Superfund Fact Book
Congressional research reportMay 26, 1994
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
94-464 ENR
Superfund Fact Book
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division
May 26, 1994
CRS
1111111911111111111111!UUIIIII!III!
SUPERFUND FACT BOOK
SUMMARY
Designed to bring about the decontamination and remediation of the
Nation's inactive hazardous waste dumps, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as
Superfund, was enacted in 1980, amended and reauthorized in 1986 by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and extended in 1990 .
CERCLA creates a trust fund, administered by the U .S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), to clean up hazardous waste sites that have been
listed by EPA on the National Priorities List (NPL) . Superfund also establishes
liabilities for responsible parties involved in the release of hazardous substances
and outlines a claims procedure for parties who have cleaned up sites .
This fact book is a compendium of data and other pertinent information
about the law and the program, followed by a Superfund-related glossary . The
topics covered are appropriations, disposal sites, remedies, costs, liabilities,
settlements, State superfund programs, treatment technologies, assessments of
natural resource damages, land use, and international comparisons .
CONTRIBUTORS
Coordination
Mark Reisch
Research
Sandra Lee Johnson
Production
David M. Bearden
CONTENTS
BACKGROUND
Legislative History
Purposes
The Superfund
1
1
1
2
APPROPRIATIONS
3
SITES
Distribution of Sites
Construction Completion
7
8
8
REMEDIES
ARARs
Emergency Removal Actions
Length of Time to Remediation
Remedy Selection
Stages of Remediation
10
10
10
11
11
12
COSTS
Capital Costs
Contractor Costs
EPA Enforcement/Costs to Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
Operations and Maintenance Costs (O&M)
12
13
13
14
15
.
LIABILITY
Contributors to Waste
Waste
Record of Decision (ROD)
Insurers
15
16
18
18
20
SETTLEMENTS
De Minimis Settlements
Mixed Funding Settlements
22
22
27
STATES
State Superfund Programs
29
29
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Bioremediation
Chemical Treatment
Thermal Treatment
Physical Treatment
30
30
30
30
31
ASSESSING NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES (NRD)
35
LAND USE
35
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON
40
GLOSSARY OF SUPERFUND RELATED TERMS
41
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 . The Budget Authority for the Superfund from FY 1981 to
FY 1995
Bioremediation Summary
Table 2 .
Chemical Technology Comparison
Table 3 .
Thermal Treatment Comparison
Table 4 .
Table 5 . Physical Treatment Comparison
LIS
4
32
32
33
34
OF FIGURES
5
Figure 1 . Superfund Budget Authority
6
.
Superfund
Appropriations
Figure 2
.
.
.
.
9
Figure 3 . Construction Completion Estimates for Sites on the NPL
17
Figure 4 . Contributors of Waste at NPL Sites
19
Figure 5 . Predominant Waste at NPL Sites : Rate of Occurrence
Figure 6 . Frequency of Soil Contaminants Found at
21
NPL Sites with RODS
24
Figure 7 . Individual Volumetric Contributions by Percent
25
Figure 8 . Settlements and Settlors by Fiscal Year
26
Figure 9 . Individual Settlor Payments
28
Figure 10 . Percent of Overall Site Costs Addressed
36
.
On-Site
Land
Uses
at
Sites
Figure 11
37
Figure 12 . Current Land Use in Vicinity of Site
38
Figure 13 . Current On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses of Sites
39
Figure 14 . Future Land Uses of Sites
SUPERFUND FACT BOOK'
BACKGROUND
Legislative History
•
On December 11, 1980 President Jimmy Carter signed the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) or "Superfund" into law .' On October 17, 1986,
CERCLA was amended and reauthorized by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).' On November 5,
1990, CERCLA was reauthorized without amendments until
September 30, 1994 ; the taxing authority was extended through
December 31, 1995 .4
Purposes
•
CERCLA's impetus was the emerging realization, as most directly
evidenced by the Love Canal problem, that inactive hazardous waste
sites presented great risk to public health and the environment and
that existing law did not address these abandoned disposal sites .
CERCLA was designed to respond to situations involving the past
disposal of hazardous substances .°
•
CERCLA's purpose is to authorize the Federal Government to swiftly
respond to hazardous substance emergencies, and to protect public
health and the environment by cleaning up the Nation's worst
hazardous waste sites . The law seeks to make those responsible for
the improper disposal of hazardous waste bear the costs and accept
responsibility for their actions ; it creates a trust fund to finance
I This report originally was prepared at the request of the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works .
2 P.L. 96-510, 94 Stat . 2767 (1980) .
3
P.L . 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 (1986) .
4 P.L . 101-508, § 6301, 104 Stat . 1388, 1388-319 (1990) .
e Lee, Robert T . "Comprehensive Environmental Response, and Liability
Act," Environmental Law Handbook . Twelfth Edition. Rockville, Maryland :
Government Institutes, Inc ., 1993. p. 267.
CRS-2
response actions where a liable party cannot be found or is incapable
of paying cleanup costs .
The Superfund
•
The Hazardous Substance Superfund is a trust fund maintained by
taxes imposed upon the petroleum and chemical industries as well as
by an environmental tax on corporations . In addition, general tax
revenue is contributed to the Superfund .'
•
Total authorization for the Superfund through 1994 was $15 .2 billion.
In 1980, $1 .6 billion was authorized for the FY 1981 to FY 1985
period, and when the program was reauthorized in 1986, $8 .5 billion
was added to the fund for the next 5 years . In 1991, Congress added
another $5 .1 billion when it reauthorized Superfund through 1994 .'
•
The Hazardous Substance Superfund is supported by :
a tax on domestically produced and imported oil (about $570 million
in 1992) ;
a tax on feedstock chemicals (about $245 million in 1992) ;
a corporate environmental tax (about $460 million in 1992) ;
general revenues (authorized at $250 million per year) ; and
other sources, including interest on the Trust Fund .'
B
Ibid, p . 268 .
U .S . Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) . Superfund Progress . Spring 1992 .
' U .S . Environmental Protection Agency, Comptroller's Office, 1992, as
referenced in Business Roundtable, 101 Terms & Facts on Superfund, November
1993 .
CRS-3
•
The Superfund corporate environmental tax generates $460 million
each year, or about one-third of the annual Trust Fund monies . Major
industrial sectors contributed the following percentages of the tax in
1988 :
Manufacturing
Finance, insurance and real estate
Transportation and public utilities
Retail trade
Wholesale trade
Services
Mining
Construction
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
•
52.4%
17.4%
16.3%
5.0%
3.2%
2.8%
2.0%
0.7%
0.2%
Environmental restoration, of which Superfund spending is a part, is
an expanding portion of the Federal environmental budget, having
increased from $7 billion in 1991 to $10 .5 billion in 1994 . In addition
to Superfund, there are Federal facility cleanup and restoration
programs at the Departments of Energy and Defense .
APPROPRIATIONS
Annually as part of the DVA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations
bill, Congress appropriates funds from the Department of Treasury maintained
Superfund to the EPA . This annual appropriation funds EPA's Superfundrelated research and development, enforcement, management and support as
well as response actions . It also funds, through the EPA, the Superfund-related
activities of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Coast
Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and
the Departments of Justice and Interior .
•
Superfund was first funded in FY 1981 at a level of $40 .3 million ;
$1.497 billion was appropriated in FY 1994 . Total enacted budget
authority for Superfund was $13 .385 billion for FY 1981 to FY 1994 .
(See table 1 and figure 1 .)
•
Using the FY 1994 enacted level of $1 .497 billion as an example,
roughly 65% of the appropriation is allocated for response actions, 4%
for research, 12% for enforcement, 9% for interagency, 7% for
management, and less than 1% for support at the regional level . (See
figure 2 .)
s U .S. Department of Treasury, 1989, as referenced in Business Roundtable,
101 Terms & Facts on Superfund, November 1993 .
CRS-4
Table 1 . The Budget Authority for the Superfund
from FY 1981 to FY 1995
(enacted budget authority in real dollars)
FY 1981 to FY 1988
1981
Research and Development
1986
1987
12 .6
10 .5
38 .7
26 .7
48 .7
52 .1
17 .2
25 .2
30 .8
S
1983
®n
6.8
10 .2
17 .7
Enforcement
2 .5
8 .4
Management and Support
2 .3
9 .5
Response Actions
24 .0
149 .0
EPA
24 .0
149 .0
Support
0.0
0 .0
Interagency
0.0
0 .0
TOTAL Budget Authority
40.3
180 .7
230 .2
Amount Requested
250.0
200 .0
230 .0
184 .6
nn
411 .2
0 .0
fi®
78 .2
95.1
1,180.8
851.6
763.4
510 .5
292 .7
1,113.1
0 .0
0 .0
4.2
3 .0
20 .2
465.6
620 .0
261 .3
310.0
640.0
900.0
0 .0
fin
1988
fi®
1,128 .0
1,050.0
1,200 .0
FY 1989 to FY 1995
1989
Research and Development
1990
68 .1
MMMM
72.9
1995
Request
68 .2
62 .6
59 .9
Enforcement
fl
121 .9
174 .9
182.0
175 .3
180 .3
188 .0
Management and Support
n
107 .5
126 .7
117.4
124 .4
110 .3
140 .3
1,125.7
1,267 .2
1,254 .8
1,267.0
1,233 .3
1,144 .0
1,111 .7
1,116 .8
1,114.0
1,072 .9
8 .0
3.3
Response Actions
1,027.2
8 .4
Support
4.0
5 .0
4 .5
Interagency
94.5
112 .6
133 .5
148.7
152 .0
fl
Total Budget Authority
1,425.0
1,560.8
1,629 .3
1,631.2
1,601 .6
1,497 .1
Amount Requested
1,600.0
1,750.0
1,753 .1
1,765 .0
1,766 .4
1,614 .7
136.1
1,499.7
Superfund Budget Authority
($ million)
2,000
1,560 .8
1,500
1,114 .3
1,128
1,000
520
465 .8
500
180 .7
230 .2
40.3
0
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Fiscal Years
Source : Congressional Research Service, based on EPA budget justification documents .
Superfund
Appropriations
(amounts in $million)
FY 1994 Enacted
FY 1995 Request
Total = $1 .497 billion
Total = $1 .500 billion
Response
$976 .9
Response
$972 .3
$62 .6
Research
$59 .9
Research
4%
N
9%
Mgt ./
Support
1%
Support °
$8 .0
11%
Interagency
$159 .1
12%
Enforcement
$180 .3
$140 .3
0
Support '
$3 .3
9%
Interagency
$136 .1
13%
Enforcement
$188 .0
("Support" for FY 1995 is less than 1 percent .)
Source : Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using data from the Environmental
Protection Agency.
CRS-7
SITES
•
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) tracks every hazardous
disposal site considered for remediation . The total number of sites in
CERCLIS as of December 8, 1993 was 38,952 . 1° There is no
screening process for CERCLIS listing . Even when a CERCLIS site is
determined to be free of risk, it remains on CERCLIS .
•
The National Priorities List (-PL) contains sites that have been
determined to be the most hazardous in the United States .
•
As the most recent listing, on February 23, 1994, there are 1,191 sites
on the NPL, of which 123 are Federal facilities ."
•
An additional 96 sites are proposed for listing on the NPL, of which
30 are Federal facilities .12
•
Final and proposed NPL sites total 1,287, including 153 Federal
facilities . 13
•
The first listing in the Federal Register occurred on September 8,
1983, and placed 406 sites on the NPL .14
•
By the end of 1999, EPA expects to add 340-370 sites to the NPL,
providing a total of 1,627-1,657 . 1 $
•
Almost one-third of the NPL sites, or 403 Superfund sites, involve
local governments, either as site owners, or as operators or
transporters of waste to the site . Of the 403 sites, 216 are categorized
as landfills ."
10
° U.S . Environmental Protection Agency . Superfund Hotline, April 1, 1994.
11
U.S. EPA . Federal Register, Feb. 23, 1994, p . 8724-8725.
12
Ibid .
13
Ibid .
14
Ibid.
13 This and other information is from a January 28, 1994 OSWER Directive
responding to 21 questions submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency
by Representatives Al Swift and John Dingell on July 19, 1993 . It became
popularly known, and is hereinafter cited as the "Swift-Dingell Response ."
16
Clean Sites, Inc . Main Street Meets Superfund: Local Government
Involvement at Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites, January 1992, p . 16.
CRS-8
Distribution of Sites
•
States with over 50 NPL Superfund sites as of February 23, 1994 were :
California
Florida
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
•
States with 21-50 NPL Superfund sites as of February 23, 1994 were :
Illinois
Indiana
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
North Carolina
Ohio
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
•
As of 1991, 18 .5% of sites were urban (central city areas) ; 39.0% of
sites were classified as suburban (bordering urban areas) ; and 42 .5%
were classified as rural (outside suburban), as defined by the setting
or character of the site, and the population density near the site . 17
Construction Completions
•
Construction completion at sites refers to the point in the cleanup
process at which physical construction is complete for all remedial and
removal work anticipated at the entire site .
•
By the end of the year 2000, over one-half of the 1,249 sites listed as
final and deleted on the National Priorities List (NPL) are projected
to have construction completed . This number could go as high as twothirds of all sites ." (See figure 3 .)
17 U.S. EPA, OSWER . Superfund Progress--Aficionado's Version, 1992. p.
6.
is "Swift-Dingell Response ."
CRS-9
Figure 3
Construction Completion Estimates for Sites on the NPL
Construction Completion Sites
1,200
Site-Specific
1,000
922
828
712
551
600
602
41
400
539
476
319
413
224(A)
287
01
1993
Historical
1
1
1994
1995
1996
1997
I
I
1998
1999
2000
End of Calendar Year
(A) = Actual Construction Completion Data
Sources :
L
August 1993 RPM Data Collection (questions E10 and E13) .
2.
The full universe of sites addressed by the question : The 1,249 final and deleted sites listed on
the NPL as of July 1993.
3.
The subset of the universe for which data are provided : The 1,249 final and dele d sites listed
on the NPL as of July 1993.
Note :
Looking at historical trends to determine future rates of construction completions, EPA
estimates construction completion at 63 sites per year, bringing the projected total of sites with
construction completion to 665 sites by the end of the calendar year 2000 . Site-specific answers
from site managers, which may not account for real world delays that are difficult to predict,
project 965 construction completions by the end of calendar year 2000 .
CRS-10
REMEDIES
ARARs
•
CERCLA does not contain any cleanup standards but instead applies
standards from other sources . Application of these standards to
CERCLA response actions is done by ARARs, that is, "applicable or
relevant and appropriate" substantive and promulgated requirements
of Federal or State environmental laws and regulations ."
•
Applicable requirements are "cleanup standards, standards of
control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under Federal environmental or State environmental or
facility siting laws that specifically address a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other
circumstance found at a CERCLA site ."20
•
Relevant and appropriate requirements are cleanup standards,
standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or
limitations promulgated under Federal environmental or State
environmental or facility siting laws that, while not 'applicable' to a
hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location,
or other circumstance at a CERCLA site, address problems or
situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA
site that their use is well suited to the particular site ."
•
As with applicable requirements, State requirements are relevant and
appropriate only if they are identified in a timely manner by a State
and are more stringent than Federal requirements .
Emergency Removal Actions
•
The emergency removal program responds to short-term emergencies
at hazardous disposal sites requiring immediate action . By law, an
emergency action can take no more than 1 year to complete and cost
no more than $2 million. There were 2,984 emergency removal
projects completed from FY 1980 through FY 1993, and there were
approximately 340 emergency removals completed in FY 1993 .
19
Fogelman, Valerie . Hazardous Waste Cleanup, Liability, and Litigation .
Westport, Connecticut : Quorum Books [1992] . p. 45.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
CRS-11
Length of Time to Remediation
•
Using the best available data, the Congressional Budget Office
estimates in March 1994 that the average time of cleanup for the first
1,249 NPL sites will be at least 12 years . Because of data limitations,
the true average is more likely to be between 13 and 15 years ."
•
A preliminary assessment study, on average, takes 95-145 hours to
complete; a remedial investigation/feasibility study 18-30 months ; and
a remedial design 12-18 months to complete2 3
•
On average, a period of more than 8 years lapses from the time a site
is discovered to the time definitive remediation work begins . During
this time the remedial investigation are completed . In addition delays
are caused by negotiations and litigation among EPA, State agencies,
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), insurers, and municipalities
deciding who should bear the remediation costs 24
Remedy Selection
•
"Treatment" in this usage means a process that significantly reduces
the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances .
"Containment" is a remediation method that seals off all possible
exposure pathways between a hazardous disposal site and the
environment . "Removal" refers to a cleanup of released hazardous
substances including the assessment of the site, the disposal of
removed material, and any other actions to protect the public health
and environment .
•
EPA selected treatment as the remedy for 78% of sites with ground
water contamination, and 65% with surface water contamination .
When soil contamination occurred, EPA selected treatment at 50% of
sites . EPA tends to select containment remedies for large volumes of
waste at sites (for example, greater than one million cubic yards), and
treatment remedies for small volumes of waste (less than 1,000 cubic
yards) .25
22 U.S . Congressional Budget Office.
Analyzing the Duration of Cleanup at
Sites on Superfund's National Priorities List. March 1994 . p. 2.
23 Guerrero, Peter. Superfund: Current Progress and Issues Needing Further
Attention . GAO Testimony . June 1992, p . 8.
' Action, Jan Paul .
Justice . 1989.
Understanding Superfund .
RAND Institute for Social
2s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR) . 1991 .
CRS-12
Stages of Remediation
The status of the 1,320 National Priorities List sites (including proposed
sites, and sites deleted from the list) as of the end of FY 1993 was:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
45 proposed sites with evaluation for immediate threat completed, but
action not begun .
32 final sites with evaluation for immediate threat completed, but
action not begun .
13 sites with removal-only actions .
309 sites where studies are underway .
85 sites where remedies have been selected .
225 sites where designs are underway .
393 sites where construction is underway .
166 sites where construction is completed .
51 sites deleted from the NPL (includes 1 site deleted by referral to
another authority) 26
COSTS
•
In its most recent annual report to the Congress on Superfund for
1990, EPA projected funding requirements of $16 .4 billion in fiscal
years 1993 and beyond and a cumulative total since 1981 of $27 .2
billion . EPA estimates are based on the current NPL of 1,268 sites as
of the end of FY 1993 .
•
In December 1991 a group of researchers at the University of
Tennessee released reports that contained a "best-guess estimate" of
$151 billion for cumulative costs to clean up 3,000 nonfederal NPL
sites.27
•
The University of Tennessee's figures cover a different set of costs
than does the smaller EPA estimate : they include State and private
remediation costs for NPL sites as well as Federal costs, but they omit
expenditures on non-NPL removal sites and EPA's enforcement and
management activities .
26
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 4th Quarter FY 1993 Superfund
Management Report . December 1993 . p. 1-3 . Categories are cumulative . Sites
with construction underway already have completed the requirements of study,
remedy selection, and design .
27
M. Russell, E.W. Colglazier, and M .R. English, Hazardous Waste
Remediation: The Task Ahead ; and E.W. Colglazier, T . Cox, and K . Davis,
Estimating Resource Requirements for NPL Sites (Knoxville, Tenn.: University
of Tennessee, Waste Management Research and Education Institute, 1991) .
CRS-13
A Congressional Budget Office study released in January 1994
estimates it could take $75 billion to clean up a total of 4,500 sites
now in need of work .2s
•
Capital Costs
•
The average capital cost at a non-Federal facility site is $21 .8 million .
Site assessment, studies, and design comprise approximately 11% of
total site costs, resulting in an average cost of approximately $25
million .29
•
A relatively small number of very expensive sites raise the average cost
significantly. Over 60% of all capital cleanup costs are accounted for
by only 16% of the operable units (OUs) . An operable unit is a
division of a site cleanup project ; on average, there are 1 .8 OUs for a
non-Federal facility site . 30
•
69% of NPL sites have capital costs of less than $10 million ."
•
38% have capital costs of less than $3 million .'
•
Site managers expect capital costs to exceed $20 million at 296 sites
(232 non-Federal facility sites and 64 Federal facilities) . The most
common factors contributing to these estimates are large volumes of
contaminated media, site complexities and high treatment costs ."
Contractor Costs
•
28
According to GAO, the potential exists for serious contract
management problems in the Superfund program . EPA extensively
uses cost-reimbursable contracts to clean up hazardous waste sites .
These contracts require special agency oversight because they
reimburse the contractor for all allowable costs and therefore give the
U.S. Congress . Congressional Budget Office . The Total Costs of Cleaning
Washington, U .S. GPO. 1994.
Up Nonfederal Superfund Sites .
29 "Swift-Dingell Response ."
30
Ibid.
al Ibid .
32
Ibid .
33
Ibid.
CRS-14
contractor little incentive to control costs .' EPA has been striving
to control costs and to ensure a high quality of performance . For
example, during the period from 1990 to 1992, program management
costs dropped by nearly $6 million (from $30 .2 million to $24 .7 million)
while remedial work almost doubled in the same period (from $75 .5
million to $141 .4 million) .
•
In fiscal year 1991, when EPA's total obligation for the Superfund
program was approximately $1 .7 billion, remedial action contractors
were paid approximately $600 million to study sites and design and
perform remedies ."
EPA Enforcement/Costs to Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
•
The Superfund program enforcement budget for FY 1993 was $209
million, or approximately 13% of Superfund resources .
•
Responsible parties are paying increasing amounts of the cost of
cleanup.
•
According to EPA, liable party share of remediation costs in Fiscal
Year 1987 was 37%, and trust fund share was 63% . In Fiscal Year
1993, liable party share increased to 79%, and the trust fund decreased
to 21% .a6
•
According to a RAND study of five PRPs with an average of 144 sites
each, annual outlays for site remediation nearly tripled between 1984
and 1989, increasing from $2 .6 million to $6 .1 million . Transaction
costs (legal fees and other non-remediation costs) averaged 21% of the
total outlays of each firm . 7
' U.S. Senate . Committee on Environment and Public Works . Subcommittee
Superfund
on Superfund, Recycling, and Solid Waste Management .
Hearings,
103rd
Congress,
1st
Session.
Statement
of Richard
Reauthorization .
L . Hembra, Director Environmental Protection Issues, General Accounting
Office.
3s
General Accounting Office (GAO) . Superfund Program Management .
December 1992 . p . 30.
36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .
OSWER. Superfund Enforcement
Program Highlights, CERCLIS . 1993.
37 Acton, Jan Paul, and Lloyd S . Dixon . Superfund and Transaction Costs .
Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Institute for Social Justice, 1992 . p. xii .
CRS-15
•
The cumulative value of private party commitments since the
beginning of the Superfund program exceeds $8 billion . Nearly threequarters of that amount has been pledged since 1989 . 3a
•
Privately funded remediations in fiscal year 1992 accounted for $1 .5
billion, a seven-fold increase from $207 .5 million in fiscal year 1987 . 38
Operations and Maintenance Costs (O&M)
•
Most Superfund sites require Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
after remediation is complete . Examples of O&M include maintaining
a cap or repairing fences at previous sites, or continuing to pump and
treat groundwater for a certain period of time . 0
•
According to the current National Contingency Plan, States are
responsible for 100% of O&M costs, which can be considerable . If
continuous pumping of groundwater is part of the remediation plan,
EPA pays for the first ten years of pumping, after which it becomes
the State's responsibility . 41
•
States have spent approximately $110 million to date on Operations
and Maintenance, costs which will increase as more site remediations
are completed .42
LIABILITY
•
A Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) is any individual or company
that may have contributed to contamination at a Superfund site .
Examples of PRPs include waste generators, waste transporters,
current or former landowners, and site operators . Courts have
33 U.S
. Environmental Protection Agency . OSWER. Superfund Enforcement
Program Highlights, CERCLIS . 1993.
38 GAO,
4°
Superfund Program Management, p . 22.
Excerpted from Luftig, Steve (U.S. EPA) and Claudia Kerbawy (MIDNR) .
The State's Role in Operations and Maintenance. Presentation at Clean Sites,
Inc ., Superfund Reauthorization Project Meeting, March 24, 1993, as referenced
in Business Roundtable, 101 Terms & Facts on Superfund, November 1993 .
41
Ibid .
42 Ibid .
CRS-16
interpreted PRP liability for Superfund remediations to be strict, joint
and several, and retroactive (defined below) 43
•
Strict liability means the government needs to prove only
involvement at a waste site, not negligence ."
•
Joint and several liability indicates that any involved party may
have responsibility for the entire site, regardless of its degree of
involvement 4s
•
Retroactive liability means that parties can be held liable for past
actions that may have been legal at the time 46
Contributors to Waste
Waste comes from a variety of sources . The following distribution
shows the breakdown of waste contributors :
Manufacturing operations
Municipal landfills
Recyclers
Industrial landfills
Department of Energy and Department of Defense
Mining
Other sources
38 .9%
16 .5%
8 .5%
6 .5%
5 .0%
2 .0%
22 .5% 47
(See figure 4 .)
43
Acton, Jan Paul, and Lloyd S . Dixon . Superfund and Transaction Costs.
Santa Monica, Calif. : RAND Institute for Social Justice . 1992 . p . ix .
8.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid .
46
Ibid.
47
U .S . EPA, OSWER . Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large . 1992, p .
Contributors of Waste at NPL Sites
Manufacturing 39 .0%
Municipal Landfills16.5%
Federal Facilities
5.0%
Mining
2 .0%
Other
22 .5%
Industrial Landfill
6.5%
Source : U .S . EPA, OSWER . Superfund : Focusing on the Nation at Large . 1992 .
ST
CRS-18
Waste
•
Superfund hazardous substances include liquid waste (found at 92 .4%
of NPL sites), solid waste (found at 58 .3% of NPL sites), and sludge
(found at 49 .2% of NPL sites) . 48
•
The classes of contaminants most prevalent at NPL sites are:
Organic chemicals
Metals
Oily wastes
Inorganic chemicals
Municipal waste
Acids/bases
PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Pesticides/herbicides
Paints/pigments
Solvents
71.4%
64.3%
35.1%
30.9%
27.3%
24.5%
20.3%
18.4%
17.7%
6.3% 49
(See figure 5 .)
Record of Decision (ROD)
•
The ROD is a formal document by which an EPA administrator
(usually the regional administrator) chooses the remedy to be applied
to at a Superfund site 50
•
Contaminated soil is present at 80% of the NPL sites with RODs yet
to be implemented 5'
•
Groundwater contamination i present at nearly 79% of NPL sites
with RODs .52
48 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSWER . Physical State of Waste .
Superfund: NPL Site Characterization Project Report, 1991. p. 53.
49 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . OSWER. National Priorities List
Characterization Project Report. 1991 . p.54.
50 Church, Thomas W . and Robert T . Nakamura. Cleaning Up the Mess :
Washington, D.C.: The Brookings
Institution [19931 . p. 175 .
Implementation Strategies in Superfund .
5z
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Innovation Office,
1992, as referenced in Business Roundtable, 101 Terms & Facts on Superfund,
November 1993 .
52
Kovalick, Walter, Jr . U.S. EPA, OSWER . Testimony before the U .S.
House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, April 1993 .
Predominant Waste at NPL Sites : Rate of Occurrence (%)
Type of Waste
Metals
Oily Wastes
Inorganic Chemicals
Municipal We to
Acids/Bases
PCBs
Pesticides/Herbicides
Paints/Pigments
Organic Chemical
Solvents
6 .3
1
i
0
40
60
80
Percentage (%) of Sites
Source : U .S . EPA
CRS-20
The most frequently occurring soil contaminants at NPL sites with
RODs were :
Lead
130 sites
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
112 sites
Arsenic
100 sites
Chromium
91
sites
Perchlorethylene (PCE) or Tetrachloroethylene 91 sites
Toluene
91
sites
Cadmium
82 sites
Benzene
76 sites
65 sites
Zinc
Ethylbenzene
63 sites
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
61 sites
Copper
57 sites ."
(See figure 6 .)
Major soil contaminant groups at NPL sites with RODs are organics
and metals (67%) ; organics only (23%); and metals only (10%) . °4
Insurers
•
Insurers and those who are insured spend approximately $500 million
each year on Superfund litigation involving insurance coverage . 55
•
Insurance companies are experiencing substantial increases in their
payments for PRP Superfund claims . A Government Accounting
Office (GAO) study of the Nation's largest property/casualty insurers
found that, before 1987, 10 of 13 studied companies made a total of
approximately $11 million in payments to their policy holders . From
1987 to 1991, however, the 13 companies paid approximately $144
million in claims .56
ea U .S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Innovation Office,
1992, as referenced in Business Roundtable, 101 Terms & Facts on Superfund,
November 1993 .
54 Ibid .
a5 House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, 1990, as
referenced in Business Roundtable, 101 Terms & Facts on Superfund, November
1993.
a6 Hembra, Richard . Superfund Pollution Claims . Government Accounting
Office (GAO) . 1992 .
Frequency of Soil Contaminants Found at NPL Sites with RODs
Type of Contaminant
Copper
07
PCB
61
Ethylbenzene
63
Zinc
65
i
716
Benzene
82
Cadmium
Toluene
91
PCE
91
Chromium
91
100
Arsenic
TC
i
i
117
30
Lead
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Number of Sites
Source : U .S. EPA
CRS-22
•
According to a RAND study of four national insurance carriers
involving over 13,000 claims, 88% of total expenditures by insurance
companies to PRP policyholders covered transaction costs such as
corporate legal fees ; 12% of payments were for corporate remediation
activities . RAND calculated that if its sample was representative of
the whole insurance industry, insurers spent $470 million on claims
involving inactive hazardous waste sites in 1989 .57
SE 11 LEMENTS
De Minimis Settlements
•
De minimis parties are PRPs who have contributed very small
•
73% of the de minimis parties contributed one-tenth of 1% of the
waste, or less ." (See figure 7 .)
•
De minimis settlements were first authorized in SARA of 1986 under
amounts of waste to a site compared to others . In a sample of 32
settlements 99 .28% of the 1,674 de minimis settlers each contributed
less than 1% of the waste ." (See figure 7 .)
Section 122(g)(1)(B) of CERCLA . Since then, through FY 1993, 6,144
60
de minimis parties have resolved their liability in 125 settlements .
(See figure 8 .)
•
When practicable and in the public interest, Section 122 (g) authorizes
EPA to reach final settlements with PRPs if the settlement involves
a minor portion of the response costs, and the waste sent to the site
by the PRP is minimal in comparison to the other hazardous
substances at the facility in terms of volume and toxicity (de
minimis) .61 It encourages EPA to reach a final settlement with such
parties "as promptly as possible."
•
De minimis settlements are also appropriate in situations where a
party is the owner of the property where the facility is located but did
"Acton, Jan Paul, and Lloyd S . Dixon, p . x-xi .
sa U .S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste Management
and Emergency Response (OSWER) and Office of Waste Program Enforcement
(OWPE) . The First 125 De Minimis Settlements . October 1993 . p. 3.
59 Ibid .
60
61
Ibid ., p. 3 .
Wagner, Travis P . The Complete Guide to the Hazardous Waste
Regulations . 2d ed . New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold [1991] . p . 327 .
CRS-23
not conduct or permit the generation, handling or disposal of
hazardous substances at the facility ; contribute to the release or
threatened release from the facility ; or acquire the facility with
knowledge that it had been used to store, handle or dispose of
hazardous substances . 62
There are 220 sites where sufficient volumetric data exist to establish
whether there are PRPs who contributed "minimal" amounts of
hazardous substances to facilities and could be considered de
•
minimis . 63
•
Although EPA has sufficient formation to assess whether de minimis
parties may exist at each of these 220 sites, this analysis has not been
conducted at all of these sites . At 160 sites, however, EPA regional
officials have indicated that there may be de minimis parties . While
the precise number of potentially de minimis parties at each of these
160 sites is not known, the median range of potential de minimis
parties at each site is between 11 and 50 parties ."
•
In response to criticism that EPA took too long to reach de minimis
settlements, the Agency issued new guidance in July 1993, which
requires that the Agency only needs to estimate the PRPs'
contribution, compared to the total volume of waste at the site . 65
Previous guidance required more detailed volumetric data .
•
In the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, EPA entered into 38 de
minimis settlements at 25 sites, which is roughly 2 .5 times the
previous annual average . This demonstrated a shift toward increased
use of de minimis settlements 66
•
As of October 1993, the mean (arithmetic average) individual payment
by de minimis parties was $27,419.67 (See figure 9 .)
•
The median payment was $6,750. (Median means one-half the settlors
paid more, and one-half paid less) ." (See figure 9 .)
62
42 U.S.C. Sec. 9622(g)(1).
63
"Swift-Dingell Response ."
64 Ibid.
65
Ibid.
66
Jones, Stephen C .
67
Ibid., p . 11.
66
Ibid., p . 11.
Early Settlements Finally May Catch On .
National Law Journal, v . 16, November 22, 1993: p. 18
The
CRS-2 4
Figure 7
Individual Volumetric Contributions by Percent
Number of PRPs
1,000
856
Percent Contribution
Based on 32 of settlements involving 1,674 settlors
Source : U.S . EPA, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement,
October 1993 .
Notes:
The First 125 De Minimis Settlements,
Although the volumetric cut-off for de mznimis eligibility has frequently been set at 1 percent,
most of the de minimis settlors contributed an amount significantly less than 1 percent .
Seventy-three percent of the de minimis parties individually contributed .1 percent of the waste
or less .
Less than 1 percent of the settlors individually contributed more than 1 percent of the waste to
a given site .
Waste contributions are not always expressed as a percentage share of total waste at the site ;
individual contributions are occasionally recorded only in gallons, pounds, number of batteries,
etc .
For individual contributions, the mean is .11 percent, the median is .04%, and the range of
percentages is from .0001 to 1.47.
CRS-25
Figure 8
Settlements and Seniors by Fiscal Year
Number of Settlements
Number of Settlors
Total to date of settlements is 125 and of settlers is 6,144
Source : U.S . EPA, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, The First 125 De Minimis Settlements,
October 1993 .
Note:
These final settlement numbers may not accurately reflect EPA's de minimis enforcement
activity in a given fiscal year, as the settlements are counted in this graph as final when an
Administrative Order on Consent was signed by the Regional Administrator or a Consent Decree
was entered by the Court . For example, although there were only 9 final de minimis settlements
in FY 1991, many of the 35 settlements finalized in FY 1992 were actually developed in FY 1991 .
There are 125 total settlements and 6,144 total settlors to date .
CRS- 2 6
Figure 9
Individual Settlor Payments
Number of Settlers Receiving Payments
> $1
000
$25,000 to $100,000
$5,000 to $25,000
< $5,000
Amount of Individual Payment
Based on 4,799 settlers
Source : U.S . EPA, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, The First 125 De Minimis Settlements,
October 1993.
Notes:
Individual payments usually include a premium, which is an additional percentage of each
settlor's allocated share of the cleanup costs . Premiums frequently address potential cost
overruns or orphan shares .
Premiums for de minimis settlors have ranged from 10 percent to 327 percent of individual
payments. On average, settlors have paid a premium of 108 percent . The premium most
frequently addressed in de minimis settlements to date is 100 percent .
In addition to paying an allocated share and a premium, some settlors have also paid additional
amounts if they were previously offered de minimis settlement, but declined to participate .
There are 12 settlements in which this occurred, and the amounts amassed averaged 23 percent
of a settlor's individual payment .
The amount of individual payments ranged from $6 to $1,450,000 . The mean individual
payments was $27,419, and the median individual payment was $6,750 .
CRS-27
•
The range of individual de minimis payments has been from $6 to
$1,450,000 .69 (See figure 9 .)
•
On average, de minimis settlements have contributed 8% of the total
cleanup costs at the sites ." (See figure 10.)
Mixed Funding Settlements
•
At every multiparty CERCLA site there are parties that wish to settle
with EPA and those that cannot or do not . At the same time, there
may be a vast quantity of wastes at the site which came from defunct
or bankrupt companies . Wastes from these defunct or bankrupt
companies are referred to as a site's "orphan share ."71
•
If EPA paid for the entire orphan share for Remedial design/remedial
action (RD/RA) at every enforcement-lead site (where potentially
responsible parties perform the remedy) with an orphan share, the
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) estimates that the
annual cost to the Trust Fund would range from approximately $150.0
million to $420 .0 million dollars per fiscal year . Comparatively, the
Superfund appropriation for FY 1993 was approximately $1 .57 billion
dollars .72
•
The Mixed Funding provision of CERCLA allows EPA and PRPs to
share either the work or funding responsibilities of a remediation .
There are three authorized mechanisms for Mixed Funding
settlements . These are:
Cash-outs . PRPs pay the Agency for all or part of the remediation
costs in lieu of performing the remediation .
Mixed Work . PRPs agree to conduct/pay for discrete portions of the
remediation work .
ss Ibid ., p. 11.
7°
Ibid., p. 14.
71 Lee, p. 341 .
72
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . OSWER . Mixed Funding
Evaluation Report: The Potential Costs of Orphan Shares . September 1993 .
CRS-28
Figure 10
Percent of Overall Site Costs Addressed
Number of Settlements
35
30
> 10%
1-10%
< 1%
Based on 75 settlements
Source : U .S . EPA, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, The First 125 De Minimis Settlements,
October 1993 .
Note :
On average, de minimis settlements have addressed 8 percent of the total cleanup costs at the
site . Overall, this portion of total site costs addressed by de minimis settlements has ranged
from .003 percent to 45 percent .
CRS-29
Pre-authorization Settlement . PRPs agree to conduct the remediation,
and the government agrees to pay a portion of the costs, with proper
documentation."
While designed to streamline the Superfund process, EPA has
approved only twelve preauthorization Mixed Funding Settlements
since the SARA amendments of 1986 . These settlements would require
response actions with an estimated value of $192.6 million, of which
the Superfund has agreed to reimburse $43 .9 million, or an average of
23% . 74
•
STATES
State Superfund Programs
•
State responsibilities under the Superfund program range from cost
sharing to leading NPL site remediations .75
•
Most States have separate programs for enforcing and funding
remediations at non-NPL sites . As of 1991, thirty-four States have an
inventory/registry or a priority list of hazardous disposal sites . Each
State establishes its own criteria for placing sites on an
inventory/registry, priority list, or list of sites needing attention .76
•
An EPA study found that 31 States have a removal program and six
States are developing a removal program . In general, most States seek
out PRPs for PRP-lead removal actions before beginning a project . If
the PRP cannot be identified, then the States will begin the
removal."
•
State sources of program funding for non-NPL sites include State
appropriations (26.6%), State fees (21 .9%), taxes (14 .1%), bonds
73
Ross, William . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, 1993, as referenced in Business Roundtable,
101 Terms & Facts on Superfund, November 1993 .
74
Ibid .
75 U.S . Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR) . An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study,
1991 Update . Publication 9375 .6-08B . December 1991 .
76
Ibid .
77
Ibid .
CRS-30
(12 .5%), EPA core grants (10 .9%), cost recovery (6.3%), fines (4.7%),
and Federal funding (3 .0%) ."
•
Funding for State Superfund programs has decreased 16% since 1990,
but is still higher than in 1989 . In 1991, fifteen States had State trust
fund balances in excess of $10 million. Thirty States had reported
staff increases since 1990, and 10 States had over 100 staff members
devoted to hazardous waste issues .79
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Bioremediation
•
In-situ bioremediation (also known as bioreclamation) is one form of
biological treatment that has been used at CERCLA sites . In-situ
bioremediation is the process of altering and controlling environmental
conditions in order to enhance the metabolic activity of
microorganisms that degrade organic contaminants .
•
Bioremediation is an innovative treatment technology . Between 1982
and 1989, 37% of all technologies used for source control at Superfund
sites were innovative technologies . Bioremediation was selected or
used at 22 .5% of those sites ." The advantages and disadvantages of
biological treatment are listed in table 2 .
Chemical Treatment
•
The objectives in using chemicals and chemical reactions are to either
immobilize, mobilize for extraction, or detoxify the contaminants .
•
The chemical processes may be combined or used individually as
treatment alternatives . Table 3 summarizes some of the advantages
and disadvantages of each chemical treatment process .
Thermal Treatment
•
One class of treatment technologies that presents a potentially
permanent solution to the problem of many hazardous wastes is
78 Ibid .
79 Ibid.
80 U.S . Environmental Protection Agency . Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office . Innovative Treatment
Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report . EPA/540/2-91/001 . January, 1991.
CRS-31
thermal treatment .
Table 4 compares some of the apparent
advantages and disadvantages of each thermal technology .
Physical Treatment
The basic objective of physical treatment is the manipulation of the
physical properties of the wastes in order to immobilize them, detoxify
them, or render them less harmful .
•
The chemical characteristics of the hazardous waste remain constant
during physical treatment . Physical treatment often produces residues
that require further treatment prior to disposal .
•
Chemical or thermal technologies may be applied to these residues in
order to dispose of them in an environmentally safe manner . Table 5
outlines some of the advantages and disadvantages of physical
treatment technologies .
CRS-32
Table 2 . Bioremediation Summary
Technology
In-situ
Bioremediation
Advantages
Disadvantages
Cost effective technology .
Complex waters can inhibit biological
activity.
Fairly broad applicability for organic
wastes .
Applicability limited by site conditions .
Large volumes of soil may be treated .
Difficult process to monitor for cleanup
efficiency .
Likely to be supported by the public since
it is viewed as a natural process .
Better understanding and optimization
of the science required .
Table 3 . Chemical Technology Comparison
Technology
Advantages
Costs are relatively low.
Effectiveness limited to soils with few
hazardous materials .
Great success on soils with few
contaminants .
Limited application if soil characteristics
are unfavorable.
Effective on gravel and treats a wide
variety of wastes .
Ineffective on soils containing silt and
clay.
Removes 90 to 99 percent of organics, in
closed-treatment unit .
Limited by complex waste materials .
Cost effective and favorably viewed by
the public .
Additives may be hazardous and difficult
to remove .
Separation efficiencies are greater than
98 percent .
Uses flammable solvent, requiring safety
measures.
Produces dry solids, and reduces waste
volume .
Requires adjustment of the pH level.
Soil Flushing
Soil Washing
Solvent Extraction
BEST
Disadvantages
Waste does not require heating .
CF System
DehaZogenation
90 percent removal efficiency on PCB
contaminated soils .
Treatment limited to halogenated
organics .
Toxicity reduction of target
contaminants .
By-products may require further
treatment .
Short treatment time, and relatively low
operational and maintenance costs .
CRS-33
Table 4. Thermal Treatment Comparison
Technology
General Thermal
Treatments
Advantages
Effective in treating a variety of waste .
Relatively expensive technology .
Reduces volume .
Public resistance is high .
Destroys organic waste with efficiency
of 99.9 percent .
Volatile metals can cause stack
emission problems .
Applicable to a wide variety of solids .
Not appropriate for liquid or slurry
wastes .
Infrared Incineration
Rotary Kiln
Incineration
Disadvantages
Volatile metals can cause stack
emission problems.
Least preprocessing requirements and
can accept debris up to 12 inches .
The process has long setup time and
requires large gas volume .
Well developed and proven, but
extensive operating experience is
required .
Susceptible to thermal shock,
requiring careful maintenance .
Volatile metals can cause stack
emission problems .
Fluidized Bed
Incineration
Wet-Air Oxidization
Operates at lower temperature,
reducing fuel costs.
Difficulty in removing residual from
the bed .
Simple design and long life of
incinerator.
Relatively slow throughout capacity (3
tons per hour).
Minimal NO, formation reducing
emission control costs .
Volatile metals can cause stack
emission problems .
Potentially cost-effective if applicable
to waste.
Limited to liquid or sludge waste
(organics and oxidizable inorganics) .
Volatile metals can cause stack
emission problems.
Low-Temperature
Thermal Stripping
In-situ Radio Frequency
Tests show that 97 .9 percent PCB
removal efficiency.
Not applicable to waste with high
moisture and organics .
No combustion byproducts .
Not applicable to heavy metals.
Potentially 2 to 4 times less expensive
than excavation and incineration .
More research is required to verify
effectiveness in-situ .
Volatile metals can cause stack
emission problems .
CRS-34
Table 5 . Physical Treatment Comparison
Technology
In-Situ Vacuum and
Steam Extraction
Advantages
Disadvantages
Demonstrated effectiveness in
emoving VOCs.
Process limited to volatile
compounds.
latively simple and reliable
technology.
Uneven treatment may occur due to
non-homogeneous soil .
eatment costs are low.
atively low cost technology .
Final product is not acceptable for
disposal without secondary
containment .
of re
Weight and volume of final produc s
e twice the original, increasing
c ts .
Stabilization/Solidification
(Cement-Based)
'ly available material.
Can stabilize a wider range of
materials compared to cement-based,
Stabilization/Solidification
(Silicate-Based)
Final product is not acceptable for
disposal without secondary
containment .
Oil and grease, in addition to
materials such as calcium sulfate,
can interfere with the bonding
process .
Air Stripping
Is very effective in removing
contaminants from groundwater,
when combined with activated
carbon .
Alone, only partially effective ; must
be followed by other treatment
technology .
High energy costs .
CRS-35
ASSESSING NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES (NRD)
•
The United States, States, Indian tribes, and foreign governments are
entitled to recover from a responsible party for damages, injury to,
destruction, loss of, and loss of use of natural resources . Natural
resource damages also include the reasonable cost of assessing those
damages ."
•
Before the enactment of SARA (1986), Section 111 of Superfund
authorized claims from the fund for the costs of the assessment of
damages to natural resources and/or the cost of replacement,
restoration, rehabilitation, or acquisition of equivalent natural
resources as a result of injury due to a release .
LAND USE
•
Less than one-half (44%) of National Priorities List (NPL) sites have
a single on-site land use . The most common current land uses are
industrial, none (e.g., abandoned) and commercial . In addition, 15%
of the sites currently have residents living on site ." (See figures 11
and 12 .)
•
More than three-quarters (76%) of sites have a mixed land use
surrounding the site . Seventy-nine percent (79%) of sites have
residential land use surrounding them. About 72 .8 million people live
within 4 miles of a site ." (See figure 13.)
•
In the future (i .e. after remediation), one-half of the sites are expected
to have a single land use . Land uses at sites are expected to be
industrial, residential and commercial . In the future, land uses
adjacent to sites are expected to be primarily residential.' (See
figure 14 .)
81
Olney, Austin P . "Oil Pollution Act of 1990," Environmental Law
Handbook . Twelfth Edition . Rockville, Maryland: Government Institutes, Inc .,
1993 . p. 226 .
82
"Swift-Dingell Response."
83 Ibid .
S4 Ibid .
CRS-36
Figure 11
On-Site Land Uses at Sites
Future (Expected)
Current
One Land Use
One Land Use
Types of
Land Use
Future Expected
Current
Single
Multiple
Total Uses
Single
Multiple
Total Uses
Industrial
170
214
384
159
145
304
Commercial
117
200
317
69
162
231
Other
208
81
289
62
152
214
Residential
19
173
192
98
32
130
Recreational
23
115
138
42
87
129
Agricultural
13
56
69
15
47
62
Educational
1
54
55
1
28
29
Note :
Current on-site land uses represent data from 1,247 sites responding while future expected onsite land uses represent data from 889 sites responding. These land-use numbers add up to more
than the total number of sites reporting because there may be more than one current or
expected land use at a given site .
Current Land Use in Vicinity of Site
Industrial
Commercial
Other
Residential
Recreation I
Agricultur I
Educational
Source : U .S . EPA, Swift-Dingell, Question 10 .
CRS-38
Figure 13
Current On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses of Sites
Type of Land Use
Residential
76
/njjj~/e
Commercial
Indus i I
7 1
Agricultural
21
Recreational
493
398
1
I
71
0
200
400
600
I
I
On-Site
800
1,000
Surrounding
1,200
1,400
Number of Sites
'Other' includes : closed landfills, military, undeveloped lands, wetlands, and widlife habitats .
'None' refers to abandoned lands .
Note:
Of the 1,249 final and deleted NPL sites (123 Federal facilities and 1,126 non-Federal facility
sites), on-site land uses reflect data from 1,247 sites reporting while surrounding land uses reflect
data from 1,245 sites reporting. These current land-use numbers add up to more than the total
number of sites reporting because there may be more than one land use at or surrounding a
given site .
CRS-39
Figure 14
Future Land Uses of Sites
Type of Land Use
Residential
Industria
Comme
673
77
al
Recreatio al
I
450
Agricultu
0th
81
i
W
Education
I
None
0
® On-Site
200
400
600
Su o
800
ding
1,000
Number of Sites
'Other' includes : closed landfills, military, undeveloped lands, wetlands, and wildlife habitats .
"None refers to abandoned lands .
Note :
Of the 1,249 final and deleted NPL sites (123 Federal facilities and 1,126 non-Federal facility
sites), on-site land uses reflect data from 889 sites reporting while surrounding future land uses
reflect data from 881 reporting sites . These expected land-use numbers add up to more than the
total number of reporting sites because there may be more than one expected land use at or
surrounding a given site.
CRS-40
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON
85
•
In a study of eight countries, the European Community and the
Council of Europe found that no other country uses industry specific
taxes to fund hazardous disposal site remediation . The U .S. system of
strict, joint and several, and retroactive liability is the most stringent,
with no other country imposing liability for past actions at abandoned
sites that were legal at the time . Most countries assign liability to the
actual releaser . 85
•
In all countries but the United States, the liability of the generator
ceases with transfer to an authorized waste disposal facility ."
•
The Business Roundtable characterizes European remediation
standards as more flexible and pragmatic, taking into consideration
past and future land uses when assigning remediation levels . This is
in contrast to the U .S . system, where remediation standards assume
future residential land use, and are based on standards developed for
other purposes such as safe drinking water ." Others have stated
that environmental protective measures in the United States are often
more rigorous than those of European countries .
The Business Roundtable . Comparison of Superfund with Programs in
Washington, D.C. September 1993 .
Other Countries.
86 Ibid .
S7 Ibid .
CRS-41
GLOSSARY OF SUPERFUND RELATED TERMS 88
Act of God. Means an unanticipated grave natural disaster or other natural
phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable, and irresistible character, the
effects of which could not have been prevented or avoided by the exercise
of due care or foresight [CERCLA §101(1)1 .
Administrative Order on Consent. A legal agreement between EPA and
PRPs whereby PRPs agree to perform or pay the cost of a site remediation .
The agreement describes actions to be taken at a site and may be subject
to a public comment period . Unlike a consent decree, an administrative
order on consent does not have to be approved by a judge .
Administrative Record. A file that is maintained, and contains all
information used by the lead agency to make its decision on the selection
of a response action under CERCLA . This file is to be available for public
review with a copy established at or near the site, usually at one of the
information repositories . A duplicate file is held in a central location, such
as an EPA Regional Office .
Administrator. Unless otherwise stated, the Administrator of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency [CERCLA §101(34)] .
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) . This
organization established under section 104(i) of CERCLA provides technical
support and assistance to protect human health and worker safety,
determines the toxicological and human health impacts associated with
hazardous substances, develops a priority-order list of hazardous substances
most frequently found at sites on the CERCLA National Priorities List, and
produces toxicological profiles of chemicals .
Air Stripping. A treatment system that removes, or "strips," volatile organic
compounds from contaminated ground water or surface water by forcing an
airstream through the water and causing the compounds to evaporate .
88 The definitions are taken from several sources, including :
Church, Thomas W. and Robert T. Nakamura .
Implementation Strategies in Superfund .
Cleaning Up the Mess:
Washington, D.C.: The
Brookings Institution [1993] .
Wagner, Travis P . The Complete Guide to the Hazardous Waste
Regulations . New York : Van Nostrand Reinhold [1992] .
Business Roundtable, 101 Terms & Facts on Superfund, November 1993 .
CRS-42
Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL) . An alternate remediation target to
the concentration limit set by EPA or a State for a particular hazardous
substance or waste .
Alternative Remedial Contract System (ARCS) . A strategy in which
responsibility for remedial contract management is relegated to the EPA
regions . An ARCS contract is a form of cost-reimbursable contract called a
"cost-plus-award-fee contract," under which EPA reimburses the contractor
for all allowable costs incurred .
Alternative Water Supplies . Includes, but is not limited to, drinking water
and household water supplies [CERCLA §101(34)] .
Applicable Requirements . Means those Federal requirements that would be
legally applicable, whether directly, or as incorporated by a federally
authorized State program, if the response actions were not undertaken
pursuant to CERCLA section 104 or 106 [40 CFR 300 .6] .
Aquifer . An underground permeable rock formation composed of materials
such as sand, soil, or gravel that can store and supply ground water to
wells and springs .
ARAR. Applicable or relevant and appropriate regulation . An environmental
health, or other standard that must be met in a Superfund cleanup . These
standards typically concern air, water, or soil quality, and may be set by
localities, States, branches of the EPA, or other components of the Federal
Government (such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Coast Guard) .
Barrel
. Means forty-two United States gallons at sixty degrees Fahrenheit
[CERCLA §101(3)] .
Bioremediation . A treatment method that utilizes micro-organisms to absorb
hazardous wastes and convert them into non-hazardous constituents .
Brownfields . Property historically used for industrial purposes that has a high
likelihood of being contaminated .
Cap. An impermeable layer that seals a hazardous waste site . A cap is
designed to seal off all exposure pathways of the hazardous waste contained
within.
Carbon Adsorption . A treatment system where contaminants are removed
from ground water or surface water when the water is forced through tanks
containing activated carbon, a treated material to which the contaminants
adhere.
Carcinogen . Any substance that can cause or contribute to the production of
cancer .
CRS-43
Carveout . A term used to designate an exemption from CERCLA law or
regulations . Generally pertains to liability for site remediations .
CERCLA. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-510) .
CERCLIS or CERCLA Information System. A database maintained by EPA
and the States that lists sites where releases may have occurred, need to be
addressed or have been addressed . CERCLIS consists of three inventories:
CERCLIS Removal Inventory, CERCLIS Remedial Inventory, and CERCLIS
Enforcement Inventory .
Claim. Means a demand in
g for a sum certain [CERCLA §101(4)] .
Claimant . Means any person who presents a claim for compensation under
this Act [CERCLA §101(5)] .
Coastal Waters . For the purposes of classifying the size of discharges, means
the waters of the coastal zone except for the Great Lakes and specified
ports and harbors on inland rivers [40 CFR 300 .6].
Comment Period. A time period provided for the public to review and
comment on proposed EPA actions or rulemakings following publication in
the Federal Register .
Community Relations. EPA's program to inform and involve the public in
the Superfund process and respond to community concerns .
Community Relations Plan (CRP) . Formal plan for EPA community
relations activities at Superfund sites . The CRP is designed to ensure
citizen opportunities for public involvement at the sites, determine
activities that will provide for such involvement, and allow citizens the
opportunity to learn more about the site .
Consent Decree . A legal document approved and issued by a judge that
formalizes an agreement reached between EPA and PRPs where PRPs will
perform all or part of a Superfund site remediation, and identifies other
enforcement action to be taken by the Agency . The consent decree
describes actions that PRPs are required to perform and is subject to a
public comment period.
Construction Completion . Construction completion at sites refers to the
point in the cleanup process at which physical construction is complete for
all remedial and removal work required at the entire site . Construction is
officially complete when a document has been signed by EPA stating that
all necessary remediation has been finished . While no further construction
is anticipated at the site, there may still be a need for long-term, on-site
activity before specified clean-up levels are met (e.g., restoration of
groundwater and surface water) . Although physical construction may not
CRS-44
be necessary at some sites, these sites are also included in this category to
fully portray EPA's progress .
Containment . A remediation method that seals off all possible exposure
pathways between a hazardous disposal site and the environment .
Generally includes capping and institutional controls .
Contract Lab . Laboratories under contract to EPA that analyze soil, water,
and wastes samples taken from areas at or near Superfund sites .
Contribution. A legal doctrine that enables parties sued under joint and
several liability to obtain compensation from other parties who may have
been legally liable, but who were not proceeded against in the original court
action .
Cost-effective Alternative . An alternative control or corrective method
identified as the best available in terms of reliability, permanence, and
economic considerations .
Cost Recovery. A legal proceeding, authorized under CERCLA, that allows the
government to proceed against PRPs for recovery of both administrative
and actual cleanup costs expended in either emergency removal or remedial
activities at hazardous waste sites .
Covenant not-to-sue . CERCLA authorizes EPA to release responsible parties
from liability to the United States under CERCLA, including future liability
resulting from releases or threatened releases addressed by a remedial
action .
Damages. Means damages for injury or loss of natural resources as set forth
in Section 107(a) or 111(b) of this Act [CERCLA §101(6)] .
Debris. Materials that are primarily non-geologic in origin, such as grass, trees,
stumps, and manmade materials such as concrete, clothing, partially buried
whole or empty drums, capacitors, and other synthetic manufactured
materials, such as liners.
Delisting . The process by which a Superfund site is removed from the National
Priorities List (NPL) after it has been completely cleaned up .
De minimis buyout . A practice, authorized in SARA, which allows the
government to accept a fixed monetary sum from a PRP in exchange for a
complete end to that party's liability at a Superfund site . This provision
is available only to smaller contributors of waste to a site .
Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs) .
Generally organic
compounds (or mixtures of such compounds) that are immiscible (do not
mix) with water .
CRS-45
Drinking Water Supply. Means any raw or finished water source that is or
may be used by a public water system (as defined in the Safe Drinking
Water Act) or as drinking water by one or more individuals [CERCLA
§101(7)] .
Emergency . Those releases or threats of releases requiring initiation of on-site
activity within hours of the lead agency's determination that a removal
action is appropriate .
Enforcement. EPA's efforts, generally through legal action or the threat
thereof, to force PRPs to perform or pay for a Superfund site remediation .
Also includes EPA, State or local legal actions to obtain compliance with
environmental laws, rules, regulations, or agreements and/or obtain
penalties or criminal sanctions for violations .
Environment. Means (A) the navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous
zone, and the ocean waters of which the natural resources are under the
exclusive management authority of the United States under the Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976, and (B) any other surface
water, ground water, drinking water supply, land surface or subsurface
strata, or ambient air within the United States or under the jurisdiction of
the United States [CERCLA §101(8)] .
Environmental Income Tax. Tax levied on industry sectors . The revenues
from this tax are added to the Superfund .
Environmental Response Team (ERT) . EPA hazardous waste experts who
provide 24-hour technical assistance to EPA Regional Offices and States
during all types of emergencies involving releases at hazardous disposal
sites and spills of hazardous substances .
Explanation of Differences . Subsequent to adoption of a final remedial
action plan, if any remedial action is taken, any enforcement under §106 is
taken, or any settlement or consent decree under §106 or §122 is entered
into, and if such action, settlement, or decree differs in any significant
respects from the final remedial action plan, the lead agency is required to
publish an explanation of significant differences and reasons the changes
were made .
Facility. 1) Any building, structure, installation, equipment, pipe or pipeline
(including any pipe into a sewer or publicly owned treatment works), well,
pit, pond, lagoon, impoundment, ditch, landfill, storage container, motor
vehicle, rolling stock, or aircraft ; or 2) any site or area where a hazardous
substance has been deposited, stored disposed of or placed, or has otherwise
come to be located . Does not include any consumer product in consumer
use or any vessel [CERCLA §101(9)] .
CRS-46
Facility Notification . Notice to EPA under CERCLA §103(c) of certain
facilities where hazardous substances are or have been stored, treated, or
disposed of.
Fate and Transport Modeling . A mathematical process for simulating the
behavior of contaminants in various environments to predict contaminant
concentration and mobility .
Feedstock Tax. This tax is levied on petroleum and chemical feedstocks . The
revenues generated are added to the Superfund .
Fiscal Year (FY) . Any yearly accounting period, regardless of its relationship
to a calendar year . The fiscal year for the Federal Government begins on
October 1 of each year and ends on September 30 of the next year . It is
designated by the calendar year in which it ends .
Fund or Trust Fund . Means the Hazardous Substance Superfund .
Greenfields. Property which has no history of industrial use . Generally
viewed as attractive to industry for development because there is little or
no fear of CERCLA liability .
Groundwater. Means water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the
surface of land or water [CERCLA §101(11)] .
Guarantor . Means any person, other than the owner or operator, who
provides evidence of financial responsibility for an owner or operator under
this Act [CERCLA §101(13)] .
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) . A scoring system used to evaluate potential
relative risks to public health and the environment from releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances . EPA and States use the HRS
to calculate a site score (0-100) based on the actual or potential release of
hazardous substances from a site through air, surface water or ground
water. A score of 28 .5 places the site on the National Priorities List .
Hazardous Substance. Any material that poses a threat to public health
and/or the environment. Typical hazardous substances are materials that
are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive, or chemically reactive . Further,
any substance designated by EPA to be reported if a designated quantity
of the substance is spilled in the waters of the United States or otherwise
emitted to the environment .
Hazardous Substance Superfund or Trust Fund . The fund set up under
CERCLA to help pay for remediation of hazardous disposal sites and to
take legal action to force those responsible for the sites to perform
remediation .
CRS-47
Hazardous Wastes . Technically, those wastes that are regulated under
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 40 CFR, Part 261 either
because they are "listed" or because they are ignitable, corrosive, chemically
reactive, or toxic .
Incineration . A treatment technology involving the burning of certain types
of solid, liquid, or gaseous materials under controlled conditions to destroy
hazardous waste .
Indian Tribe. Means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group
or community, including any Alaska Native village but not including any
Alaska Native regional or village corporation, which is recognized as eligible
for the special programs and services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their status as Indians [CERCLA §101(36)] .
Information Repository. A file containing current information, technical
reports, reference documents, and technical assistance grants application
information on a Superfund site . The information repository is usually
located in a public building that is convenient for local residents .
Leachate . A contaminated liquid resulting when water percolates, or trickles,
through waste materials and collects components of those waters .
Lead Agency. Means the Federal agency (or State agency operating pursuant
to a contract or cooperative agreement executed pursuant to section
104(d)(1) of CERCLA) that has primary responsibility for coordinating
response actions under this Plan . A Federal lead agency is the agency that
provides the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) or Remedial Project Manager
(RPM) as specified elsewhere in this Plan . In the case of a State as lead
agency, the State shall carry out the same responsibilities delineated for
OSCs/RPMs in the National Contingency Plan (except coordinating and
directing Federal agency response actions) [40 CFR 300 .6].
Liability (Joint and Several) . A legal standard where liability is imposed on
a PRP for the entire site, regardless of the percentage of contribution or
toxicity of materials at a site . This legal theory may result in assigning the
entire liability to one or a few members of a liable group . The remaining
members of the group are also liable for the entire site . Usually members
sue each other for contribution where liability has been assigned to one or
a few members .
Liability (Strict) . A legal standard where liability is imposed without regard
to fault, (as in negligence), or intent, (as in a willful violation of existing
laws) . The actor, based upon performance of the act, is considered to be
liable due to mere performance of the act .
Management of Migration. Means actions that are taken to minimize and
mitigate the migration of hazardous substances or pollutants or
contaminants and the effects of such migration . Management of migration
CRS-48
actions may be appropriate where the hazardous substances or pollutants
or contaminants are no longer at or near the area where they were
originally located or situations where a source cannot be adequately
identified or characterized. Measures may include, but are not limited to,
provision of alternative water supplies, management of a plume of
contamination, or treatment of a drinking water aquifer [40 CFR 300 .6] .
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) . The maximum permissible level of
a contaminant in water delivered to any user of a public water system .
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) . The maximum level of a
contaminant in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse
effect on human health would occur, and which includes an adequate
margin of safety .
Mixed Funding. The practice, authorized in SARA, by which the government
can assume some proportion of cleanup expenses, with other parties
assuming the rest .
Monitoring Wells . Special wells drilled at specific locations on or off a
hazardous disposal site where ground water can be sampled at selected
depths and studied to determine the direction of ground water flow and the
types and amounts of contaminants present .
National Contingency Plan, or National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) . The basic policy directive for
Federal response actions under CERCLA . It sets forth the Hazard Ranking
System, and the procedures and standards for responding to releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants .
National Response Center (NRC) . The Federal operations center that
receives notification of all releases of oil and hazardous substances into the
environment .
National Response Team (NRT) . Representatives of 13 Federal agencies who
as a team coordinate Federal responses to nationally significant incidents
of pollution and provide advice and technical assistance to the responding
agency(ies) before and during a response action .
Natural Resources . Land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water,
drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed
by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United
States (including the resources of the fishery conservation zone established
by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976), any State or
local government, or any foreign government [CERCLA §101(16)] .
Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) . A provision in CERCLA
under which parties can be sued to restore/replace any flora/fauna that has
been damaged during an incident which flows from an existing Superfund
CRS-49
site or the remediation of such a site . Legal action is taken separately from
the settlement provisions for remediation .
Navigable Waters or Navigable Waters of the United States . Means the
waters of the United States, including the territorial seas [CERCLA
§101(15)].
NBAR. Nonbinding allocation of responsibility . A device, established in SARA,
that allows the EPA to make a nonbinding estimate of the proportional
share that each of the various responsible parties at a Superfund site
should pay toward the costs of cleanup .
Notice Letter. EPA's formal notice by letter to PRPs, also called a Section
104(e) letter, that CERCLA-related action is to be undertaken at a site with
those PRPs being considered responsible .
NPL. National Priorities List . The list of (currently, approximately
1,200)hazardous waste sites that have been determined (through a
hazardous ranking score) to pose a serious threat to human health and the
environment in the United States .
O&M. Operating and maintenance costs . The expenses of maintaining an
ongoing engineering remedy at a Superfund site . Depending on the remedy
chosen, these costs can range from very low to extremely expensive . They
can continue to be generated for decades .
Offshore Facility . Means any facility of any kind located in, on, or under any
of the navigable waters of the United States, and any facility of any kind
which is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and is located in,
on, or under any other waters, other than a vessel or a public vessel
[CERCLA §101(17)] .
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) . Means the Federal official predesignated by
the EPA or USCG to coordinate and direct Federal responses under
Subpart E and removals under Subpart F of this Plan ; or the DOD official
designated to coordinate and direct the removal actions from releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants from DOD vessels and
facilities [40 CFR 300.6] .
Onshore Facility. Means any facility (including, but not limited to, motor
vehicles and rolling stock) of any kind located in, on, or under, any land or
nonnavigable waters within the United States [CERCLA §101(18)] .
Operable Unit . A discrete part of the entire response action that decreases a
release, threat of release, or pathway of exposure [40 CFR 300 .6].
ORC . Office of Regional Counsel . The EPA's legal office in the regions .
Typically, an ORC attorney is assigned to each Superfund case .
CRS-50
Orphan Share . The term used to describe the share of waste at a site that
cannot be collected from a PRP, because the PRP is either unidentifiable
or insolvent .
Owner or Operator. Means (A)(i) in the case of a vessel, any person owning,
operating, or chartering by demise, such vessel, (ii) in the case of an
onshore facility or an offshore facility, any person owning or operating such
facility, and (iii) in the case of any facility, title, or control of which was
conveyed due to bankruptcy, foreclosure, tax delinquency, abandonment, or
similar means to a unit of State or local government, any person who
owned, operated, or otherwise controlled activities at such facility
immediately beforehand .
Person. Means an individual, firm, corporation, association, partnership,
consortium, joint venture, commercial entity, United States Government,
State, municipality, commission, political subdivision of a State, or any
interstate body [CERCLA §101(21)] .
Petroleum Exclusion Clause . A clause in CERCLA that exempts some
petroleum wastes and their generators from the Superfund cleanup scheme .
Means the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Plan.
Contingency Plan published under Section 311(c) of the CWA and revised
pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA [40 CFR 300 .6] .
PRP. Potentially responsible party . Either an individual, a business, or a
government unit that has been identified as a party that is potentially
liable for site cleanup under the provisions of CERCLA .
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI) . The process of collecting
and reviewing available information about a known or suspected hazardous
disposal site or release . EPA or States use this information to determine
if the site requires further study . If further study is needed, a site
inspection is undertaken . A site inspection is the technical phase that
follows the preliminary assessment . It is designed to collect more extensive
information on a hazardous disposal site . The information is used to score
the site using the hazard ranking system to determine whether response
action is needed .
Proposed Plan . A public participation requirement of CERCLA in which EPA
summarizes for the public the preferred remediation strategy, rationale for
the preference, alternatives presented in the detailed analysis of the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, and waivers to remediation
standards of §121(d)(4) that may be proposed .
Pump-and-treat . This treatment process involves removal of contaminated
groundwater through pumping or other processes, followed by treatment
of the water and either re-injection of the water into the ground or
discharge of the water to a stream or lake .
CRS-51
Quality Assurance/Quality Control. A system of procedures, checks, audits,
and corrective actions to ensure that all EPA research design and
performance, environmental monitoring and sampling, and other technical
and reporting activities are of the highest achievable quality .
RCRA. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580) . The
act, administered by the EPA, that regulates the definition, transportation,
and disposal of hazardous wastes . This act is distinct from the Superfund
statutes in that it regulates current and future waste disposal practices,
while Superfund was established to clean up inactive hazardous waste sites .
RD/RA. Remedial design/remedial action . The final stage of a site cleanup,
when the remedy is designed and put into effect .
Regional Response Team. Representatives of Federal, State, and local
agencies who may assist in coordination of activities at the request of the
On-Scene Coordinator or Remedial Project Manager before and during
response actions .
Release . Any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying,
discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the
environment . Includes abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers
and other closed receptacles containing any hazardous substance, pollutant,
or contaminant .
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements. Those Federal requirements
that, while not "applicable," are designed to apply to problems sufficiently
similar to those encountered at CERCLA sites that their application is
appropriate. Requirements may be relevant and appropriate if they would
be "applicable" but for jurisdictional restrictions associated with the
requirement [40 CFR 300 .6] .
Remedial Action, Remedy. The actual construction or implementation phase
that follows the remedial design of the selected remediation alternative at
a site on the National Priorities List .
Remedial Action Plan (RAP). This plan details the technical approach for
implementing remedial response . It includes the methods to be followed
during the entire remediation process -- from developing the remedial
design to implementing the selected remedy through construction .
Remedial Design . An engineering phase that follows the record of decision
when technical drawings and specifications are developed for the
subsequent remedial action at a site on the National Priorities List .
Remedial Project Manager (RPM) . Means the Federal official designated by
EPA (or the USCG for vessels) to coordinate, monitor, or direct remedial
or other response activities under Subpart F of the National Contingency
Plan; or the Federal official the Department of Defense (DOD) designates
CRS-52
to coordinate and direct Federal remedial or other response actions
resulting from releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminates from DOD facilities or vessels [40 CFR 300 .6] .
Remedial Response . A long-term action that stops or substantially reduces
a release of a hazardous substance that could affect public health or the
environment . The term remediation, or cleanup, is sometimes used
interchangeably with the terms remedial action, removal action, response
action, remedy, or corrective action .
Remediation. Site cleanup .
Removal, or Emergency Removal. An action taken by the EPA under the
emergency removal provisions of CERCLA, that enables the agency to take
preliminary steps to clean up a site or reduce its danger when there is an
imminent and substantial threat to public health or the environment . A
removal cannot exceed $2 million or 1 year for any one action at any one
site .
Reopener. A clause, usually included in Superfund consent decrees at
government insistence, which allows the government to reopen a case and
proceed legally against a responsible party who has already settled with the
government if certain contingencies of site cleanup (such as discovery of
additional, unexpected waste, or failure of a remedy) occur .
Reportable Quantity (RQ). Quantity of a hazardous substance considered
reportable under CERCLA in the event of a release .
Respond or Response . Means remove, removal, remedy, and remedial action .
All such terms (including the term "removal" and "remedial action") include
enforcement activities related thereto [CERCLA §101(25)] .
RI/FS. Remedial investigation/feasibility study . The remedial investigation is
an engineering study that assesses the geographical, geological, and
hydrological properties of a site, and the nature and extent of the
hazardous waste contained therein . It is usually combined with the
feasibility study, which identifies the various cleanup alternatives and
specifies their costs and benefits .
Risk Assessment . A qualitative and quantitative evaluation performed to
define the risk posed to human health and/or the environment by the
presence or potential presence and/or use of specific pollutants .
ROD. Record of Decision . The formal document by which an EPA
administrator (usually the regional administrator) chooses the remedy to
be applied at a Superfund site .
RPM. Remedial Project Manager. The EPA official who has charge of the
remediation at a particular Superfund site .
CRS-53
SACM (Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model) . A model developed by
EPA to accelerate remediations so that most contamination is removed
early in the process .
SARA . Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-499) .
The law reauthorizing the Superfund program and adding a number of
additional provisions, such as several incentives to encourage voluntary
settlements, as well as the requirement that Superfund cleanups meet
applicable or relevant and appropriate regulations (see ARAB) .
Section 106 Order . A unilateral administrative order, authorized by statute,
that allows the EPA to order PRPs to perform certain remedial actions at
a Superfund site, subject to treble damages and daily fines if the order is
not obeyed.
Selected Alternative . The remediation alternative selected for a site based on
technical feasibility, permanence, reliability, and cost . The selected
alternative need not be the least expensive alternative . If there are several
remediation alternatives available that deal effectively with the problems
at the site, EPA must choose the remedy on the basis of permanence,
reliability, and cost .
Settlement . A legal agreement reached between EPA and parties at a
Superfund site . The settlement outlines the payments of each party, the
time frame of remediation and the remedy selected .
SITE (Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation) . This program
supports development of technologies for assessing and treating waste at
Superfund sites . EPA evaluates the technology and provides an assessment
of its potential for future use in Superfund remediation actions . The
program consists of four related components : the Demonstration Program,
the Emerging Technologies Program, the Monitoring and Measurement
Technologies Program, and Technology Transfer activities .
Site Inspection . A technical phase that follows a preliminary assessment
designed to collect more extensive information on a hazardous disposal site .
The information is used to score the site using the Hazard Ranking System
to determine whether response action is needed .
Soil. Materials that are primarily of geologic origin such as sand, silt, loam,
or clay, that are indigenous to the natural geologic environmental at or
near the Superfund site.
Source Control Action. The construction or installation and start-up of those
actions necessary to prevent the continued release of hazardous substances
or pollutants or contaminants (primarily from a source on top of or within
the ground, or in buildings or other structures) into the environment [40
CPR 300 .5] .
CRS-54
Source Control Maintenance Measures . Those measures intended to
maintain the effectiveness of source control actions once such actions are
operating and functioning properly, such as the maintenance of landfill
caps and leachate collection systems [40 CFR 300 .51.
Special Notice Procedures . The government may use these procedures under
SARA's settlement provision (Section 122) to reach agreement with PRPs
to conduct Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and other remedial
actions .
Strict Liability. The legal doctrine that allows a defendant in certain tort
cases to be held liable for injuries, regardless of whether or not that party
was negligent .
Surface Water. Bodies of water that are above ground, such as rivers, lakes
and streams .
Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) Program . A grant program that
provides funds for qualified citizens' groups to hire independent technical
advisors to help understand and comment on technical decisions relating
to Superfund remediation actions .
Third-party suits . In the context of Superfund, third-party suits are those
brought by PRPs at a site who are sued by the government, and against
other PRPs who were not sued, in order to obtain compensation for their
costs and expenses . See contribution.
Title III, SARA . Emergency Response and Community Right-to-Know Act .
This Act outlines the responsibilities of parties under emergency responses
and provides guidelines for storing information for public access .
United States and State . Includes the several States of the United States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American
Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas, and any other territory or possession over which the
United States has jurisdiction [CERCLA §101(27)] .
Vessel. Means every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance
used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water
[CERCLA §101(28)] .
Viable PRP. A PRP who can be expected to pay his, her or its share of
cleanup costs .
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.