Superfund

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
Great Seal of the United States
Long title An act to provide for liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous substances released into the environment and the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites.
Acronyms (colloquial) CERCLA
Nicknames Superfund
Enacted by the 96th United States Congress
Citations
Public law P.L. 96-510
Statutes at Large 94 Stat. 2767
Codification
Titles amended 42 (Public Health)
U.S.C. sections created 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.
Legislative history
Major amendments
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986;
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986

Superfund is a United States federal government program designed to fund the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances and pollutants. It was established as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).[1] It authorizes federal natural resource agencies, primarily the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states and Native American tribes to recover natural resource damages caused by hazardous substances, though most states have and most often use their own versions of CERCLA. CERCLA created the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The EPA may identify parties responsible for hazardous substances releases to the environment (polluters) and either compel them to clean up the sites, or it may undertake the cleanup on its own using the Superfund (a trust fund) and costs recovered from polluters by referring to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Approximately 70 percent of Superfund cleanup activities historically have been paid for by parties responsible (PRPs) for the cleanup of contamination. The exceptions occur when the responsible party either cannot be found or is unable to pay for the cleanup. Until the mid-1990s, most of the funding came from a tax on the petroleum and chemical industries, reflecting the polluter pays principle, but since 2001, most of the funding for cleanups of hazardous waste sites has come from taxpayers. Despite the name, the program has suffered from under-funding, and Superfund cleanups have decreased to a mere 8 in 2014. As a result, the EPA typically negotiates consent orders with PRPs to study sites and develop cleanup alternatives, subject to EPA oversight and approval of all such activities.

The EPA and state agencies use the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) to calculate a site score (ranging from 0 to 100) based on the actual or potential release of hazardous substances from a site. A score of 28.5 places a site on the National Priorities List, eligible for long-term remedial action (i.e., cleanup) under the Superfund program. As of 9 August 2016, there were 1,328 sites listed; an additional 391 had been delisted, and 55 new sites have been proposed.

The preliminary 2018 Trump Administration budget would cut Superfund by $330 million out of its nearly $1.1 billion budget, a 30% reduction to the Environmental Protection Agency program.

History

Workers in hazmat suits check the status of a cleanup site

CERCLA was enacted by Congress in 1980 in response to the threat of hazardous waste sites, typified by the Love Canal disaster in New York, and the Valley of the Drums in Kentucky.[2] The initial trust fund to clean up a site where a polluter could not be identified, could not or would not pay (bankruptcy or refusal) consisted of about $1.6 billion.[3]

The EPA published the first Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in 1981, and the first National Priorities List (NPL) in 1982.[4] Implementation during early years, the two terms of the Reagan administration was ineffective, as only 16 of the 799 Superfund sites were cleaned up, and only $40 million of $700 million in recoverable funds from responsible parties were collected. Reagan's policies were described as laissez-faire.[5]:5

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) added minimum cleanup requirements in Section 121, and required that most cleanup agreements with polluters be entered in federal court as a consent decree subject to public comment (section 122); this was to address sweetheart deals between industry and the Reagan-era EPA, that Congress had discovered.[6]

Until the mid-1990s, most of the funding came from a tax on the petroleum and chemical industries, reflecting the polluter pays principle.[7] In 1994, the Clinton administration proposed a new Superfund reform bill, which some environmentalists and industry lobbyists saw as an improvement, but the bill did not get bipartisan support. The newly elected Republican Congress made numerous unsuccessful efforts to significantly weaken the law. The Clinton Administration then adopted some industry favored reforms as policy and blocked most major changes.[8] Even though by 1995 nearly $4 billion in fees were in the superfund, Congress did not reauthorize to collect these and by 2003 the superfund was empty.[9]:1

According to a 2015 U.S. Government Accountability Office report, since 2001, most of the funding for cleanups of hazardous waste sites has come from taxpayers; a state pays 10 percent of cleanup costs in general and at least 50 percent of it operated the facility responsible for contamination. By 2013 funding had decreased from $2 billion in 1999 to less than $1.1 billion (in constant dollars).[7]:11

From 2000-2015, Congress allocated about $1.26 billion of general revenue to the Superfund program each year. Consequently, less than half the number of sites were cleaned up from 2001 to 2008, compared to before. The decrease continued during the Obama Administration, and since under the direction of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy Superfund cleanups decreased even more from 20 in 2009 to a mere 8 in 2014.[3]:8

The preliminary 2018 Trump Administration Superfund budget would cut the program by $330 million out of its nearly $1.1 billion budget, a 30% reduction to the Environmental Protection Agency program.[10]

Provisions

CERCLA authorizes two kinds of response actions:

  1. 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, and contaminated surface soils posing acute risks to human health or the environment.[11]
  2. Remedial actions. These are usually long-term response actions. Remedial actions seek to permanently and significantly reduce the risks associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances, and are generally larger more expensive actions. They can include measures such as using containment to prevent pollutants from migrating, and combinations of removing, treating, or neutralizing toxic substances. These actions can be conducted with federal funding only at sites listed on the EPA National Priorities List (NPL) in the United States and the territories. Remedial action by responsible parties under consent decrees or unilateral administrative orders with EPA oversight may be performed at both NPL and non-NPL sites, commonly called Superfund Alternative Sites in published EPA guidance and policy documents.[12]

A potentially responsible party (PRP) is a possible polluter who may eventually be held liable under CERCLA for the contamination or misuse of a particular property or resource. Four classes of PRPs may be liable for contamination at a Superfund site:

  1. the current owner or operator of the site;[13]
  2. the owner or operator of a site at the time that disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant occurred;[14]
  3. a person who arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant at a site;[15] and
  4. a person who transported a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant to a site, who also has selected that site for the disposal of the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants.[16]

The CERCLA also required the revision of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 9605(a)(NCP).[17] The NCP guides how to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP established the National Priorities List, which appears as Appendix B to the NCP, and serves as EPA´s information and management tool. The NPL is updated periodically by federal rulemaking.

The identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in:

Including a site on the NPL does not itself require PRPs to initiate action to clean up the site, nor assign liability to any person. The NPL serves informational purposes, notifying the government and the public of those sites or releases that appear to warrant remedial actions.

The key difference between the authority to address hazardous substances and pollutants or contaminants is that the cleanup of pollutants or contaminants, which are not hazardous substances, cannot be compelled by unilateral administrative order.

Despite the name, the Superfund trust fund lacks sufficient funds to clean up even a small number of the sites on the NPL. As a result, the EPA typically negotiates consent orders with PRPs to study sites and develop cleanup alternatives, subject to EPA oversight and approval of all such activities. The EPA then issues a Proposed Plans for remedial action for a site on which it takes public comment, after which it makes a cleanup decision in a Record of Decision (ROD). RODs are typically implemented under consent decrees by PRPs or under unilateral orders if consent cannot be reached.[18] If a party fails to comply with such an order, it may be fined up to $37,500 for each day that non-compliance continues. A party that spends money to clean up a site may sue other PRPs in a contribution action under the CERCLA.[19] CERCLA liability has generally been judicially established as joint and several among PRPs to the government for cleanup costs (i.e., each PRP is hypothetically responsible for all costs subject to contribution), but CERCLA liability is allocable among PRPs in contribution based on comparative fault. An "orphan share" is the share of costs at a Superfund site that is attributable to a PRP that is either unidentifiable or insolvent.[20] The EPA tries to treat all PRPs equitably and fairly. Budgetary cuts and constraints can make more equitable treatment of PRPs more difficult.

Procedures

Map of Superfund sites. Red indicates currently on final National Priority List, yellow is proposed, green is deleted (usually meaning having been cleaned up). This map is as of October 2013.

Upon notification of a potentially hazardous waste site, the EPA conducts a Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI), which involves records reviews, interviews, visual inspections, and limited field sampling.[21] Information from the PA/SI is used by the EPA to develop a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score to determine the CERCLA status of the site.[22] Sites that score high enough to be listed typically proceed to a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The RI includes an extensive sampling program and risk assessment that defines the nature and 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, followed by a selected alternative in a ROD. The site then enters into a Remedial Design phase and then the Remedial Action phase. Many sites include Long-Term Monitoring. 5-year reviews once the Remedial Action has been completed are required whenever hazardous substances are left onsite above levels safe for unrestricted use.

Implementation

Polluted Martin's Creek on the Kin-Buc Landfill Superfund site in Edison, New Jersey

As of 9 August 2016, there were 1,328 sites listed on the National Priority List; an additional 391 had been delisted, and 55 new sites were proposed.[26]

Historically about 70 percent of Superfund cleanup activities have been paid for by potentially responsible party (PRPs). when the party either cannot be found or is unable to pay for the cleanup, 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 (FY) in which the Department of the Treasury collected the tax was 1995.[9]:1 At the end of FY 1996, the invested trust fund balance was $6.0 billion. This fund was exhausted by the end of FY 2003;[9]:3 Since that time superfund sites for which the potentially responsible parties could not pay, have been paid for from the general fund appropriated by Congress.[9]:1

Hazard Ranking System

The Hazard Ranking System is a scoring system used to evaluate potential relative risks to public health and the environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous wastes at uncontrolled waste sites. Under the Superfund program, the EPA and state agencies use the HRS to calculate a site score (ranging from 0 to 100) based on the actual or potential release of hazardous substances from a site through air, surface water or groundwater. A score of 28.5 places the site on the National Priorities List, making the site eligible for long-term remedial action (i.e., cleanup) under the Superfund program.[27]

Accessing data

The data in the Superfund Program are available to the public.

Environmental Justice


Superfund sites have been shown to impact minority communities the most.[32] Of the populations living within 1 mile radius of a Superfund site, 44% of those are minorities despite only being around 37% of the nation's population. It has also been shown that the government responds slower to community demands from minority communities than from white communities.[33] Superfund sites near white communities have seen better clean up and harsher penalties for the polluters than minority communities. Specific examples allow a further exploration of the ways in which the EPA responds to Superfund sites in minority communities.

In African American Communities

In 1978, residents of the rural black community of Triana, Alabama were found to be contaminated with DDT and PCB, some of whom had the highest levels of DDT ever recorded in human history.[33] The DDT was found in high levels in Indian Creek, which many residents relied on for sustenance fishing. Although this major health threat to residents of Triana was discovered in 1978, the federal government did not act until 5 years later after the mayor of Triana filed a class-action lawsuit in 1980.

In West Dallas, Texas, a mostly African American and Latino community, a lead smelter poisoned the surrounding neighborhood, elementary school, and day cares for more than five decades. Dallas city officials were informed in 1972 that children in the proximity of the smelter were being exposed to lead contamination. The city sued the lead smelters in 1974, then reduced its lead regulations in 1976. It wasn't until 1981 that the EPA commissioned a study on the lead contamination in this neighborhood, and found the same results that had been found a decade earlier. In 1983, the surrounding day cares had to close due to the lead exposure while the lead smelter remained operating. It was later revealed that EPA Deputy Administrator John Hernandez had deliberately stalled the clean up of the lead-contaminated hot spots. It wasn't until 1993 that the site was declared a Superfund site, and at the time it was one of the largest ones. However, it was not until 2004 when the EPA completed the clean-up efforts and eliminated the lead pollutant sources from the site.

The Afton community of Warren County, North Carolina is one of the most prominent environmental injustice cases and is often pointed to as the roots of the environmental justice movement. PCB's were illegally dumped into the community and then it eventually became a PCB landfill. Community leaders pressed the state for the site to be cleaned up for an entire decade until it was finally detoxified. However, this decontamination did not return the site to its pre-1982 conditions. There has been a call for reparations to the community which has not yet been met.

In Native American Communities

One example is the Church Rock uranium mill spill on Navajo Nation. It was the largest radioactive spill in the US, but received a long delay in government response and cleanup after being placed as a lower priority site. Two sets of five-year clean up plans have been put in place by US Congress, but contamination from the Church Rock incident has still not been completely cleaned up. Today, uranium contamination from mining during the Cold War era remains throughout the Navajo Nation, posing health risks to the Navajo community.

Cuts to the EPA's funding and resources would hinder the regulation and remediation of Superfund sites. This would perpetuate the exposure to health risks that adjacent communities face from proximity to the Superfund site. Delays in government response to Superfund conditions increases the exposure of health risks to proximate communities.

See also

References

  1. ↑ P.L. 96-510, 42 U.S.C. & (33) § 9601(14) & (33), December 11, 1980.
  2. ↑ "Superfund: 20th Anniversary Report:A Series of Firsts". USEPA. Retrieved 18 July 2010.
  3. 1 2 Kaley Beins and Stephen Lester. Superfund Polluters Pay So Children Can Play. 35th Anniversary Report. December 2015, 80 pp, The Center for Health, Environment & Justice
  4. ↑ "Superfund Timeline". USEPA. Retrieved 18 July 2010.
  5. ↑ "Opinion – Not So Super Superfund". New York Times. 7 Feb 1994. Retrieved 18 July 2010.
  6. ↑ "Superfund policy, SARA Overview". USEPA. Retrieved 18 July 2010.
  7. 1 2 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Superfund: Trends in Federal Funding and Cleanup of EPA's Nonfederal National Priorities List Sites. GAO Report Number GAO-15-812, September 2015, 58pp.
  8. ↑ John H. Cushman Jr. (6 Oct 1994). "Congress forgoes its bid to hasten cleanup of dumps". New York Times. Retrieved 18 July 2010.
  9. 1 2 3 4 "Superfund Program: Updated Appropriation and Expenditure Data" (PDF). U.S. Government Accountability Office. February 18, 2004. p. 6. Retrieved 27 January 2014.
  10. ↑ [President Trump's budget would cut Superfund toxic cleanup program by 30%] by Ledyard King, USA Today, April 7, 2017
  11. ↑ Code of Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 300.415.
  12. ↑ 40 C.F.R. 300.430.
  13. ↑ CERCLA section 107(a)(1)
  14. ↑ CERCLA 107(a)(2)
  15. ↑ CERCLA 107(a)(3)
  16. ↑ CERCLA 107(a)(4); 42 U.S.C. § 9607.
  17. ↑ 40 C.F.R. 300.
  18. ↑ CERCLA 104, 106, 12242 U.S.C. 9606, 9622 § 9604, 9606, 9622.
  19. ↑ CERCLA 42 U.S.C. 9613(f).
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  This article incorporates public domain material from the Congressional Research Service document "Superfund Fact Book: Superfund Glossary, Updated March 3, 1997" by Mark Reisch & David Michael Bearden, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.
  21. ↑ "Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection". EPA. Retrieved 27 January 2014.
  22. ↑ "Introduction to the Hazard Ranking System". EPA. Retrieved 27 January 2014.
  23. ↑ http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/reporting/rqover.htm
  24. 1 2 Carole Stern Switzer, Lynn A. Bulan (2002-01-01). CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund). ISBN 9781590311165.
  25. ↑ Allocating Responsibility for Groundwater Remediation Costs
  26. ↑ "NPL Site Totals by Status and Milestone". USEPA. Retrieved 12 August 2016.
  27. ↑  This article incorporates public domain material from the Congressional Research Service document "Superfund Fact Book: Superfund Glossary, Updated March 3, 1997" by Mark Reisch & David Michael Bearden, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division.
  28. ↑ "Report and Product Descriptions". United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 11 August 2010.
  29. ↑ "Superfund Product Order Form". United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 11 August 2010.
  30. ↑ "SIS Specialized Information System". United States National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 11 August 2010.
  31. ↑ "Toxnet". United States National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 11 August 2010.
  32. ↑ Crawford, Collin (1994). "Strategies for Environmental Justice: Rethinking CERCLA Medical Monitoring Lawsuits". Faculty Publications at Reading Room. 74 B.U. L. Rev. 267.
  33. 1 2 Bullard, Robert (2012). The Wrong Complexion for Protection: How the Government Response To Disaster Endangers African American Communities. New York: NYU Press. pp. 100–125.

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.