Superfund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the American CERCLA act. For the managed futures fund provider, see Superfund Group. For the soccer club, see FC Superfund.

Workers in hazmat suits check the status of a cleanup site

Superfund is the common name for the United States environmental policy officially known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601–9675), which was enacted by the United States Congress on December 11, 1980 in response to the Love Canal disaster.^[1] The Superfund law was created to protect people, families, communities and others from heavily contaminated toxic waste sites that have been abandoned.^[2]

After its initial passage, the Reagan administration appointed Rita Lavelle, a former hazardous waste-producing company employee, as Superfund's administrator. Due to delays introduced by her industry-favorable policies, and a dramatic shortage of necessary funds, very little was accomplished in hazardous waste regulation until her resignation, the resignation of EPA administrator Anne Burford, and the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act in 1986. These amendments increased the funding of Superfund to $9 billion and provided for studies and the use of new technologies.

Superfund provides broad federal authority to clean up releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. There are currently 1,240 sites listed on the Superfund National Priority List, an additional 317 have been delisted, and 61 new sites have been proposed.^[3]

Approximately 70% of Superfund cleanup activities historically have been paid for by parties responsible (PRPs) for the cleanup of contamination. The only time cleanup costs are not borne by the responsible party is when that party either can not be found or is unable to pay for the cleanup. For those sites, the Superfund law originally paid for toxic waste cleanups through a tax on petroleum and chemical industries. The chemical and petroleum fees were intended to provide incentives to use less toxic substances. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected, and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The last full fiscal year in which the Department of the Treasury collected the tax was FY1995. At the end of FY1996, the invested trust fund balance was $6.0 billion. This fund was exhausted by the end of FY2003; since that time funding for these orphan shares has been appropriated by Congress out of general revenues.^[4]

1 Provisions
2 Procedures
3 Reform
4 References
5 See also
6 External links

[edit] Provisions

CERCLA established sites, and:

persons are liable for their releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and
established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified.

CERCLA authorizes two kinds of response actions:

Removal actions. These are typically short-term response actions, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response. Removal actions are classified as: (1) emergency; (2) time-critical; and (3) non-time critical. Removal responses are generally used to address localized risks such as abandoned drums containing hazardous substances, contaminated surface soils posing acute risks to human health or the environment, etc. The regulations for removal actions can be found at 40 C.F.R. 300.415.
Remedial actions. These are usually more long-term response actions than a removal action. Remedial actions permanently and significantly reduce the risks associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious but lack the time-criticality of a removal action, and include such measures as preventing the migration of pollutants and neutralization of toxic substances. These actions can be conducted only at sites listed on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List (NPL), in the United States and territories. The regulations for remedial actions can be found at 40 C.F.R. 300.430.

Under CERCLA, four classes of parties, termed "potential responsible parties," may be liable for contamination at a Superfund site:

the current owner or operator of the site (CERCLA section 107(a) (1));
the owner or operator of a site at the time that disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant occurred (CERCLA section 107(a) (2);
a person who arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant at a site (CERCLA section 107(a) (3)); and
a person who transported a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant to a site; that transporter must have also selected that site for the disposal of the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (CERCLA section 107(a) (4)). See 42 U.S.C. § 9607

CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) found at 40 C.F.R Part 300. The NCP provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List. The NPL, which appears as Appendix B to the NCP, primarily serves as an information and management tool for EPA, and helps the Agency prioritize sites for cleanup. The NPL is updated periodically. The identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in:

determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with a site;
identifying what CERCLA-financed remedial actions may be appropriate;
notifying the public of sites EPA believes warrant further investigation; and
serving notice to potentially responsible parties that EPA may initiate CERCLA-financed remedial action.

Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not in itself require potentially liable parties to initiate action to clean up the site, nor does it assign liability to any person. The NPL serves primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and the public those sites or other releases that appear to warrant remedial actions.

Despite its name, the 'Superfund' lacks the sufficient funds to clean up even a small number of the sites on the NPL. As a result, the government will typically order "potentially responsible parties" to clean up the site themselves under Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9606. If a party fails to comply with such an order, it may be fined up to $25,000 for each day that noncompliance continues. A party that spends money to clean up a site may sue any "potentially responsible parties" (commonly called "PRPs") under CERCLA. A related provision allows a party that has reimbursed another party's response costs to seek contribution from other PRPs, during or after the original lawsuit.

[edit] Procedures

Upon notification of a potentially hazardous waste site, the EPA conducts a Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI) which involve records reviews, interviews, visual inspections, and limited field sampling.^[5] Information from the PA/SI is used by EPA to develop a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score to determine the CERCLA status of the site.^[6] Sites that score high enough to qualify for the full program then proceed to a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The RI includes an extensive sampling program and risk assessment in order to define the extent of the site contamination and risks. The FS is used to develop and evaluate various remediation alternatives. The preferred alternative is presented in a Proposed Plan for public review and comment. The selected alternative is signed off in a Record of Decision (ROD). The site then enters into a Remedial Design phase and then the Remedial Action phase. Many sites include Long-Term Monitoring and 5-year reviews once the Remedial Action has been completed.

[edit] Reform

Due to its cost and ineffectiveness, several attempts have been made to reform the Superfund legislation. In 1986, such an attempt was successful, resulting in the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, which increased Superfund appropriations and provided for studies and new technologies to be used. In 1994, the Clinton administration proposed a new Superfund reform bill, which was seen as an improvement to existing legislation by both environmentalists and industry lobbyists. The effort was blocked, however, by Republican opponents who some saw as wanting to deny Clinton a legislative victory.^[7]