Superfund Fact Book

Congressional research reportJan 27, 1999

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

97-312 ENR

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Superfund Fact Book

Updated January 27, 1999

(name redacted)

Analyst in Environmental Policy

Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division

(name redacted)

Environmental Information Analyst

Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

ABSTRACT

This fact book is a compendium of data and other pertinent information about EPA's

Superfund program to clean up the nation's most threatening hazardous waste sites. The

topics covered include program funding, number of sites, the National Priorities List,

liability, remedies, costs, waste at Superfund sites, settlements, assessments of natural

resource damages, land use, public health issues, state Superfund programs, and a glossary

of Superfund terms. This product will be updated periodically. (For a current discussion

of policy issues and legislation, see CRS Issue Brief IB10011, Superfund Reauthorization

Issues in the 106th Congress, by (name redacted).)

Superfund Fact Book

Summary

The Superfund program is the principal federal effort for cleaning up hazardous

waste sites and protecting public health and the environment from releases of

hazardous substances. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) established the program, and the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) amended it. This report is

a compendium of data and other pertinent information about CERCLA and the

Superfund program, followed by a glossary.

The law's strict, joint and several, and retroactive liability regime requires

responsible parties to pay for cleaning up a site. However, CERCLA established the

Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund to pay for cleanups where a financially

viable party cannot be found. The trust fund has raised about $1.5 billion per year

for cleanup activities, primarily from excise taxes on petroleum and specified

chemical feedstocks, and from a corporate environmental income tax, all of which

expired on December 31, 1995. The trust fund also pays for the Environmental

Protection Agency's (EPA) enforcement, management activities, and research and

development. For FY1999, Congress enacted appropriations of $1.5 billion for the

Superfund program (P.L. 105-276).

The National Priorities List (NPL) tracks the sites that most seriously threaten

public health and the environment. As of September 29, 1998, the NPL contained

a total of 1,260 final and proposed sites, of which 162 were federal facilities and

1,098 were non-federal sites. The Construction Completion List (CCL) catalogs NPL

sites where physical construction is complete for all necessary cleanup and removal

actions. As of September 29, 1998, there were 535 sites on the CCL. EPA has

deleted a total of 176 sites from the NPL because response actions are complete.

In addition to being responsible for cleanup costs, polluters also must pay to

restore natural resource damages at Superfund sites. As of July 1996, federal

agencies had completed settlements for natural resource damage claims with

responsible parties at 67 sites for a total of $117.6 million. In March 1996, the

federal government filed the largest natural resource damage claim to date for a total

of $970 million against several mining companies for contamination in the Coeur

d'Alene River Basin in Idaho. Negotiations over the claim are continuing.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry assesses the impact of

hazardous substance releases on public health. As of February 1997, the agency had

completed 1,776 public health assessments at Superfund sites.

The number of state programs that clean up hazardous waste sites has increased

in recent years, and each state has enacted its own enforcement authority. At the end

of 1997, the states reported nearly 24,000 potentially hazardous sites warranting

attention. All states, except for Nebraska and the District of Columbia, have

established their own funds to pay for cleanup activities. The total balance of all

state funds at the end of FY1997 was roughly $1.4 billion, of which states spent

about $565 million for cleanup activities in FY1997.

Contents

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Superfund Trust Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Number of Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

National Priorities List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Construction Completions and Deletions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Federal Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Number of Superfund Sites by State or Territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Administrative Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Remedy Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Length of Time to Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Stages of Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

EPA Enforcement and Costs to (PRPs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Transaction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Insurers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Operation and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Waste at Superfund Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

De Minimis Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Orphan Share Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Natural Resource Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Public Health Issues and the Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Public Health Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Epidemiologic Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Overall Assessment of Public Health Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Toxicological Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

ATSDR Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

State Superfund Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Number of State Superfund Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

State Cleanup Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Status of State Cleanup Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

State Cleanup Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

State Liability Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Natural Resource Damages at State Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Selected Superfund Internet Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

EPA and Other Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Congressional Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

State Government Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Professional Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Environmental Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Public Policy and Research Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Community Interest and Information Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

EPA Superfund Hotline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Glossary of Superfund Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

List of Figures

Figure 1. Superfund Appropriations: FY1981 to FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 2. FY1999 Superfund Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 3. Status of the National Priorities List as of September 29, 1998 . . . . . . . 8

Figure 4. Status of Remedy Selection at NPL Sites at the End of FY1997 . . . . . 16

Figure 5. Stages of Remediation at the End of FY1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 6. Legal Expenses as a Share of Total Costs at Superfund Sites . . . . . . . 21

Figure 7. Operation and Maintenance Activities at Superfund Sites . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 8. Public Health Assessments at Superfund Sites: 1992-1997 . . . . . . . . . 31

List of Tables

Table 1. Superfund Corporate Environmental Income Taxes Paid by

Industrial Sectors in 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table 2. Superfund Corporate Environmental Income Taxes Paid by

Selected Major Industries in 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table 3. Superfund Appropriations: FY1981-FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 4. Number of Final and Proposed Superfund Sites by State

as of September 29, 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 5. Common Sources of Waste at Superfund Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 6. Types of Contaminants Commonly Found at Superfund Sites . . . . . . . 25

Table 7. Common Chemicals Found at Superfund Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 8. Five Largest Natural Resource Damage Settlements at Superfund Sites

as of July 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 9. On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses at Superfund Sites . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 10. Common Sources of Funding for State Cleanup

Activities in FY1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Superfund Fact Book

Background

CRS has prepared this fact book to assist Members and Committees of

Congress and their staffs in considering Superfund reauthorization legislation. For

a current discussion of policy issues and legislation, see CRS Issue Brief IB10011,

Superfund Reauthorization Issues in the 106th Congress, by (name redacted). Other CRS

products on Superfund include:

! CRS Report 97-731 ENR. Superfund and the Brownfields Issue. by (nam

e redacted).

! CRS Report 98-136 A. Superfund Act Reauthorization: Liability Issues. by

(name redacted).

! CRS Report 97-914 ENR. Superfund Cleanup Standards Reconsidered. by

(name redacted) and (name redacted).

! CRS Report 97-953 ENR. Superfund and States: The State Role and Other

Issues. by (name redacted).

! CRS Report 96-774 E. Taxes to Finance Superfund. by (name redacted).

Legislative History

On December 11, 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to create the Superfund

hazardous substance cleanup program.1 The Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) amended CERCLA to expand the program's

scope.2 The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 extended the law's taxing

authority to December 31, 1995, which expired at the end of 1991 under SARA.3

Purposes

CERCLA's impetus was the emerging realization that hazardous waste sites

presented great risk to public health and the environment in all parts of the nation,

that state and local governments did not have the capability to respond, and that

P.L. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767. CERCLA, as amended, is codified at 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675.

P.L. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613.

P.L. 101-508, §6301, 104 Stat. 1388-319.

CRS-2

existing federal environmental and disaster relief laws were inadequate. The Love

Canal site in Niagara Falls, New York, first brought the issue to national prominence

when the state health commissioner declared a state of emergency there on August

2, 1978.

CERCLA's purpose is to authorize the federal government to respond swiftly

to hazardous substance emergencies and 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, and it also established the Hazardous Substance

Superfund Trust Fund to finance response actions where a liable party cannot be

found or is incapable of paying cleanup costs.

Superfund Trust Fund

The Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund has traditionally provided most

of the funding for the Superfund program. Appropriations from general tax revenues

have generally contributed $250 million annually to the program's operation as well.

Excise taxes imposed on the petroleum and chemical industries and an environmental

income tax on corporations maintained the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust

Fund through December 31, 1995. Taxing authority for Superfund expired at the end

of 1995, and Congress has not enacted legislation to reauthorize the tax. FY1995

was the last full fiscal year in which the Department of the Treasury collected the tax.

However, interest and cost recoveries from responsible parties still generate a

moderate amount of income for the trust fund each year.

As of the end of FY1998, the unappropriated balance in the Hazardous

Substance Superfund Trust Fund was roughly $2.1 billion. Congress appropriated

$325 million from general tax revenues and nearly $1.2 billion from the trust fund

to support the Superfund program in FY1999, reducing the unappropriated trust fund

balance to approximately $900 million. The total amount of trust fund resources

available for appropriation at the beginning of FY2000 will depend how much

income is generated from interest and cost recoveries during FY1999.

In FY1995, the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund was supported by:

! a tax on domestically produced and imported oil (about $576 million);

! a tax on feedstock chemicals (about $291 million);

! a corporate environmental income tax (about $612 million);

! and cost recoveries, penalties, and interest on the trust fund.4

The Superfund corporate environmental income tax generated a total of $713.3

million in 1995, the last year that the tax was collected. Table 1, on the following

page, lists the major industrial sectors that contributed to the tax.

U.S. Department of the Treasury. Financial Management Service. Hazardous Substance

Superfund Trust Fund (20X8145) Income Statement for the Period 10/01/94 Through

09/30/95. November 3, 1995. 2 p.

CRS-3

Table 1. Superfund Corporate Environmental Income Taxes

Paid by Industrial Sectors in 1995

Industrial Sector

Manufacturing

$ Thousands

305,868

Percentage

42.9

Finance, insurance, and real estate

Transportation and public utilities

Retail trade

188,665

113,382

36,791

26.5

15.9

5.2

Services

31,201

4.4

Wholesale trade

Mining

Construction

23,418

9,595

3,255

3.3

1.3

0.5

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing

1,067

0.1

Table 2 lists selected major industries within the above industrial sectors that

contributed to the corporate environmental income tax in 1995.

Table 2. Superfund Corporate Environmental Income Taxes

Paid by Selected Major Industries in 1995

Industry

$ Thousands

Percentage

Manufacturing

Chemical and allied products

Petroleum and coal products

Electrical and electronic equipment

Machinery, excluding electrical

Food and kindred products

Paper and allied products

63,107

37,743

36,501

24,977

24,842

15,891

8.8

5.3

5.1

3.5

2.2

Transportation and Public Utilities

Electric, gas, and sanitary services

Communication

54,872

43,402

7.7

6.1

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate

Banking

Insurance

Credit agencies other than banks

74,769

67,323

24,232

10.5

9.4

3.4

Security, commodity brokers, and services

11,705

1.6

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the U.S. Department of the

Treasury. Internal Revenue Service. Source Book, Statistics of Income, 1995: Corporation

Income Tax Returns with Accounting Periods Ended July 1995 - June 1996. Publication

1053 (Revised March 1998). 536 p. The March 1998 revision of this publication reflects

the most recent data on the amount of the tax collected from the major industries.

CRS-4

Appropriations

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the Superfund program, and

Congress appropriates the program's annual operating budget from the Superfund Trust

Fund in the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and

Independent Agencies appropriations bill. EPA does not have other access to the trust fund.

The same appropriations bill also provides monies from the trust fund for the Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and for the Superfund-related activities of the

Departments of Justice and Interior, the Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration.

! Congress authorized a total of $1.6 billion for Superfund from FY1981 to

FY1985, a total of $8.5 billion from FY1986 to FY1991, and a total of $5.1

billion from FY1992 to FY1994. Congress has appropriated funding for

subsequent years without enacting reauthorizing legislation.

! For FY1981, Congress enacted appropriations of $40.3 million for Superfund,

and for FY1999, enacted appropriations of $1.5 billion. From FY1981 to

FY1999, Congress appropriated a total of $20.9 billion. (Refer to Table 3 and

Figure 1.)

! For the FY1999 enacted level of $1.5 billion, approximately 66.7% of the

appropriation is allocated for EPA response actions, 12.3% for enforcement,

9.7% for interagency response, 8.7% for program management and support,

and 2.7% for research and development. (Refer to Figure 2.)

! Environmental restoration, of which Superfund spending is a part, is an

expanding portion of the federal environmental budget. In addition to

Superfund, there are federal facility cleanup and restoration programs at the

Departments of Defense, Energy, and the Interior. (Refer to page 9 for a

discussion of federal facilities cleanup under the jurisdiction of these

agencies.)

CRS-5

Table 3. Superfund Appropriations: FY1981-FY1999

(millions of dollars)

Function

FY1981

FY1982

FY1983

FY1984

FY1985

FY1986

Research/Development

4.7

13.8

6.8

10.2

12.6

10.5

Enforcement

2.5

8.4

17.7

26.7

48.7

52.1

Management/Support

2.3

9.5

11.4

17.2

25.2

30.8

Response Actions

30.8

149.0

184.6

411.2

533.5

312.9

EPA

30.8

149.0

166.2

366.4

510.5

292.7

Interagency

0.0

18.4

44.8

23.0

20.2

Total Appropriations

40.3

180.7

220.5

465.3

620.0

406.3

Administration Request

250.0

200.0

230.0

310.0

640.0

900.0

Function

FY1987

FY1988

FY1989

FY1990

FY1991

FY1992

FY1993

Research/Development

38.7

58.2

68.1

64.2

72.9

64.7

68.2

Enforcement

100.3

122.9

132.6

121.9

174.9

182.0

175.3

Management/Support

71.2

99.2

102.7

112.5

131.2

124.3

132.8

Response Actions

824.6

847.5

1,121.7

1,262.2

1,250.3

1,262.7

1,224.9

EPA

773.3

763.4

1,027.2

1,149.6

1,116.8

1,114.0

1,072.9

Interagency

51.3

84.1

94.5

112.6

133.5

148.7

152.0

Total Appropriations

1,034.8

1,127.8

1,425.1

1,560.8

1,629.3

1,633.7

1,601.2

Administration Request

1,050.0

1,200.0

1,600.0

1,750.0

1,753.1

1,765.0

1,766.4

FY1994

FY1995

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

Total

FY1981 to

FY1999

Research/Development

62.6

65.9

5.2

35.0

40.0

737.3

Enforcement

180.3

177.3

203.2

171.2

183.7

184.0

2,265.7

Management/Support

118.3

130.9

139.2

126.0

130.0

1,644.7

1,136.0

1,057.1

1,191.6

1,178.0

1,151.3

1,146.0

16,275.9

EPA

976.9

888.5

1,073.6

1,032.0

1,009.5

1,000.0

14,513.3

Interagency

159.1

168.6

118.0

146.0

141.8

146.0

1,762.6

Total Appropriations

1,497.2

1,431.2

1,539.2

1,510.2

1,500.0

20,923.6

Administration Request

1,614.7

1,499.7

1,562.9

1,394.2

2,216.9

2,092.7

23,795.6

Function

Response Actions

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from Environmental Protection Agency budget justification documents.

CRS-6

Figure 1. Superfund Appropriations: FY1981 to FY1999

$ millions

Total Enacted Appropriations = $20.9 Billion

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the

Environmental Protection Agency.

Figure 2. FY1999 Superfund Appropriation

Total Appropriation = $1.5 billion

Interagency Response Actions

$146 million

9.7%

Enforcement

$184 million

12.3%

66.7%

Management/Support

$130 million

8.7%

Research and

2.7% Development

$40 million

EPA Response Actions

$1.0 billion

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data

from the Environmental Protection Agency.

CRS-7

Number of Sites

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Information System (CERCLIS) tracks sites that are brought to EPA's attention that

may warrant cleanup. A site's presence on CERCLIS does not determine a party's

liability for cleanup and does not indicate that cleanup is required. However, listing

a site on CERCLIS reportedly at times has carried a stigma by association with the

Superfund program, which has interfered with the sale or development of properties.

EPA had not removed any sites from CERCLIS until March 29, 1995, when

roughly 40,000 sites were listed. At that time, as part of EPA's brownfields agenda,

it began archiving sites it designated as No Further Response Action Planned

(NFRAP). As of December 2, 1998, there were a total of 10,411 sites listed in

CERCLIS, and a total of 31,463 sites had been transferred to the archived listing.

National Priorities List

CERCLA requires the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency

Plan to include a National Priorities List (NPL) of sites that pose the highest potential

threat to human health and the environment in the United States. CERCLA requires

EPA to revise the NPL at least annually. The NPL identifies sites that warrant further

evaluation but does not assign liability for a release of hazardous substances.

! There are three mechanisms for placing a site on the NPL:

1) The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) evaluates the potential threat of a

contaminated site to human health and the environment. Sites scoring higher

than 28.5 on the HRS scale are eligible for the NPL.

2) Regardless of a site's HRS score, a state may designate a site as its highest

priority for cleanup, making it eligible for the NPL.

3) A site can be placed on the NPL regardless of its HRS score if the Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has issued a health advisory for a site,

EPA determines a site to pose a significant threat to public health, or EPA

expects that using long-term remedial authority will be more cost-effective than

short-term removal authority to clean up a site.

! The NPL includes two sections. EPA has the authority to evaluate and clean

up non-federal sites listed in the general section, and other federal agencies

with sites in their jurisdictions have the authority to evaluate and clean up sites

listed in the federal facilities section. EPA is not the lead agency for federal

facilities but is responsible for preparing the HRS scores for these sites.

! As of September 29, 1998, there were 1,194 sites on the NPL, of which 153

were federal facilities and 1,041 were non-federal sites. EPA also proposed

to add 66 sites to the NPL, of which 9 were federal facilities and 56 were non-

CRS-8

federal sites. Final and proposed NPL sites totaled 1,260, of which 162 were

federal facilities and 1,098 were non-federal sites. 5

! The first listing in the Federal Register occurred on September 8, 1983, and

placed 406 sites on the NPL.6 Since the beginning of the Superfund program,

EPA has placed a total of 1,370 sites on the NPL. (Refer to Figure 3.)

! In 1994, GAO estimated that between 2,500 and 2,800 non-federal sites could

be added to the NPL from the inventory of CERCLIS sites under assessment

or awaiting evaluation, while EPA estimated that 1,700 sites could be added

through 2020. GAO also reported that the Congressional Budget Office

(CBO) projected a total of 3,300 sites could be added to the NPL by 2027.7

! A 1992 study indicated that 403 NPL sites involved local governments, either

as site owners, or as operators or transporters of waste to a site. The study

categorized 216 of these sites as landfills.8

Figure 3. Status of the National Priorities List as of September 29,

1998

Total Number of Superfund Sites Listed Since September 8, 1983 = 1,370

11.2%

153 Federal Facilities

(Cleanup Pending)

12.8%

176 Deleted Sites

(Response Complete)

76.0%

1,041 Non-Federal Sites

(Cleanup Pending)

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the

Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. Federal Register. September 29, 1998. p. 51848-51853.

EPA. Federal Register. September 8, 1983. p. 40658-40682.

GAO. Superfund: Estimates of Number of Future Sites May Vary. GAO/RCED-95-18.

December 1994. p. 2.

Clean Sites, Inc. Main Street Meets Superfund: Local Government Involvement at

Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites. January 1992. p. 16.

CRS-9

Construction Completions and Deletions

Construction completion at a site 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. EPA places an NPL site on the Construction

Completion List (CCL) under one of three circumstances: 1) necessary physical

construction is complete; 2) response action does not involve construction (e.g.,

institutional controls); or 3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL.

! As of September 29, 1998, there were a total of 535 sites on the CCL. EPA

has deleted 176 of these sites from the NPL because response actions are

complete. Cleanup is pending at the remaining 359 sites on the NPL where

construction is complete.9

! In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy as part of its second round of

administrative reforms to encourage economic redevelopment of sites. Under

this policy, portions of a site where cleanup is complete can be deleted from

the NPL and returned to productive use while cleanup on the rest of the site

continues. As of September 29, 1998, EPA had deleted portions of 11 NPL

sites.10

! GAO reports that EPA expects to complete construction for all necessary

remedial and removal work at a total of 650 sites by the end of the year 2000,

assuming level funding.11 However, in 1994, a survey of site managers

projected a total of 965 construction completions during this same period.12

Federal Facilities

Federal agencies are responsible for cleaning up hazardous releases at sites on

their facilities. EPA maintains the Federal Facilities Docket to track facilities that

federal agencies have reported as warranting evaluation. Once a facility is placed on

the docket, the responsible agency must assess the site within 6 months to

characterize the contamination. If this assessment indicates potentially hazardous

levels of contamination, EPA evaluates the facility using the HRS to determine

whether to list the facility on the NPL. The responsible federal agency must develop

and implement a plan to clean up its facilities on the NPL and fund the remediation.

EPA oversees the development of the remedial plan and the cleanup activities.13

EPA. Federal Register. September 29, 1998. p. 51850.

Ibid.

GAO. Superfund: Times to Complete Site Listing and Cleanup. February 4, 1998.

GAO/T-RCED-98-74. p. 3.

EPA. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). Survey of NPL Site

Managers. January 28, 1994. EPA conducted this survey in response to 21 questions

submitted by Representatives Al Swift and John Dingell on July 19, 1993.

42 U.S.C. 9620. "Federal Facilities."

CRS-10

! As of November 23, 1998, there were 2,182 facilities on the Federal Facilities

Docket.14 Each facility typically has multiple sites that warrant evaluation.

As of September 29, 1998, EPA had placed 153 of the most potentially

hazardous federal facilities on the NPL.15

! The Departments of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE)

have the largest budgets for cleaning up federal facilities.16 The Department

of the Interior has fewer sites that require major response actions, and its

cleanup budget is relatively small compared to DOD and DOE.

! In 1996, the Federal Facilities Policy Group, an interagency committee,

estimated that the total future costs to complete cleanup actions at federal

facilities under the jurisdictions of the Departments of Defense, Energy, and

Interior could be between $235 and $389 billion. Of this total estimated cost,

Defense's share would be $31 billion, Energy's would be between $200 and

$350 billion, and Interior's would be between $4 and $8 billion.17

Number of Superfund Sites by State or Territory

Over the history of the Superfund program, every state and territory has had at

least one site listed on the NPL at some point in time. As of September 29, 1998,

there were a total of 1,260 final and proposed sites on the NPL. New Jersey had a

total of 111 final and proposed sites on the NPL, more than any other state. North

Dakota was the only state that did not have any sites on the NPL or proposed for

listing as of September 29, 1998. Table 4, on the following page, lists the number

of final and proposed NPL sites located within each state and U.S. territory. For

information on a specific site, refer to EPA's Superfund home page on the Internet

at http://www.epa.gov/superfund or contact the Superfund Hotline at 703-412-9810

in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area or toll free at 1-800-424-9346 outside of

the Washington area.

EPA. Federal Register. November 23, 1998. p. 64806-64818.

EPA. Federal Register. September 29, 1998. p. 51850.

For background and funding information on DOD and DOE's cleanup programs, refer to

CRS Report 97-790 ENR, Environmental Protection: Defense-related Programs, by (name

redacted).

GAO. Federal Facilities: Consistent Relative Risk Evaluations Needed for Prioritizing

Cleanups. GAO/RCED-96-150. June 1996. p. 29.

CRS-11

Table 4. Number of Final and Proposed

Superfund Sites by State as of September 29, 1998

State or

Territory

Non-Federal

Sites

Federal

Sites

Total

Sites

New Jersey

105

111

Pennsylvania

100

California

New York

Michigan

Florida

Washington

Illinois

Wisconsin

Ohio

Texas

Massachusetts

Indiana

Minnesota

Virginia

South Carolina

North Carolina

Missouri

New Hampshire

Maryland

Colorado

Iowa

Delaware

Georgia

Utah

Kentucky

Louisiana

Tennessee

Connecticut

CRS-12

State or

Territory

Non-Federal

Sites

Federal

Sites

Total

Sites

Oklahoma

Rhode Island

Alabama

Maine

New Mexico

Oregon

Arkansas

Kansas

Arizona

Puerto Rico

Nebraska

Montana

Vermont

Idaho

Alaska

West Virginia

Hawaii

Mississippi

Wyoming

Guam

South Dakota

Virgin Islands

District of Columbia

Nevada

North Dakota

Grand Total

1,098

162

1,260

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the Environmental

Protection Agency.

CRS-13

Administrative Reforms

To increase the pace of remediation, reduce cleanup costs, and improve program

efficiency, EPA has conducted three rounds of Superfund reforms that consist of

various initiatives and pilots implemented within the existing statutory framework

under CERCLA.

! In June 1993, EPA introduced the first round of reforms to increase the pace

of site investigation and construction completion activities.

! In February 1995, EPA introduced the second round of reforms to address

concerns over enforcement, economic redevelopment of sites, community

involvement and outreach, environmental justice, consistent program

implementation, and state empowerment.

! In October 1995, EPA introduced the third and final round of reforms

consisting of 20 initiatives designed to make cost-effective cleanup choices

that protect public health and the environment, reduce the volume of litigation

and the amount of legal expenses, and ensure that states and communities are

more informed and involved in cleanup decisions.

EPA reports that the implementation of its reforms through the end of FY1997

has accomplished the following:

! reviewed and updated selected remedies at specific sites during 1996 and 1997

estimated to yield future cost savings of over $900 million in public and

private remediation expenses;

! more than doubled the pace of construction completions over 5 years from 217

in FY1993 to 498 in FY1997;

! removed over 15,000 small volume waste contributors from the liability

system;

! evaluated and archived over 30,000 sites from CERCLIS; and

! negotiated settlements with responsible parties to perform or fund roughly

70% of cleanups, representing more than $12 billion in remediation costs.18

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

EPA. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR). Superfund Reforms FY1997

Annual Report. p. 2-4.

CRS-14

operators. Courts have interpreted liability provisions for Superfund remediations

under CERCLA to be strict, joint and several, and retroactive.

! Strict liability means the government needs to prove only involvement at a

waste site, not negligence. Under CERCLA, proof of strict causation is not

necessary.

! Joint and several liability indicates that any involved party can have the legal

responsibility for cleaning up the entire site, regardless of its degree of

involvement, unless there is a reasonable basis for apportioning liability.

! Retroactive liability means that parties can be held liable for releases

resulting from actions prior to when Congress enacted CERCLA in 1980.

! The Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection

Act of 1996, P.L. 104-208, addressed lender liability. It protects lenders and

fiduciaries from CERCLA liability as long as they do not participate in the

management of a facility contaminated with hazardous substances. Lenders

at times have incurred liability after foreclosing on a contaminated property.

This law describes what actions a lender may take, which include activities

related to its financial interest, and appropriate response to a hazardous

substance release.

Remedies

CERCLA requires the lead agency for a site to select remedial actions that

protect human health and the environment, are cost-effective, and utilize permanent

solutions, alternative technologies, or resource recovery technologies to the

maximum extent practicable. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a remedy, the

lead agency must consider the total short-term and long-term costs, including the

costs of operation and maintenance.19

ARARs

CERCLA does not contain any cleanup standards but instead requires the lead

and support agencies for a site to select remedy standards that comply with other

existing federal environmental laws and regulations. CERCLA requires that the lead

and support agencies use "applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements"

(ARARs) to select these standards.20

42 U.S.C. 9621. "Cleanup Standards."

42 U.S.C. 9621(d). "Degree of Cleanup."

CRS-15

! Applicable requirements are federal or state cleanup standards that apply to

a specific hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,

location, or other circumstance found at a site.21

! Relevant and appropriate requirements are cleanup standards that are not

specifically legally applicable to the site, but do address problems or situations

sufficiently similar to the circumstances of the release or to the contemplated

remedial action, that they can be considered both relevant and appropriate to

use at the site.22

! In addition to ARARs, the lead and support agencies for a site may identify

federal or state advisories, criteria, or guidance to be considered for a specific

release that may be useful in developing remedies.23

! The lead and support agencies for a site apply state standards to a remedy only

if they are more stringent than federal requirements, legally enforceable, and

brought to EPA's attention by the state in a timely manner.24

Remedy Selection

! Treatment 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, which generally includes capping and institutional controls.

Removal, or emergency removal, is an action taken by EPA under the

emergency removal provisions of CERCLA, which 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. An

emergency removal cannot exceed $2 million or one year for any one action

at any one site.

! The most recent data on the types of remedies selected were compiled in 1991.

At that time, 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

40 CFR 300.400(g)(1).

requirements."

40 CFR 300.400(g)(2).

40 CFR 300.400(g)(3).

40 CFR 300.400(g)(4).

EPA. OERR. 1991.

"Identification of applicable or relevant and appropriate

CRS-16

! The emergency removal program responds to short-term emergencies at

hazardous waste disposal sites requiring immediate action. As of the end of

FY1998, approximately 5,500 emergency removal actions had been taken to

immediately reduce the threat to public health and the environment.26

! As of the end of FY1997, a total of 1,327 sites had been placed on the NPL.

GAO reports that EPA had completed the process of selecting remedies at 926

(70%) of these sites. EPA also had selected at least one remedy at another 222

(17%) sites. However, 133 (60%) of the sites with just one remedy selected

needed only one additional remedy to be chosen before cleanup could begin.

As of the end of FY1997, EPA had still not selected any remedies at the

remaining 179 (13%) sites listed on the NPL at that time.27

! GAO reports that the selection of remedies has been much slower at federal

facilities. By the end of FY1997, EPA had completed remedy selection at 36

(23%) of the 158 federal facilities on the NPL compared to 890 (76%) of the

1,169 non-federal sites. EPA attributed the slower progress at federal facilities

to more complex problems with contamination and the fact that federal

facilities were added to the NPL later than many of the non-federal sites.28

Figure 4. Status of Remedy Selection at NPL Sites at the End of

FY1997

Total NPL Sites = 1,327

158 Federal Sites

1,169 Non-Federal Sites

None Selected

143 Sites

12.2%

Some Selected

136 Sites

11.6%

None Selected

36 Sites

22.8%

76.1%

All Selected

890 Sites

All Selected

36 Sites

22.8%

54.4%

Some Selected

86 Sites

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the General Accounting Office.

EPA. OERR. Superfund Facts: The Program at Work. September 1998.

GAO. Superfund: Information on the Status of Sites. GAO/RCED-98-241. August 1998.

p. 4.

Ibid.

CRS-17

Length of Time to Remediation

! GAO reports that the average time to place a site on the NPL and complete

cleanup generally has increased over the life of the Superfund Program.29

! From 1986 to 1990, EPA took an average of 5.8 years from the time of site

discovery to investigate and process the non-federal sites that it added to the

NPL. By 1996, the average time to list a site on the NPL from the time of

discovery had increased to 9.4 years. GAO attributed increases in the time

required to place a site on the NPL to the backlog of sites awaiting processing

once investigation was complete.

! From 1986 to 1989, cleanup required an average of 3.9 years from the time

that EPA placed a site on the NPL. By 1996, the time required for cleanup

had more than doubled to an average of 10.6 years. EPA attributed increasing

cleanup times to the growing complexity of sites, lengthier negotiations to

reach settlements with PRPs, and resource constraints. GAO estimated that

in future years the average time required to clean up sites listed on the NPL as

of July 1, 1997, could exceed 8 years.

Stages of Remediation

At the end of FY1997, the status of the 1,397 Superfund sites (including final

and proposed sites) was:

! 30 sites with remedial assessment not yet begun;

! 25 sites with removal-only actions;

! 180 sites where studies were underway;

! 63 sites where remedies had been selected;

! 124 sites where remedy designs were underway;

! 477 sites where construction was underway; and

! 498 sites where construction was complete for all necessary remedial and

removal actions.30 (535 sites as of September 29, 1998.) Refer to Figure 5 on

the following page.

GAO. Superfund: Times to Complete Site Listing and Cleanup. GAO/T-RCED-98-74.

February 4, 1998. p. 1-2.

EPA. OERR. Superfund Reforms FY1997 Annual Report. p. 2.

CRS-18

Figure 5. Stages of Remediation at the End of FY1997

Final and Proposed Sites = 1,397

180 Sites

Study Underway

12.9%

63 Sites

Remedy Selected

4.5%

8.9%

25 Sites

1.8%

Removal-Only

124 Sites

Design Underway

35.6%

34.1%

498 Sites

Construction Complete

477 Sites

Construction Underway

2.1%

30 Sites

Assessment Not Yet Begun

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the

Environmental Protection Agency.

Costs

! A CBO study released in January 1994 estimated that it could take $75 billion

to clean up a total of 4,500 sites now in need of work (including current NPL

sites, and ones to be added in the future).31

! The Joint Institute for Energy & Environment (JIEE) estimated that cleanup

costs could be reduced by about 35% through increased use of institutional

controls and containment remedies (in place of destruction and isolation

technologies), while essentially protecting human health and the environment

at the same levels of safety.32

U.S. Congress. Congressional Budget Office. The Total Costs of Cleaning Up Nonfederal Superfund Sites. 1994.

Milton Russell and Kimberly L Davis. Resource Requirements for NPL Sites: Phase II

Interim Report. Knoxville, JIEE, September 1995. 60 p.

JIEE is a research consortium of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Tennessee Valley

Authority, and the University of Tennessee. The authors "suggest that [these] study results

should supersede" those of the earlier studies in which they participated: 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, University of Tennessee, Waste Management Research and Education Institute,

(continued...)

CRS-19

! The JIEE estimated total cleanup costs under this less stringent scenario to be

$34.1 billion for an NPL of 1,350 sites; $53.0 billion if there were 2,100 sites;

and $75.7 billion for 3,000 sites.33

! EPA last projected total funding requirements for the Superfund program in

its annual report to Congress for FY1994, which estimated total funding

requirements of $17.4 billion from FY1995 through future fiscal years, and a

future cumulative total of $31.0 billion in funding requirements since the

program's beginning in FY1981. (Thus far, Congress has appropriated a total

of $20.9 billion from FY1981 to FY1999. Refer to Table 3 and Figure 1 on

pages 5 and 6 respectively.) EPA based its estimates of future funding

requirements on the 1,290 final and proposed sites on the NPL as of the end

of FY1994.34

Capital Costs

! A 1994 survey of NPL site managers indicated that the average capital cost at

a non-federal site was $21.8 million. Site assessment, studies, and design

comprised 11% of total site costs, resulting in an average cost of $25 million.35

! A relatively small number of very expensive sites raised the average cost

significantly. Over 60% of all capital cleanup costs were accounted for by

only 16% of the operable units (OUs). An operable unit is a division of a site

cleanup project; on average, there were 1.8 OUs at each non-federal site.36

! 69% of Superfund sites had capital costs of less than $10 million.37

! 38% had capital costs of less than $3 million.38

! Site managers expected capital costs to exceed $20 million at 296 sites (232

non-federal sites and 64 federal facilities). The most common factors

contributing to these estimates were large volumes of contaminated media,

site complexities, and high treatment costs.39

(...continued)

1991.

Ibid., p. 39.

EPA. OERR. Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: FY1994 Report to Congress.

EPA Publication #9200.2-24.

EPA. OSWER. Survey of NPL Site Managers. January 28, 1994.

Ibid.

CRS-20

EPA Enforcement and Costs to (PRPs)

! The Superfund program enforcement budget for FY1999 is $184 million, or

approximately 12.3% of the total Superfund appropriation of $1.5 billion.

! Responsible parties are paying for an increasing share of total cleanup costs.

In FY1987, the share of cleanup costs for responsible parties was 37%, and

the trust fund's share was 63%.40 However, by the end of FY1997, the share

of cleanup costs for responsible parties had increased to 70%.41

! In FY1997, responsible parties agreed to pay $451.5 million for future

response work and $158 million for past cost recoveries for a total of $609.5

million in cleanup costs. At the end of FY1997, the cumulative value of

cleanup activities that responsible parties have committed to since the

beginning of the Superfund program exceeded $14.7 billion.42

! In FY1997, EPA settled 197 new claims for cost recoveries from responsible

parties with a total value of $158 million and collected a total of $316 million

in past costs from responsible parties as a result of prior year settlements.

From the beginning of the Superfund program to the end of FY1997, EPA had

negotiated settlements with responsible parties for a cumulative value of $2.3

billion in costs to recover past cleanup expenses. Of this amount, EPA has

collected roughly $1.7 billion in cost recoveries from responsible parties.43

Transaction Costs

Transaction costs are a PRP's expenses for activities other than remediation.

Transaction costs include legal expenses to negotiate cleanup liability and settlement

with EPA, collect insurance claims for cleanup costs, and litigate with other parties

that may have contributed to a release. Transaction costs also may include other

expenses, such as laboratory testing for contamination in soil samples.

! In 1994, GAO conducted a survey of 1,000 major U.S. corporations. Of these

corporations, 367 had been a PRP at a Superfund site and had incurred legal

expenses during the cleanup process. Of these 367 corporations, 81 spent

$100,000 or less on cleanup costs, and 38 spent over $20 million. The

average total cleanup cost for an individual corporation was $1.5 million, of

which each corporation spent an average of $500,000 on legal expenses.44

EPA. OSWER. Superfund Enforcement Program Highlights. 1993.

EPA. OERR. Superfund Reforms FY1997 Annual Report. p 2.

EPA. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). FY1997 Enforcement

and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report. July 1998. p. 2-6.

Ibid.

GAO. Superfund: Legal Expenses for Cleanup-Related Activities of Major U.S.

Corporations. GAO/RCED-95-46. December 1994. p. 4.

CRS-21

! Corporations with a major share of liability at 3 or more sites incurred an

average of $3.5 million in legal expenses for each site, 28% of their total

cleanup cost. De minimis parties (small volume waste contributors) incurred

an average of $32,000 in legal expenses for each site, 46% of their total

cleanup cost. While De minimis parties incurred the least amount of total

cleanup expenses, their legal expenses as a percentage of their total cleanup

costs were the highest.45 (Refer to Figure 6.)

! The surveyed corporations identified 3 factors that could contribute to

lowering legal expenses: 1) complete identification of all PRPs; 2) effective

enforcement of each PRP's liability; and 3) accurate volumetric data on each

PRP's contribution to a release.

! About 52% of the surveyed corporations stated that joining a PRP group

helped to lower legal expenses by encouraging cooperation among the parties

and avoiding litigation.46

Figure 6. Legal Expenses as a Share of Total Costs at Superfund

Sites

Corporations with Major Liability

at Three or More Sites

Legal Expenses

28%

Cleanup Activities

72%

De Minimis Parties

(Small Volume Waste Contributors)

Legal Expenses

46%

Cleanup Activities

54%

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the General Accounting Office.

Ibid., p. 5-6.

Ibid., p. 11-12.

CRS-22

Insurers

! As of 1990, insurers and those who were insured spent approximately $500

million each year on Superfund litigation involving insurance coverage.47

! Insurance companies are experiencing substantial increases in their payments

for PRP Superfund claims. A 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.48

! 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, and 12%

of payments were for corporate remedial activities. RAND calculated that if

its sample were representative of the whole insurance industry, insurers spent

$470 million on claims involving inactive hazardous waste sites in 1989.49

Operation and Maintenance Costs

After constructing remedies to clean up a site, additional activities may be

necessary to ensure that the remedy continues to function effectively to protect

human health and the environment. These activities commonly include maintaining

landfill covers, treating contaminated ground water, or restricting the use of land or

water adjacent to a site. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are the expenses

to perform these activities.

! States are responsible for assuring the effective operation and maintenance of

remedial constructions or other controls, and PRPs are financially responsible

for their share of O&M costs at a site. However, if the site remediation is

being paid for by the Superfund program (is "Fund-financed"), and the remedy

involves restoring ground or surface water to safe levels, EPA is responsible

for the cost of the first 10 years of the remedy, after which it becomes the

state's responsibility. The pertinent federal agency is responsible for O&M

costs at federal facilities.50

! As of May 1995, there were 275 Superfund sites where remedial constructions

were complete. Of these sites, 173 required long-term O&M, and the

House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, 1990, as referenced in

Business Roundtable, 101 Terms & Facts on Superfund, November 1993.

GAO. Superfund Pollution Claims. 1992.

Acton, Jan Paul, and Lloyd S. Dixon. Understanding Superfund. RAND Institute for

Social Justice. 1989.

40 CFR 300.435(f). "Operation and Maintenance."

CRS-23

remaining 102 used remedies that did not require it (for example, successfully

treating surface waste).51

! Restoring contaminated ground or surface water to safe levels represented the

largest portion of O&M costs, about 47%. Remedies that only include

containing surface waste represented the smallest portion, about 12%.

Maintaining both remedies accounted for 36%, and maintaining other

remedies accounted for the remaining 5% of O&M costs.52 (Refer to Figure

7 on the following page.)

! EPA estimated that the average duration for O&M to completely clean up or

maintain a site would be 30 years, and GAO estimated that the average O&M

costs per site would be $12 million during this period. However, these costs

could be greater if the duration exceeds 30 years. A survey of EPA's regional

project managers indicated that about 20% of Superfund sites would require

O&M for more than 30 years. For example, sites where the remedy is

containing waste would require O&M indefinitely to maintain and periodically

repair the waste cover.53

! In FY1994, O&M costs at Superfund sites totaled $148 million, but these

costs likely will increase substantially in the future as remedial constructions

are completed over the next decade. GAO estimated that annual O&M costs

would approach $1 billion by FY2010.54

! GAO estimated that O&M costs for current and future sites would total almost

$32 billion through FY2040. Of this estimate, the federal government would

be responsible for approximately $5 billion, the states for $8 billion, and the

responsible parties for $18 billion. EPA estimated a higher amount of $37

billion for O&M costs through FY2040.55

GAO. Superfund: Operations and Maintenance Activities Will Require Billions of

Dollars. GAO/RCED 95-275. September 1995. p. 4.

Ibid., p. 9.

Ibid., p. 8.

Ibid., p. 6.

Ibid., p. 4-9.

CRS-24

Figure 7. Operation and Maintenance Activities at Superfund Sites

Other

Activities

Waste Containment

Only

Ground Water

Treatment and

Waste Containment

12%

36%

47%

Ground Water

Treatment Only

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the General Accounting Office.

Waste at Superfund Sites

The Record of Decision (ROD) is a formal document by which an EPA

administrator (usually the Regional Administrator) chooses the remedy for cleaning

up a specific type of contamination at a Superfund site. EPA's Superfund home page

on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/superfund provides information on RODs for

specific Superfund sites.

! As of 1992, soil contamination occurred at 80% of the Superfund sites with

RODs yet to be implemented.56

! In 1993, EPA estimated that ground water contamination occurred at nearly

79% of Superfund sites with RODs.57

! A variety of sources contribute waste to Superfund sites, which can lead to

soil or ground water contamination. A 1992 study indicated that

manufacturing operations contribute the largest share of the waste, while

EPA, Technology Innovation Office, 1992, as referenced in Business Roundtable, 101

Terms & Facts on Superfund. November 1993.

Kovalick, Walter, Jr. EPA. OSWER. Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on

Science, Space and Technology. April 1993.

CRS-25

mining activities contribute the smallest portion. Table 5 indicates the most

common sources of waste at Superfund sites and the percentage share of the

total waste for each source.

Table 5. Common Sources of Waste at Superfund Sites

Source of Waste

Share of Waste

Manufacturing operations

38.9%

Municipal landfills

16.5%

Recyclers

8.5%

Industrial landfills

6.5%

Department of Energy and Department of Defense

5.0%

Mining

2.0%

Other sources

22.5%

Source: EPA. OSWER. Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large. 1992. p. 8.

! A 1991 site characterization report indicated that liquid waste was present at

92.4% of all Superfund sites, solid waste at 58.3%, and sludge at 49.2%.58

Table 6 lists the types of contaminants commonly found at Superfund sites.

Table 6. Types of Contaminants Commonly Found at Superfund Sites

Contaminant

Frequency of Occurrence

Organic chemicals

71.4%

Metals

64.3%

Oily wastes

35.1%

Inorganic chemicals

30.9%

Municipal waste

27.3%

Acids/bases

24.5%

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

20.3%

Pesticides/herbicides

18.4%

Paints/pigments

17.7%

Solvents

6.3%

Source: EPA. OSWER. Physical State of Waste. Superfund: NPL Site Characterization

Project Report. 1991. p. 54.

EPA. OSWER. Superfund: NPL Site Characterization Project Report. 1991. p. 53.

CRS-26

! CERCLA requires the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to

establish a priority list of hazardous substances found most often at Superfund

sites. Table 7 indicates the types of chemicals most frequently encountered.

To obtain a fact sheet on each chemical, refer to EPA's Superfund home page

on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/atsdr/index.htm.

Table 7. Common Chemicals Found at Superfund Sites

Acetone

Lead

Aldrin/Dieldrin

Mercury

Arsenic

Methylene Chloride

Barium

Naphthalene

Benzene

Nickel

2-Butanone

Pentachlorophenol

Cadmium

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Carbon Tetrachloride

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Chlordane

Tetrachloroethylene

Chloroform

Toulene

Chromium

Trichloroethylene

Cyanide

Vinyl Chloride

DDT, DDE, DDD

Xylene

Dichloroethene

Zinc

Dichloroethane

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with information provided by the

Environmental Protection Agency.

De Minimis Settlements

De minimis parties are PRPs that are responsible for a minor share of the total

cleanup costs at a site and that have contributed minimally to the volume or toxic

effects of hazardous waste at a site compared to other PRPs. CERCLA authorizes

EPA to enter into expedited settlements with de minimis parties and encourages EPA

to do so "as promptly as possible."59

CERCLA authorizes de minimis settlements in situations where a party is the

owner of the property where the facility is located but did not conduct or permit the

42 U.S.C. 9622(g). "De Minimis Settlements."

CRS-27

generation, handling or disposal of hazardous substances at the facility; did not

contribute to the release or threatened release from the facility; and did not acquire

the facility with knowledge that it had been used to store, handle or dispose of

hazardous substances.60

De minimis settlements can reduce EPA's administrative and judicial

enforcement activities at a site by obtaining expedited cash payments for cleanup

costs without resorting to extensive litigation, and can benefit small volume

contributors by removing them from further liability and protecting them from

litigation by other PRPs.61

"De micromis" settlements are a subset of de minimis settlements and are

available to PRPs whose contribution to a hazardous release is a "minuscule"

amount, less than the "minimal" amount contributed by de minimis parties. "De

micromis" settlements are available to generators and transporters of waste but are

not available to owners or operators of sites. Like de minimis settlements, "de

micromis" settlements also remove PRPs from further liability and protect them from

litigation by other PRPs. Whereas de minimis settlements do require PRPs to pay a

small portion of the total cleanup costs at a site, de micromis settlements completely

remove PRPs from financial liability.62

! In 1993, EPA remedial project managers at 1,056 non-federal sites estimated

that there were one or more de minimis parties at 175 sites and no de minimis

parties at 609 sites. The number of de minimis parties was unknown at the

remaining 272 sites.63

! In 1996, GAO estimated that the total number of de minimis parties at these

175 sites ranged from 8,500 to more than 25,000.64

! GAO also estimated that the number of PRPs contributing less than 1% to the

total amount of waste at these sites may exceed 30,000. The cutoff for

determining a de minimis party generally is 1%.65

! The current number of de minimis parties is likely higher than GAO's estimate

because data on sites added to the NPL since 1993 were not available. EPA

42 U.S.C. Sec. 9622(g)(1)(B).

EPA. Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement. Revised De Minimis Contributor

Consent Decree. EPA Memorandum. September 29, 1995.

EPA. Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement. Revised Guidance on CERCLA

Settlements with De Micromis Waste Contributors. EPA Memorandum. June 3, 1996.

GAO. Superfund: Number of Potentially Responsible Parties at Superfund Sites Is

Difficult to Determine. GAO/RCED-96-75. March 1996. p. 4.

Ibid. The data were reported in ranges for each site. GAO reached its estimate by using

the low and high ends of each range.

Ibid.

CRS-28

projected that as many as 700 sites may be placed on the NPL in the future and

that approximately 140 of these sites could have de minimis parties.66

! By the end of FY1997, EPA had awarded a total of 340 de minimis

settlements to more than 15,000 responsible parties. EPA awarded almost

one-third of these settlements (103) in FY1997 alone to more than 1,800

responsible parties.67

Orphan Share Settlements

Under CERCLA's joint and several liability standards, financially viable PRPs

are responsible for paying the cleanup costs of defunct or financially insolvent PRPs.

The share of the costs for a non-viable PRP is referred to as an orphan share.68

! In FY1996 and FY1997, EPA offered a total of $100 million in orphan share

compensation to facilitate site settlements with PRPs who agree to pay the

cleanup costs of orphan shares for which they are liable under CERCLA.69

! During FY1997 alone, EPA offered approximately $53 million in orphan

share compensation to viable PRPs at 20 sites across the United States. Offers

ranged from $38,524 to $15 million with an average of $2.5 million per site.70

! In 1993, EPA estimated that the annual cost to pay the entire orphan share for

remedial design and action at every site where PRPs perform the remedy

would range between $150 and $420 million per fiscal year.71

Natural Resource Damages

CERCLA makes PRPs liable for the costs of restoring natural resource damages

due to a hazardous substances release and for the costs of assessing these damages.72

Federal, state, and tribal authorities act as trustees on behalf of the public to assess

Ibid.

EPA. OECA. FY1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report.

July 1998. p. 2-6.

EPA. OECA. Interim Guidance on Orphan Share Compensation for Settlors of Remedial

Design/Remedial Action and Non-Time-Critical Removals. June 3, 1996.

EPA. OERR. Superfund Reforms FY1997 Annual Report. p. 41-42.

Ibid.

EPA. OSWER. Mixed Funding Evaluation Report: The Potential Costs of Orphan

Shares. September 1993.

42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(4)(C). "Liability."

CRS-29

damages at contaminated sites and prepare damage claims.73 In April 1996, GAO

reported that federal trustees settle almost half of all claims without requiring

separate payments for natural resource damages because the initial cleanup frequently

repairs the damage.74

! As of July 1996, federal trustees had completed settlements for natural

resource damage claims with responsible parties at 67 sites for a total of

$117.6 million. The total amount of the 5 largest settlements was $83.8

million, and settlements at the remaining 62 sites totaled $33.8 million.75

(Refer to Table 8).

! In March 1996, federal trustees filed the largest natural resource damage claim

to date for a total of $970 million against several mining companies for

releasing hazardous substances in the Coeur d'Alene River Basin in Idaho over

a hundred-year period and for injury to wildlife. Negotiations over the claim

are continuing. (United States v. ASARCO, Inc.)

! The state of Montana has filed the second largest natural resource damage

claim to date for a total of $765 million against Atlantic Richland Co. for

damages from mining activities in the Clark Fork River Basin. In June 1998,

the state reached a $215 million partial settlement. Of this amount, $15

million was for the state's damage assessment and litigation costs, $120

million was for restoration activities, and $80 million was for cleanup costs.

Negotiations over the remaining portion of the claim are continuing.

(Montana v. Atlantic Richfield Co.)

Table 8. Five Largest Natural Resource Damage Settlements at

Superfund Sites as of July 1996

Site Name and Location

Settlement

Cantara Loop Train Derailment, outside Dunsmuir, California

$14.0 million

Commencement Bay, Tacoma, Washington

$13.3 million

Elliot Bay, Seattle, Washington

$24.3 million

Montrose, offshore, Los Angeles, California

$12.0 million

New Bedford Harbor, Acushnet River, Massachusetts

$20.2 million

Total

$83.8 million

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the General Accounting

Office.

42 U.S.C. 9607(f). "Natural resources liability; designation of public trustees of natural

resources."

GAO. Outlook for and Experience with Natural Resource Damage Settlements.

GAO/RCED-96-71. April 1996. p. 4-5.

GAO. Superfund: Status of Selected Federal Natural Resource Damage Settlements.

GAO/RCED-97-10. November 1996. p. 1.

CRS-30

Land Use

EPA's survey of NPL site managers in 1994 indicated that industrial use was the

most common activity on Superfund sites. However, residential use occurred most

frequently in the areas surrounding a site. Educational use ranked the lowest among

the major land uses. Table 9 lists the major types of land use that occurred on

Superfund sites and in the areas surrounding them as of 1994.

Table 9. On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses at Superfund Sites

Type of

Land Use

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Agricultural

Recreational

Other

Abandoned

Educational

On-Site

Uses

192

Surrounding

Area Uses

984

317

384

138

289

361

565

367

433

355

109

-116

Total

Uses

1176

882

751

502

493

398

361

171

"Other" includes closed landfills, military lands, undeveloped lands, wetlands, and other

wildlife habitats.

Note: Of the 1,249 final and deleted Superfund sites at the time of the survey in 1994 (123

federal facilities and 1,126 non-federal sites), on-site land uses reflect data from 1,247 sites

reporting while surrounding land uses reflect data from 1,245 sites reporting. Totals for

land use exceed the number of Superfund sites because of multiple uses at certain sites.

Source: EPA. OSWER. Survey of NPL Site Managers. January 28, 1994.

Public Health Issues and the Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry76

CERCLA created the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

(ATSDR), to investigate and reduce the harmful effects of exposure to hazardous

substances on human health. As amended in 1986, CERCLA requires the ATSDR

to conduct public health assessments of all Superfund sites proposed for the NPL and

other hazardous sites in response to public petitions. CERCLA also requires the

Prepared by (name redacted), Science, Tec hnology, and Medicine Division. Information

in this section and additional details about ATSDR's public health assessment may be found

in the agency's most recent annual reports: Department of Health and Human Services,

Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, FY1996 Agency

Profile and Annual Report, and FY1997 Annual Report to Congress.

CRS-31

ATSDR to establish a priority list of hazardous substances found most often at

Superfund sites, produce toxicological profiles for each substance, initiate research

to fill gaps in our understanding of the toxicology of priority substances, conduct

epidemiologic studies and surveillance of exposure and health problems, establish

a national registry of persons exposed to hazardous substances, and provide training

and education for physicians. General information about ATSDR’s programs and

act i v i t i e s c a n b e f o u n d o n t h e agency's hom e page at

http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080.

Public Health Assessments

! As of February 1997, the ATSDR had completed a total of 1,826 public health

assessments at 1,416 sites (1,776 assessments at NPL sites and 50 at non-NPL

sites). Each public health assessment includes an evaluation of a site's

environmental contamination, community health concerns, and relevant public

health data that local and state health authorities provide. The ATSDR

integrates these data, makes a professional judgment about the hazard posed

by a site, and recommends the actions necessary to protect public health.

! From 1992 to 1997, the ATSDR classified 3% of Superfund sites as an Urgent

Public Health Hazard; 39% as a Public Health Hazard; 1% as a Past Public

Health Hazard; 25% as an Indeterminate Public Health Hazard (due to an

absence of data); 27% as No Apparent Health Hazard (at the time the sites

were assessed); and 5% as No Public Health Hazard. (Refer to Figure 8.)

! In 1997, the ATSDR estimated that about 12.9 million people lived within one

mile of a Superfund NPL site. About 24% of that population are minorities.

CRS-32

Figure 8. Public Health Assessments at Superfund Sites: 1992-1997

Urgent Public

Health Hazard

No Public

Health Hazard

No Apparent Public

Health Hazard

27%

Public

Health Hazard

39%

Past Public

Health Hazard

25% Indeterminate Public

Health Hazard

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from

the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Epidemiologic Studies

! Exposure studies focusing on lead show that soil is the most common pathway

of exposure for children living near hazardous waste sites. Other studies have

demonstrated increased exposure to hazardous compounds from consuming

contaminated vegetables, beef, milk, and fish raised and caught near

hazardous waste sites.

! The ATSDR has selected seven priority health conditions as the most

important for evaluating populations living near hazardous waste sites: birth

defects and reproductive disorders, cancer, immune function disorders, kidney

dysfunction, liver dysfunction, lung and respiratory diseases, and neurotoxic

disorders. The agency has conducted or provided funds for a variety of health

studies investigating these priority health conditions.

Overall Assessment of Public Health Impact

! Epidemiologic findings are still unfolding. However, the health data from

many Superfund sites indicate that proximity to hazardous waste sites seems

to be associated with a small to moderate increased risk of certain kinds of

birth defects, reduced birth weight and, though it is less well documented,

some specific cancers.

! Data from the ATSDR's National Exposure Registry for persons exposed to

benzene, dioxin, trichloroethane, or tricholoethylene indicate an elevated risk

CRS-33

of some chronic diseases. Stroke, liver disease, diabetes, anemia, kidney

disease, and urinary tract disorders were elevated in one or more of the

subregistries. These data are based on registrants' self-reported data and

compared with national baseline data.

! Physicians and other health care providers in communities around Superfund

sites have expressed a need for training and technical assistance in dealing

with health concerns potentially related to exposure to hazardous substances.

Toxicological Databases

! The ATSDR has identified 30 hazardous substances found in 6% of sites

where documented human exposure has occurred. Of those 30 substances, 4

are known human carcinogens (i.e., arsenic, benzene, chromium, and vinyl

chloride) and 14 are reasonably anticipated to be carcinogenic.

! The ATSDR has established a national database on the public health hazards

of sites that it has assessed. The database, called HazDat, is available on

ATSDR's home page. HazDat contains data on environmental contamination,

human exposure, toxicity of substances, and other information specific to

individual Superfund sites.

! The ATSDR has made available to the public 200 toxicological profiles of

prioritized hazardous substances. The agency has provided more than 100 fact

sheets on priority substances, which are also available on the ATSDR's home

page.

ATSDR Budget

! Although the ATSDR is a separate agency within the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, it receives its funding from the Superfund

program.

! The FY1999 funding level for ATSDR is $76 million, an increase of

approximately $2 million above the amount of $74 million for FY1998 and

roughly $12 million more than the Administration's request of $64 million.

(ATSDR's appropriation is part of the appropriation for interagency response

actions. Refer to Figure 3 on page 6.)

State Superfund Programs

The state role at Superfund sites can range from sharing cleanup costs at

federally funded cleanups (as required by CERCLA) to actively managing a site. Of

the roughly 10,000 CERCLIS sites, almost 90% of them are not on the NPL. At

these non-NPL sites, the federal role may be limited to cleanup assessment or

emergency remedial activities, or the federal government may not be involved at all.

State superfund programs have the authority to assess and clean up non-NPL sites

listed in CERCLIS and to identify other potentially hazardous sites for cleanup in

CRS-34

their jurisdictions. By the end of 1997, all 50 states had enacted legislation to

authorize cleanup enforcement within their respective borders.77

Number of State Superfund Sites

! In 1997, a total of 37 states maintained an official priority list, registry, or

inventory of potentially hazardous sites within their jurisdictions. However,

the number of sites on these lists are not comparable and cannot be aggregated

because the states differ widely in the criteria used to list a site.78

! States also track potentially hazardous sites by classifying them as sites

needing attention, but states do not necessarily include these sites in their

official lists. The amount of sites needing attention more accurately reflects

the number of sites warranting cleanup than the state lists indicate. In 1997,

the states reported a total of 24,000 sites needing attention, and 6 states

reported having more than 1,000 sites in this classification. New Jersey

reported 4,915 sites, the highest number among the states.79

State Cleanup Funds

! Nearly all states have established funds for cleanup activities, but Nebraska

and the District of Columbia do not have a fund. At the end of FY1997, the

total balance of all state funds was $1.41 billion, and the average state fund

balance was $30.1 million.80

! In FY1997, the states spent a total of $565.1 million on cleanup activities at

both NPL and non-NPL sites combined. Of this amount, each state spent an

average of $12.8 million for cleanup activities. At non-NPL sites alone, the

states expended $136.5 million, with an average expenditure of $4.4 million.81

! States used a variety of revenue sources to fund cleanup activities. Table 10

lists the common sources of funding for state cleanup activities in FY1997.

Table 10. Common Sources of Funding for

State Cleanup Activities in FY1997

Source of Funding

Waste Disposal Fees

Number of States

Environmental Law Institute (ELI). An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State

Study, 1998 Update. 1998. ELI Project #941724. p. 53. In addition to all 50 states, ELI

also treated the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as states in their study.

Ibid., p. 58.

Ibid., p. 71.

Ibid., p. 76.

CRS-35

Cost Recoveries

Taxes

Appropriations

User Fees

Penalties and Fines

Bonds

Interest

Fund Transfers

Private Contributions

Source: Environmental Law Institute (ELI). An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50State Study, 1998 Update. 1998. ELI Project #941724. p. 81.

Status of State Cleanup Activities

! By the end of FY1997, the states had completed a total of 40,994 response

actions since state-funded cleanups began. During this time, Texas performed

a total of 18,994 response actions, more than any other state and 46% of total

actions taken. Iowa was the only state that did not perform any actions at

contaminated sites during this time period.82

! During FY1997 alone, the states completed a total of 5,552 response actions.

Of this amount, New Jersey completed a total of 2,591 response actions, the

most of any state and about 46% of the total actions taken.83

! At the end of FY1997, the states reported that a total of 13,713 response

actions were underway. Of this amount, New Jersey reported a total of 4,363

pending actions, the highest number of any state and 32% of total pending

actions. Hawaii reported only 1 pending action, the least among the states.84

State Cleanup Standards

! State superfund programs have the flexibility to select among the federal

standards or to develop their own standards for cleanup activities at non-NPL

sites within their jurisdictions. In 1997, all 50 states used drinking water

standards, 47 used surface water criteria, 47 used health-based risk

assessment, 39 used ground water criteria, 34 used soil criteria, and 41 also

Ibid., p. 61.

CRS-36

considered future land-use when selecting or developing standards for cleanup

activities.85

State Liability Standards

! The majority of states have followed the federal model of strict, joint and

several, and retroactive liability in their own laws to identify which parties are

responsible for a hazardous release and to allocate the portion of a party's

liability. In 1997, 43 states enforced retroactive liability standards, and 41

states also enforced strict liability standards. To allocate the amount of a

hazardous release for which a party is responsible, 36 states enforced joint and

several liability standards. In addition, 5 states allowed responsible parties to

seek proportional allocation. The remaining states did not have standards for

allocating liability.86

Ibid., p. 90.

Ibid., p. 102.

CRS-37

Natural Resource Damages at State Sites

! By the end of 1997, 32 states had passed laws to authorize the recovery of

natural resource damages at non-NPL sites within their jurisdictions.87

! Under state laws, 10 states had recovered natural resource damages, and 11

states had pending natural resource damage claims.88

! States also may recover natural resource damages under federal authority in

CERCLA at non-NPL sites within their jurisdictions. Under federal authority,

17 states had recovered natural resource damages, and 15 states had pending

natural resource damage claims.89

! A total of 15 states reported that 52 natural resource restorations were

complete and that 96 restorations were underway.90

Selected Superfund Internet Resources

The following Internet resources provide a broad array of information on

hazardous waste cleanup under the Superfund program ranging from such topics as

cleanup status at specific sites to various perspectives on Superfund reform. CRS has

made every effort to provide a fair and reasonable selection of Internet sites, but is

not responsible for either the content or nature of those sites.

EPA and Other Federal Agencies

! EPA's Superfund home page provides comprehensive information on major

aspects of the program, status of recent initiatives, data on specific sites, and

links to EPA's regional offices: http://www.epa.gov/superfund

! Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry provides information on

public health assessments: http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080

! National Institutes of Health's Superfund Basic Research Program provides

information on cleanup technologies: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/sbrp

! Department of Defense Environmental Cleanup Program provides data on

cleanup at military facilities: http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod

! Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Program provides data on

cleanup at defense nuclear facilities: http://www.em.doe.gov/er

! Department of the Interior provides information on natural resource damages:

http://www.doi.gov/oepc

Ibid., p. 108.

Ibid., p. 111.

Ibid., p. 114.

Ibid., p. 117.

CRS-38

Congressional Committees

! House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on

Water Resources and Environment:

http://www.house.gov/transportation/water/water.htm

! House Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous

Materials: http://www.house.gov/commerce/finance.html

! Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on

Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment:

http://www.senate.gov/~epw/super.htm

State Government Organizations

! National Governors Association: http://www.nga.gov

! Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials:

http://www.astswmo.org

Professional Associations

! American Public Health Association: http://www.apha.org

! American Institute of Chemical Engineers: http://www.aiche.org

Environmental Organizations

! Environmental Defense Fund: http://www.edf.org

! Natural Resources Defense Council: http://www.nrdc.org

! Resources for the Future: http://www.rff.org

! Sierra Club: http://www.sierraclub.org

Industry

! American Iron and Steel Institute: http://www.steel.org

! Building Owners and Managers Association: http://www.boma.org

! Chemical Manufacturers Association: http://www.cmahq.com

! Hazardous Waste Cleanup Project: http://envinfo.com/hwcplead.html

! National Association of Manufacturers: http://www.nam.org

! National Paint and Coatings Association: http://www.paint.org

! Small Business Survival Committee: http://www.sbsc.org

Public Policy and Research Organizations

! Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org

! Competitive Enterprise Institute: http://www.cei.org

! Hazardous Substance Research Center: http://maven.gtri.gatech.edu/hsrc.html

! Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org

! Political Economy Research Center: http://www.perc.org

! Superfund Innovation Network:

http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/superfundpa876

! U.S. Public Interest Research Group: http://www.pirg.org

CRS-39

Community Interest and Information Groups

! Brownfields Nonprofit Network: http://www.brownfieldsnet.org

! Center for Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org

! Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation: http://www.cse.org

! Communities at Risk: http://www.ccaej.org

! People for the USA: http://www.pfw.org

! Toxics Action Center of New England: http://www.cqs.com/tac.htm

EPA Superfund Hotline

To speak with a regulatory specialist about cleanup requirements under

CERCLA or to order federal publications concerning hazardous waste cleanup,

contact EPA's Superfund Hotline at:

! 703-412-9810 in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, or

! 1-800-424-9346 outside of Washington.

CRS-40

Glossary of Superfund Terms91

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.

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.

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.

ARAR. CERCLA section 121 requires cleanups to meet "ARARs": any "legally

applicable or relevant and appropriate standard, requirement, criteria or

limitation" that has been promulgated under federal or state environmental laws.

The ARARs include such things as the Clean Water Act's water quality criteria,

the Solid Waste Disposal Act's land disposal restrictions, and some states'

The definitions are taken from several sources, including:

Church, Thomas W. and Robert T. Nakamura. Cleaning Up the Mess: Implementation

Strategies in Superfund. 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-41

ground water anti-degradation provisions that require cleanup to background

levels. EPA can waive the ARARs in some situations.

Bioremediation. A treatment method that utilizes micro-organisms to degrade

organic contaminants and convert them into non-hazardous constituents.

Brownfields. Abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities

where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived

environmental contamination.

Cap. An impermeable layer that seals the top of a hazardous waste site.

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.

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 300.5).

Comment period. A time period provided for the public to review and comment on

proposed EPA actions or rulemakings following publication in the Federal

Community relations plan. Formal plan for EPA community relations activities at

Superfund sites. It is designed to ensure citizens opportunities for public

involvement at the sites, and to allow them 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 ground water and surface water). Although

CRS-42

physical construction may not 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, which generally

includes capping and institutional controls.

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.

Delisting. The process by which a Superfund site is removed from the National

Priorities List (NPL) after it has been completely cleaned up.

Dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs). Generally organic compounds (or

mixtures of such compounds) that are immiscible (do not mix) with water.

Environment. As defined by CERCLA §101(8): "(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."

Environmental income tax (EIT). A tax on corporations imposed on their

modified alternative minimum taxable income over $2 million, the proceeds of

which go to the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund. The tax is 0.12%

($12 per $10,000 of income in excess of $2 million). It is the Fund's largest

single source of revenue, and raised $612 million in FY1995.

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.

CRS-43

Facility. As defined by CERCLA §101(9): "(A) 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 (B) any site or area where

a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed, or

otherwise come to be located; but does not include any consumer product in

consumer use or any vessel."

Feedstock tax. An excise tax that is levied on 42 chemical raw materials, the

proceeds of which go to the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund. The

taxes range from $0.24 to $4.87 per ton. In FY1995 it supplied $291 million.

Ground water. As defined by CERCLA §101(12): "water in a saturated zone or

stratum beneath the surface of land or water."

Guarantor. As defined by CERCLA §101(13): "any person, other than the owner

or operator, who provides evidence of financial responsibility for an owner or

operator under this Act."

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. As defined by CERCLA §101(14), any substance designated

or listed under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, CERCLA, the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Toxic Substances

Control Act. The term excludes petroleum, or any fraction thereof, unless it is

specifically listed under one of the mentioned laws; it also excludes natural gas,

natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, and synthetic gas usable for fuel (or

mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas).

Hazardous wastes. Those wastes that are regulated under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (40 CFR Part 261) either because they are

"listed" or because they are ignitable, corrosive, chemically reactive, or toxic.

As such, they are hazardous substances under CERCLA.

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 (often a library) that is convenient for local residents.

Institutional controls. Measures, such as access restrictions and deed restrictions,

that separate people from the source of contamination. More than one

institutional control may be used at a site.

CRS-44

Joint and several liability. A legal standard, where any involved party can have the

legal responsibility for cleaning up the entire site, regardless of its degree of

involvement, unless there is a reasonable basis for apportioning liability.

Leachate. A contaminated liquid resulting when water percolates, or trickles,

through waste materials and collects components of those wastes.

Lead agency. The federal agency (or state agency operating pursuant to a contract

or cooperative agreement) that has primary responsibility for coordinating

response actions under the National Contingency Plan. A federal lead agency

provides the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) or Remedial Project Manager

(RPM). A state lead agency carries out the same responsibilities delineated for

OSCs/RPMs except coordinating and directing federal agency response actions

(40 CFR 300.5).

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the

maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water delivered to any user of

a public water system.

Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG). Under the Safe Drinking Water

Act, 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 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 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 out the organizational structure and

procedures for responding to releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and

contaminants, and contains the Hazard Ranking System and the National

Priorities List as appendices.

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. As defined by CERCLA §101(16): "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 ..., any state or local government, any foreign

CRS-45

government, any Indian tribe, or, if such resources are subject to a trust

restriction on alienation, any member of an Indian tribe."

NBAR. Nonbinding allocation of responsibility. A device, established in SARA,

that allows 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 (by a hazard ranking score) to

pose a serious threat to human health and/or the environment.

Offshore facility. As defined by CERCLA §101(17): "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."

On-scene coordinator (OSC). The federal official predesignated by EPA or the

U.S. Coast Guard to coordinate and direct federal responses under the National

Contingency Plan; or the DOD official designated to coordinate and direct the

removal actions from releases of hazardous substances from DOD vessels and

facilities (40 CFR 300.5).

Onshore facility. As defined by CERCLA §101(18): "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."

Operable unit. A discrete part of the entire response action that decreases a release,

threat of release, or pathway of exposure (40 CFR 300.5).

ORC. Office of Regional Counsel. EPA's legal office in the regions. Typically, an

ORC attorney is assigned to each Superfund case.

Orphan share. A share of waste at a site that cannot be collected because the PRP

is either unidentifiable or insolvent.

Petroleum exclusion clause. Language in CERCLA §101(14) that excludes

petroleum from the definition of "hazardous substance."

PRP. Potentially responsible party. 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. One who may be liable for site cleanup costs under CERCLA.

CRS-46

Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI). The PA is the process of

collecting and reviewing available information about a known or suspected

hazardous disposal site or release to determine if the site requires further study.

If so, the more extensive site inspection is undertaken to gather technical

information and laboratory samples. The information is used to score the site

using the hazard ranking system to determine whether the site will be placed on

the National Priorities List.

Pump-and-treat. A treatment process that involves removal of contaminated

ground water 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.

RCRA. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580). The

principal federal law that regulates the definition, transportation, and disposal

of hazardous wastes (as well as solid wastes in general). A key difference from

Superfund is that it addresses 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 conceived 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. As defined by CERCLA §101(22): "any spilling, leaking, pumping,

pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching,

dumping, or disposing into the environment (including the abandonment or

discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing any

hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant)...." It excludes certain

workplace releases, engine exhausts, and releases of nuclear materials covered

by other law.

Relevant and appropriate requirements. Those federal or state cleanup

requirements that, while not "applicable," address problems sufficiently similar

to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is appropriate.

Requirements may be relevant and appropriate if they would be "applicable"

except for jurisdictional restrictions associated with the requirement (40 CFR

300.5).

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. A plan that details the technical approach for implementing

the 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.

CRS-47

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). The federal official designated by EPA (or the

U.S. Coast Guard for vessels) to coordinate, monitor, and direct response

activities under the National Contingency Plan; or the federal official the

Department of Defense (DOD) designates to coordinate and direct federal

response actions resulting from releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants from DOD facilities or vessels (40 CFR 300.5).

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. Activities to clean up a contaminated site.

Removal, or emergency removal. An action taken by 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 one 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 occur, such as discovery of additional unexpected waste,

or failure of a remedy.

Reportable quantity (RQ). The minimum quantity of a hazardous substance which,

if released, is required to be reported.

Respond or response. As defined by CERCLA §101(25), "means remove, removal,

remedy, and remedial action; all such terms (including the terms `removal' and

`remedial action') include enforcement activities related thereto."

Retroactive liability. Parties can be held liable for releases resulting from actions

prior to when Congress enacted CERCLA in 1980.

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.

CRS-48

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.

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).

Section 106 order. A unilateral administrative order that allows 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.

Source control action. The construction or installation and start-up of those actions

necessary to prevent the continued release of hazardous substances (primarily

from a source on top of or within the ground, or in buildings or other structures)

into the environment (40 CFR 300.5).

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 300.5).

Strict Liability. The government needs to prove only involvement at a waste site,

not negligence. Under CERCLA, proof of strict causation is not necessary.

Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) Program. A grant program that provides funds

for qualified citizens' groups to hire independent technical advisors to help

CRS-49

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.

United States and State. As defined by CERCLA §101(27): "the several states of

the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the

Northern Marianas, and any other territory or possession over which the United

States has jurisdiction."

Viable PRP. A PRP that is financially solvent and that can be expected to pay its

share of the total cleanup costs at a site.

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

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.