Goal for FY 2012-2013, to measure and report sites ready for anticipated use (RAU). RAU is an indicator that the local, state, or federal agency has determined that the necessary cleanup goals, engineering controls, and institutional controls have been implemented at the site to make it available for a community’s current or reasonably anticipated future use or reuse. EPA’s Superfund, RCRA corrective action, leaking underground storage tank (LUST), and brownfields cleanup programs all contribute to the Priority Goal to make sites ready for anticipated use.[1] Although each program establishes its own targets, the collective nature and combined overall target of the RAU Priority Goal offers an opportunity for EPA cleanup programs to work together to identify lessons learned, efficiencies, and opportunities to advance site cleanup. From the inception of the respective programs to the end of FY 2013, 441,333 sites were made RAU, corresponding to over 2.3 million acres.[2]
There are multiple benefits associated with cleaning up contaminated sites: reducing mortality and morbidity risk; preventing and reducing human exposure to contaminants; making land available for commercial, residential, industrial, or recreational reuse; and, promoting community economic development. A 2011 study suggests that Superfund cleanups reduce the incidence of congenital anomalies in infants of mothers living within 2,000 meters of a site by roughly 20-25 percent.[3] In another case, EPA contracted with researchers at Duke University and the University of Pittsburgh to conduct a study to determine the effects of Superfund site status on housing values. The study found that when sites are cleaned up and deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL), properties within 3 miles of the sites experience an 18.6 to 24.5 percent increase in value.[4]
Over the past 3 years, EPA has implemented the Integrated Cleanup Initiative (ICI) in an effort to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its land cleanup programs. More than 150 different actions were conducted under ICI from FY 2010 through FY 2012 by the various land cleanup programs involved in the effort. These actions to improve efficiency and effectiveness are now part of current business procedures and cleanup processes. For example, EPA initiated a series of project management pilots to explore options for accelerating the pace of Superfund site cleanups from the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) phase of cleanup through site completion. Three of these pilots improved the remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) process and were completed in FY 2012. EPA’s Superfund program will consider applying the time- and cost-saving approaches examined in these pilots wherever appropriate.[5]
EPA's Superfund program is undertaking a comprehensive review of all aspects of the program. The goal of this review is to determine the best way to maintain the program's effectiveness in protecting human health and the environment by more efficiently managing its site cleanup process and program resources. In the same spirit, in early 2013, EPA worked with state partners and stakeholders to pilot an ambitious effort to apply “Lean” principles to the facility investigation phase of RCRA corrective action cleanup as a means to accelerate the process for a typical facility by several years.[6] By applying Lean techniques, EPA expects to achieve performance improvements and to continue setting and achieving ambitious goals for environmental progress. The Agency will continue to solicit new ideas and practices to improve EPA’s cleanup programs.
Another challenge to protecting our land resources from contamination is pollution from leaking underground storage tanks (USTs). While considerable progress has been made to clean up leaks from USTs, a backlog of over 80,000 sites remains and the number of cleanups per year is decreasing. To understand the makeup of remaining UST releases and the decline in the number of cleanups per year, EPA conducted a two-phase, data-driven analysis of UST cleanups as of 2006 and 2009. The study compiled and analyzed available data from 14 state [L]UST programs and identified key findings and potential opportunities to help reduce the number of remaining UST cleanups. To address new and existing LUST sites, EPA, in partnership with state and tribal programs, is developing and implementing strategies to address technical challenges, leverage best practices, and support management, oversight, and enforcement activities. In addition, EPA has implemented improvements in the LUST prevention program by increasing inspection frequency and other prevention efforts, and there has been a corresponding decrease in new confirmed releases. The efforts of the prevention program and the continued reduction in new confirmed releases, along with the earlier detection of releases, will remain critical factors in backlog reduction.[7]
In addition to cleanup and revitalization, EPA’s hazardous waste programs also are working to reduce the energy use and environmental footprint during the investigation and remediation of hazardous waste sites. As part of this effort, EPA’s Superfund program evaluated its green remediation strategy to assess its experiences in implementing the strategy, to determine a baseline against which to measure future progress, and to develop the best metrics for measuring the program’s success. The evaluation’s findings are being used to prepare the next phase of the strategy to reduce the energy, water, and materials used during site cleanups while at the same time ensuring that protective remedies are implemented.[8]
Throughout this work, EPA is enhancing its engagement with local communities and stakeholders so that they may meaningfully participate in decisions on land cleanup, emergency response, and management of hazardous substances and waste. Enhancing community engagement helps to ensure transparent and accessible decision-making processes, to deliver information that communities can use to participate effectively, to improve EPA responsiveness to community perspectives, and to ensure timely cleanup decisions.
National preparedness is an essential component in EPA’s work that entails responding to large-scale emergencies that may involve chemicals, oil, biological agents, radiation, weapons of mass destruction, or natural catastrophes. In recent years, the U.S. has faced considerable challenges in responding to nationally significant incidents and large-scale emergencies, including Hurricane Katrina, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant emergency in Japan, and Hurricane Sandy. Maintaining our preparedness level and ensuring that emergency responders are able to address chemical spills, unplanned releases of other hazardous materials, and other catastrophes are vital responsibilities. Consistent with the government-wide National Response Framework and the National Disaster Recovery Framework, EPA prepares for the possibility of multiple, simultaneous, nationally significant incidents across several regions and provides guidance and technical assistance to state, tribal, and local planning and response organizations. EPA recognizes the important role of state and local emergency responders and works with them to strengthen their preparedness and provide technical assistance when significant man-made or natural incidents strain their staffing and budget resources.
External Factors and Emerging Issues
Hazardous waste programs are intended to provide permanent solutions to contamination at sites or facilities to the extent practicable. As appropriate, EPA must incorporate emerging science into decision making to maintain its commitment to provide permanent solutions.
- Complications can arise when new scientific information (e.g., new toxicity information or a new analytical method) calls into question previous determinations about the need for or the scope and methods of cleanup at a site. Such scientific and technological developments may complicate relations with affected communities, risk communication, site investigation, remedy selection, and resource allocation within the program.
- Changes in precipitation, sea level rise, and storm surge, for example, may impact remedies and alter their effectiveness. Some evidence of this was apparent during the Hurricane Sandy event along the coasts and waterways of New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. EPA might appropriately consider the effects on planned, current, and completed cleanups that will occur from the impacts of a changing climate.
Endnotes:
- FY 2014-2015 Agency Priority Goal: Clean up contaminated sites to enhance the livability and economic vitality of communities. By September 30, 2015, an additional 18,970 sites will be made ready for anticipated use, protecting Americans and the environment one community at a time. For the LUST program, data as to whether institutional controls are in place are unavailable. EPA is exploring with states whether the data can be made available.
- Although separate performance targets are not developed for the number of acres RAU, the acres RAU are reported at the end of each fiscal year.
- Janet Currie, Michael Greenstone, and Enrico Moretti. 2011. "Superfund Cleanups and Infant Health." American Economic Review, 101(3): 435-41.
- S. Gamper-Rabindran and C. Timmins. 2013. "Does cleanup of hazardous waste sites raise housing values? Evidence of spatially localized benefits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.
- A recent directive from EPA’s Superfund program shares the lessons learned from these RD/RA pilot studies. This directive can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/ici/broader_applications_rd_ra_pilot_project_lessons_learned.pdf.
- Lean principles focus on identifying and enhancing valuable process steps while reducing wasteful steps. See also http://www.epa.gov/lean/government/index.htm.
- For more information, please see The National LUST Cleanup Backlog: A Study of Opportunities at http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/cat/backlog.html.
- More information about Superfund and green remediation at EPA is available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/greenremediation.
Progress Update
Contaminated land can threaten human health and the environment, and potentially hamper economic growth and the vitality of local communities. Academic research has demonstrated that investment in Superfund cleanups reduces the incidence of congenital abnormalities by roughly 20–25 percent for those living within 2,000 meters (1.2 miles) of a site.[1] The long-term vision of this objective is to prepare and respond to emergencies and to clean up contaminated land so it can be safely reused or continue to be used, creating more resilient, healthy, and vibrant communities. EPA’s land cleanup programs track over 541,000 sites and almost 23 million acres, many of which are located in economically distressed communities that suffer from disproportionate and adverse environmental exposures. Approximately 125 million people live within 3 miles of a Superfund or a RCRA Corrective Action site. Analyzing census data, EPA found that the population within three miles of these sites is more likely to be minority, low income, and linguistically isolated, and less likely to have a high school education than the U.S. population as a whole.[2] EPA and its partners have made over 453,000 contaminated sites Ready for Anticipated Use (RAU). Making sites RAU is one of the Agency’s FY 2014–2015 priority goal. Once a property is remediated and redeveloped, the reuse or continued use, may result in new income to the community in the form of taxes, jobs to local residents or provides recreational or other services to make the community a better place to live. A study found that property values within three miles of sites where Superfund cleanups were completed increased approximately 20 percent.[3]
Overall in FY 2014, EPA achieved 14 of the 20 measures in this objective, with significant challenges for the Superfund program measures. The various reasons for missing the targets are described below. EPA expects continued challenges for the Superfund Remedial Program in the next few years and will continue to implement the Superfund Program Review, leverage special accounts, and pursue other strategies to drive performance.
[1] Currie, Janet, Michael Greenstone, and Enrico Moretti 2012. “Superfund Cleanups and Infant Health.” American Economic Review, 101 (3):435–441.
[2] U.S EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Estimate. 2014. Data collected include: (1) site information as of the end of FY 2011 from CERCLIS and RCRAInfo; and (2) census data from 2007–2011 American Community Survey.
[3] Gamper-Rabidron, Shanti, and Christopher Timmins. 2012. “Does the Cleanup of Hazardous Sites Raise Housing Values? Evidence of Spatially Localized Benefits.” Duke Environmental Economics, Working Paper EE1203.
