Superfund Fact Book

Mark Reisch & David Michael Bearden
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division

Updated March 3, 1997

97-312 ENR

Background

Legislative History
Purposes
The Superfund Trust Fund

Appropriations
Number of Sites
National Priorities List

Construction Completions and Deletions
Federal Facilities
Number of Superfund Sites by State

Liability
Remedies

ARARs
Remedy Selection
Emergency Removal Actions
Length of Time to Remediation
Stages of Remediation

Costs

Capital Costs
EPA Enforcement and Costs to Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
Transaction Costs
Insurers
Operation and Maintenance Costs

Waste at Superfund Sites
De Minimis Settlements
Orphan Share Settlements
Natural Resource Damages
Land Use
Health Issues and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Public Health Assessments
Epidemiologic Studies
Overall Assessment of Public Health Impact
Toxicological Databases

International Comparisons

Austria
Canada
Denmark
Germany
Netherlands
Sweden
Mexico

Glossary of Superfund Terms
Endnotes

List of Tables

Table 1. Superfund Corporate Environmental Income Taxes in 1993 by Industrial Sector
Table 2. Superfund Corporate Environmental Income Taxes in 1993 by Major Industry
Table 3. Superfund Appropriations: FY1981-FY1998 Request
Table 4. Number of Superfund Sites by State
Table 5. Common Sources of Waste at Superfund Sites
Table 6. Types of Contaminants Commonly Found at Superfund Sites
Table 7. Five Largest Natural Resource Damage Settlements at Superfund Sites as of July 1995
Table 8. On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses at Superfund Sites
Table 9. Common Sources of Funding for State Cleanup Activities

List of Figures

Figure 1. Superfund Appropriations from FY1981-FY1998 Request
Figure 2. FY1997 Superfund Appropriations
Figure 3. Status of the National Priorities List as of December 23, 1996
Figure 4. Legal Expenses as a Share of Total Costs at Superfund Sites
Figure 5. Estimated Share of Activities Leading to Operations and Maintenance Costs at Superfund Sites
Figure 6. Public Health Assessments of Superfund Sites from 1993-1995

Note

This report replaces CRS Report 94-464 ENR (now archived), Superfund Fact Book, dated May 26, 1994.

SUMMARY

The Superfund program is the principal federal effort for cleaning up inactive 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 CERCIA 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 FY1997, Congress enacted appropriations of $1.5 billion for the Superfund program (P.L. 104-204), and the FY1998 Administration request is $2.2 billion.

The National Priorities List (NPL) specifies the sites that most seriously threaten public health and the environment. As of December 23, 1996, the NPL contained 1,259 current and proposed sites, of which 158 are federal facilities. The Construction Completion List (CCL) catalogs NPL sites where physical construction is complete for all necessary cleanup and removal actions. There currently are 412 sites on the CCL. Excluding federal facilities, construction is complete at 410 sites, representing 34.8% of the total 1,178 non-federal sites that EPA has placed on the NPL since the Superfund program began.

In addition to being responsible for cleanup costs, polluters also must pay to restore damaged or lost natural resources at Superfund sites. As of April 1995, federal agencies had settled 98 natural resource damage claims with the responsible parties for a total of $106 million.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry assesses the impact of hazardous substance releases on public health. As of December 31, 1996, the agency had completed 1,736 public health assessments at Superfund sites.

State programs to clean up hazardous waste sites have grown considerably during the past several years, and each state has enacted its own enforcement authority. At the end of 1995, the states reported a total of almost 30,000 potentially hazardous sites warranting attention. During FY1995, 44 states actively managed cleanups, and all states except for Nebraska and the District of Columbia have established their own funds to pay for cleanup activities, of which the states spent a total of $386 million in FY1995.

Background

CRS has prepared this fact book to assist Members and Committees of Congress and their staffs in considering possible Superfund reauthorization legislation in the 105th Congress. For a current discussion of policy issues and legislation, see CRS Issue Brief 95013, Superfund Reauthorization in the 105th Congress. Other CRS products on Superfund include:

Brownfields Program: Cleaning Up Urban Industrial Sites. by Mark Reisch. CRS Report 96-879 ENR. Updated Nov.14, 1996. 5 p.

Escaping Superfund Liability: the Innocent Landowner and Lender Exceptions. by Robert Meltz. CRS Report 91-91 A. Updated August 15, 1991. 18 p.

Superfund Cleanup Standards Reconsidered. by Lisa Gray. CRS Report 95-1076 ENR. October 25, 1995. 24 p.

Taxes to Finance Superfund. by Salvatore Lazzari. CRS Report 96-774 E. September 13, 1996. 8 p.

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) made numerous changes to CERCIA to expand the program's scope.² The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 extended the law's taxing authority through December 31, 1995, which expired at the end of 1991 under SARA.³

Purposes

CERCLA's impetus was the emerging realization that inactive 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 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 to protect public health and the environment by cleaning up the nation's worst hazardous waste sites. The law seeks to make those responsible for the improper disposal of hazardous waste bear the costs and accept responsibility for their actions, 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.

For information on Superfund not included in this fact book, please refer to the following resources:

The Superfund Trust Fund

Excise taxes imposed on the petroleum and chemical industries as well as 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. General revenues also contribute to the trust fund.⁴

As of September 30, 1996, the invested trust fund balance was $6.0 billion. Of the amounts in the trust fund, $3.0 billion was available for obligation.

The Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund was supported by:

· a tax on domestically produced and imported oil (about $576 million in FY1995);

· a tax on feedstock chemicals (about $291 million in FY199S);

· a corporate environmental income tax (about $612 million in FY1995);

· general revenues (authorized at $250 million per fiscal year); and

· reimbursements, penalties, and interest on the trust fund.⁵

The Superfund corporate environmental income tax generated $566.4 million in 1993. Table 1 lists the major industrial sectors that contributed to this tax.

Table 1. Superfund Corporate Environmental Income

Taxes in 1993 by Industrial Sector

Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the U.S. Department of the Treasury.Internal Revenue Service. Source Book, Statistics of Imcome, 1993: Corporation Income Tax Returns with Accounting Periods ended July 1993 - June 1994. Publication 1053 (Revised March 1996). 511 p. The March 1996 revision of this publication reflects the most recent data on the amount of the tax collected from the industrial sectors.

Table 2 lists the major industries within the above industrial sectors that contributed to the corporate environmental income tax.

Table 2. Superfund Corporate Environmental Income

Taxes in 1993 by Major Industry

Source: Prepared by CBS with data from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Internal Revenue Service. Source Book, Statistics of Income, 1993: Corporation Income Tax Returns with Accounting Periods ended July 1993 - June 1994. Publication 1053 Revised March 1996). 511 p. The March 1996 revision of this publication reflects the most recent data on the amount of the tax collected from the major industries.

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.

· For FY1981, Congress enacted appropriations of $40.3 million for Superfund, and for FY1997, enacted appropriations of $1.5 billion. From FY1981 through FY1997, Congress enacted appropriations totalling $17.9 billion. (See table 3 and figure 1.) The FY1998 Administration request is $2.2 billion.

· For the FY1997 enacted level of $1.5 billion, roughly 68.4% of the appropriation is allocated for EPA response actions, 9.7% for interagency response, 2.3% for research, 11.3% for enforcement, and 8.3% for program management. (See 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 11 for a discussion of federal facilities cleanup under the jurisdiction of these agencies.)

Table 3. Superfund Appropriations: FY1981-FY1998 Request
(millions of dollars)

Source: Prepared by CRS using EPA budget justification documents.

Figure 1

Superfund Appropriations From FY1981-Fyi 998 Request

Prepared by CR5 using data from EPA budget jusilficallon documents.

Figure 2

FY 1997 Superfund Appropriation

Total = $1.5 Billion

Prepared by CRS using EPA Budget justification document

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^.6 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.⁷

EPA had not removed any sites from CERCLIS until March29, 1995, when the list numbered about 40,000 locations. 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 September 30, 1996, EPA had reduced the total number of sites in CERCLIS to 12,657 through transferring 28,008 NFRAP sites 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.⁸

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.⁹

· 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 sites listed in the federal facilities section but is responsible for preparing the HRS score for these sites.¹⁰

· As of the most recent listing on December 23, 1996, there are 1,210 sites on the NPL, of which 151 are federal facilities and 1,059 are non-federal sites.¹¹

· EPA has proposed to add 49 sites to the NPL, of which 7 are federal facilities and 42 are non-federal sites.¹²

· Final and proposed NPL sites total 1,259, of which 158 are federal facilities and 1,101 are non-federal sites.¹³

· The first listing in the Federal Register occurred on September 8, 1983, and placed 406 sites on the NPL.¹⁴ Since the beginning of the Superfund program, EPA has placed a total of 1,335 sites on the NPL and deleted 125 of them (9.4%) because cleanup is complete. (See figure 3.)

· GAO estimates that between 2,500 and 2,800 non-federal sites could be added to the NPL from the current inventory of CERCLIS sites being assessed or awaiting evaluation, while EPA estimates that 1,700 new sites could be added to the NPL through the year 2020. The Congressional Budget Office's projection extends to the year 2027, estimating a total of 3,300 new non-federal sites.¹⁵

· A 1992 study indicated that 403 NPL sites involved local governments, either as site owners, or as operators or transporters of waste to the site. The study categorized 216 of these sites as landfills.¹⁶

Figure 3

Status of the National Priorities List as of December 23, 1996

Total Sites Listed Since September 6, 1963 1,335

Prepared by CR5 with data from EPA. Fudami Regisler. Oscember 23.1996. p. 67B57.

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.

· As of December 23, 1996, there were a total of 412 sites on the Construction Completion List. Of these 412 sites, 283 are currently on the NPL. EPA has deleted the remaining sites from the NPL because cleanup is complete. Excluding federal facilities, construction is complete at 410 sites, representing 34.8% of the total 1,178 non-federal sites that EPA has placed on the NPL since the program's beginning. ¹⁷

· EPA has estimated that construction will be completed at 63 sites per year, and projected a total of 665 sites by the end of the year 2000. However, site managers have projected a total of 965 sites during this same period.¹⁸

Federal Facilities

Federal agencies are responsible for cleaning up hazardous releases at sites located 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 the facilities on the NPL and fund the necessary remedial actions. EPA oversees both the development of the remedial plan and the cleanup activities.¹⁹

· As of the most recent listing on April 11, 1995, there are 2,070 facilities on the federal facilities docket.²⁰ Each facility typically has multiple sites that warrant evaluation. As of December 23, 1996, EPA had placed 151 of the most potentially hazardous federal facilities on the NPL.²¹ GAO reports that federal agencies have begun to evaluate roughly 50% of the 2,070 facilities on the docket.²²

· As of February 1996, the Department of Defense had completed risk assessments at roughly 75% of the 10,000 sites on its facilities, according to GAO. Of these sites, the department rated 54% of them as high risk and planned to commit 83% of its FY1996 environmental restoration budget to clean up these sites.²³

· The Departments of Defense and Energy have the largest budgets for cleaning up federal facilities. The Department of the Interior's environmental restoration budget is comparatively small but likely will increase as the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service complete inventories of contaminated sites in the future.²⁴

· The Federal Facilities Policy Group (FFPG), an interagency committee, estimates 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. The FFPG estimates that the potential number of sites could total 51,000 for the three departments. Of this estimated total, Defense would have 15,000 sites, Energy would have 10,000 sites, and Interior would have 26,000 sites.²⁵

· Federal agencies have not yet completed an inventory of potentially contaminated sites. The Departments of Defense and Energy have completed substantial amounts of their inventory, but the Department of the Interior has just begun. As of April 11, 1995, the Department of the Interior had 432 sites on the federal facilities docket, but the FFPG estimates that the Department of the Interior may have as many as 26,000 sites warranting cleanup. However, the department reports that only 1 to 2% of these sites may require major or significant cleanup actions ²⁶

Number of Superfund Sites by State

As of the most recent listing on December 23, 1996, there are 107 Superfund sites located in New Jersey, the most sites listed in one state. Mississippi, Nevada, and North Dakota each have one site listed, the least among the states. Table 4 lists the number of Superfund sites located within each state. For information on a specific Superfund site, visit EPA's Superfund Homepage 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 at 1-800-424-9346 outside of Washington.

Table 4. Number of Superfund Sites by State

Table 4. (cont.) Number of Superfund Sites by State

Table 4. (cont.) Number of Superfund Sites by State

Source: Prepared by CRS using EPA data announced in the Federal Register, December 23,1996, pp. 67660-67677.

Liability

A Potentially Responsible Patty (PRP) is any individual or company that may have contributed to contamination at a Superfund site. Examples of PRPs include waste generators, waste transporters, current or former landowners, and site operators. Courts have 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

CERCIA 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.²⁷

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.²⁸

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 the EPA under the emergency removal provisions of CERCLA, that enables the agency to take preliminary steps to clean up a site or reduce its danger when there is an imminent and substantial threat to public health or the environment. An emergency removal cannot exceed $2 million or one year for any one action at any one site.

· 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). ³³

Emergency Removal Actions

· The emergency removal program responds to short-term emergencies at hazardous disposal sites requiring immediate action. There were 4,020 emergency removal projects completed from FY1981 through FY1996, of which 1,226 were at Superfund sites.³⁴

Length of Time to Remediation

Using the best available data, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in March 1994 that the average time of cleanup for the first 1,249 Superfund sites would be at least 12 years. Because of data limitations, CBO stated that a more accurate average likely would lie between 13 and 15 years.³⁵

A preliminary assessment study, on average, takes 95-145 hours to complete; a remedial investigation/feasibility study 18-30 months; and a remedial design 12-18 months to complete.³⁶

· On average, a period of more than 8 years lapses from the time a site is discovered to the time definitive remediation work begins. During this time, the remedial investigation is completed. In addition, delays are caused by negotiations and litigation among EPA, state agencies, potentially responsible parties, insurers, and municipalities negotiating who is responsible for paying the remediation costs.³⁷

Stages of Remediation

At the end of FY1996, the status of the 1,387 Superfund sites (including proposed sites, and sites deleted from the NPL) was:

- 14 proposed sites with evaluation for immediate threat completed, but action not begun;

- 27 final sites with evaluation for immediate threat completed, but action not begun;

- 19 sites with removal-only actions;

- 203 sites where studies were underway;

- 77 sites where remedies had been selected;

- 140 sites where designs were underway;

- 491 sites where construction was underway;

- 410 sites where construction was complete for all necessary remedial and removal actions (412 sites as of December 23, 1996); and

- 124 sites deleted from the NPL, including six sites deleted by referral to another authority (132 deleted sites as of December 23, 1996, including seven deferred sites). ³⁸

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). ³⁹

· 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.⁴⁰

· 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.⁴¹

· EPA last projected total funding requirements for the Superfund program in its annual report to Congress for FY1990, which estimated funding requirements of $16.4 billion from FY1993 through future fiscal years, and a future cumulative total of $27.2 billion in funding requirements since the program's beginning in 1981. EPA based its estimates on the 1,268 sites placed on the NPL as of the end of FY1993.

Capital Costs

· The average capital cost at a non-federal facility site is $21.8 million. Site assessment, studies, and design comprise approximately 11% of total site costs, resulting in an average cost of approximately $25 million.⁴²

· A relatively small number of very expensive sites raise the average cost significantly. Over 60% of all capital cleanup costs are accounted for by only 16% of the operable units (OUs). An operable unit is a division of a site cleanup project; on average, there are 1.8 OUs at a non-federal site.⁴³

· 69% of Superfund sites have capital costs of less than $10 million. ⁴⁴

· 38% have capital costs of less than $3 million. ⁴⁵

· Site managers expect 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 are large volumes of contaminated media, site complexities, and high treatment costs. ⁴⁶

EPA Enforcement and Costs to (PRPs)

- The Superfund program enforcement budget for FY1997 is $171.2 million, or approximately 11.3% of the total Superfund appropriation of $1.5 billion.

- Responsible parties are paying increasing amounts of the cost of cleanup.

- According to EPA, the share of remediation costs for liable parties in FY1987 was 37%, and the trust fund's share was 63%. By the end of 1996, liable parties were performing or paying for more than 70% of long-term cleanups. ⁴⁷

- The cumulative value of cleanup activities that private parties have committed to since the beginning of the Superfund program exceeds $10 billion. ⁴⁸

Transaction Costs

Transaction costs are a PRP's expenses for activities other than performing remedies to clean up a site. A PRP most commonly incurs transaction costs from legal expenses to negotiate its cleanup liability and settlement with EPA, to collect insurance claims for cleanup costs, and to litigate with other parties that may have contributed to a release. However, transaction costs also may include expenses for activities other than litigation, such as laboratory testing for levels of contamination in soil samples.

· GAO conducted a 1994 survey of Fortune 500 Industrial and Fortune 500 Service Corporations to compile information on transaction costs of major U.S. corporations. Of these 1,000 corporations, 367 reported that they had been a PRP at a Superfund site and had incurred legal expenses during the cleanup process. Eighty-one corporations reported spending $100,000 or less on cleanup costs, and 38 reported spending 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

· Corporations with a major share of liability at three or more sites incurred an average of $3.5 million in legal expenses for each site, representing 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, representing 46% of their total cleanup cost. The data indicated that legal expenses do rise with a PRP's cleanup cost but that a PRP's legal expenses as a percentage of their total cleanup cost decline as the share for liability rises. De minimis parties incurred the least amount of total cleanup expenses, but their legal expenses as a percentage of their total cleanup costs were the highest. ⁵⁰ (See figure 4.)

Figure 4

Legal Expenses as a Share of Total Costs at Superfund Sites

· The surveyed corporations identified three 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.

Approximately 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 over parties that did not fulfill their responsibilities for their share of the liability. ⁵¹

Insurers

· Insurers and those who are insured spend approximately $500 million each year on Superfund litigation involving insurance coverage. ⁵²

· Insurance companies are experiencing substantial increases in their payments for PRP Superfund claims. A GAO study of the nation's largest propertylcasualty 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. ⁵³

· According to a RAND study of four national insurance carriers involving over 13,000 claims, 88% of total expenditures by insurance companies to PRP policyholders covered transaction costs such as corporate legal fees; 12% of payments were for corporate 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. ⁵⁴

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.⁵⁵ 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 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.⁵⁶ The pertinent federal agency is responsible for O&M costs at federal facilities.

· 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 remaining 102 used remedies that did not require it (for example, successfully treating surface waste).⁵⁷

· Restoring contaminated ground or surface water to safe levels represents the largest portion of O&M costs, about 47%. Remedies that only include containing surface waste represent the smallest portion, about 12%. Maintaining both of these remedies accounts for 36%, and maintaining other remedies accounts for the remaining 5% of O&M costs.⁵⁸ (See figure 5.)

· EPA estimates that the average duration for O&M to completely clean up or maintain a site will be 30 years, and GAO estimates that the average O&M costs per site will be $12 million during this period. However, these costs may be greater if the duration exceeds 30 years. An EPA survey of its regional project managers indicated that about 20% of Superfund sites will require O&M for more than 30 years. For example, sites where the remedy is containing waste will require O&M indefinitely to maintain and periodically repair the waste cover.⁵⁹

· In FY1994, O&M costs at Superfund sites totalled $148 million, but these costs likely will increase substantially in the future as remedial constructions are completed over the next decade. GAO estimates that annual O&M costs will approach $1 billion by FY2O1O.⁶⁰

· GAO estimates that O&M costs for current and future sites will 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 estimates a higher amount of $37 billion for O&M costs through FY2040.⁶¹

^{Figure 5}

^{Estimated Share of Activities Leading to
Operation and Maintenance Costs at Superfund Sites}

Prepared by CRS with data from GAO. Superfund: Operations and Maintenance Activities Will Require Billions of Dollars. GAO/RCED 95-275. September 1995. p. 9.

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.⁶² EPA's Superfund Homepage on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/superfund provides information on RODs for specific Superfund sites.

· Soil contamination occurs at 80% of the Superfund sites with RODs yet to be implemented.⁶³

· Ground water contamination occurs at nearly 79% of Superfund sites with RODs.⁶⁴

· A variety of sources contribute waste to Superfund sites, which can lead to soil or ground water contamination. Manufacturing operations contribute the largest share of the waste, while 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: EPA. OSWER. Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large. 1992. p.8.

Liquid waste is present at 92.4% of all Superfund sites, solid waste at 58.3%, and sludge at 49.2%. ⁶⁵ Table 6 lists the types of contaminants that are commonly found at Superfund sites.

Table 6. Types of Contaminants Commonly Found at Superfund Sites

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 t'as promptly as possible." ⁶⁶

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 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.⁶⁷

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.⁶⁸

"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 '1minimal" 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.⁶⁹

· In 1993, EPA remedial project managers at 1,056 non-federal Superfund sites estimated that there were one or more de minimis parties at 175 sites (17%); at 609 sites (58%) there were none; and the status was unknown at 272 sites (26%).⁷⁰

· GAO estimated that the number of de minimis parties at the 175 sites ranged from 8,500 to more than 25,000. ⁷¹

· 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%. ⁷²

· 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 projects that as many as 700 sites may be placed on the NPL in the future and that approximately 140 (20%) of these sites could have de minimis parties. ⁷³

· At the end of FY1993, EPA had settled liability claims for 6,144 de minimis parties.⁷⁴ By December 1996, that number had almost doubled to 12,000 de minimis parties who had settled. ⁷⁵

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.⁷⁶

· On June 3, 1996, EPA announced that $50 million would be available from existing Superfund appropriations to compensate viable PRPs for a portion of their orphan share expenses. EPA is offering this compensation to facilitate site settlements with PRPs who agree to pay the cleanup costs of orphan shares for which they are liable under CERCLA.⁷⁷

· In a 1993 study, 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 from $150 to $420 million per fiscal year.⁷⁸

Natural Resource Damages

CERCLA makes PRPs liable for the costs of restoring natural resources that are damaged or lost due to a hazardous substances release and for the costs of assessing these damages or losses.⁷⁹ Federal, state, and Indian tribal authorities act on behalf of the public as trustees to assess damages at contaminated sites and to prepare damage claims.⁸⁰ According to the Department of Justice, federal trustees can seek payments for claims only if damage remains after the cleanup of a CERCLA site is complete. The federal trustees settle almost half of the damage claims without requiring separate payments for natural resource damages because the initial cleanup frequently repairs the damage.⁸¹

· As of April 1995, the federal trustees had settled 98 natural resource damage claims for a total of $106 million, of which 50 required payments ranging between $4,000 and $24 million. The federal trustees estimated that 60 sites may eventually have claims equalling or exceeding $5 million and that up to 20 of these claims may exceed $50 million.⁸²

· The total amount of the five largest natural resource damage settlements at Superfund sites was $83.8 million as of July 1995. Table 7 lists the amount of each of these settlements and indicates the location where natural resource damage occurred. As of July 1995, about 40% of the $83.8 million had been collected, and roughly 11% of the collected amount reimbursed the federal trustees for assessing damages and developing plans to restore natural resources. Aside from an experimental restoration project in Commencement Bay, none of the collected amount had yet been disbursed for restoration activities.⁸³

Table 7. Five Largest Natural les'ource Damage
Settlements at Superfund Sites as of July 1995

Source: GAO. Outlook for and Experience with Natural Resource Damage Settlements. GAO/RCED-96-71. April 1996. p.8.

· By the end of 1995, 28 states had passed laws to authorize the recovery of natural resource damages at non-NPL sites within their jurisdictions. Under state laws, eight states have recovered natural resource damages, and seven have pending natural resource damage claims. States also may recover natural resource damages under federal authority in CERCLA at non-NPL sites within their jurisdictions. Under federal authority, 13 states have recovered natural resource damages, and 11 states have pending natural resource damage claims. In FY1995, states spent nearly $70 million to restore natural resources that were damaged or lost due to a hazardous release. ⁸⁴

Land Use

EPA's survey of NPL site managers in 1994 indicated that industrial use is the most common activity on Superfund sites. However, residential use occurs most frequently in the areas surrounding a site. Educational use ranks the lowest among the major land uses. Table 8 lists the major types of land use that occur on Superfund sites and in the areas surrounding them.

Table 8. On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses at Superfund Sites

"Other" includes closed landfills, mihtaty 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. Januaiy 28,1994.

Health Issues and the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ⁸⁵

CERCLA created a new public health agency, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), to investigate the impacts of hazardous substance releases on public health and to take public health interventions. As amended in 1986, CERCLA requires the ATSDR to conduct public health assessments of all Superfund sites proposed for the NPL and for other hazardous waste sites in response to public petitions. CERCLA also requires the ATSDR to establish a priority list of hazardous substances found most often at Superfund sites, to produce toxicological profiles for each substance on this list, to initiate research to fill toxicologic gaps for priority substances, to conduct epidemiology and surveillance, to establish a national registry of persons exposed to hazardous substances, and to provide training and ducation for physicians. Although the ATSDR is a separate agency within the U.S. Public Health Service, the Superfund program provides funding for the agency's annual operating budget.

Public Health Assessments

· As of December 31, 1996, the ATSDR had completed a total of 1,781 public health assessments at 1,371 sites (1,736 assessments at NPL sites and 45 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 1993 through 1995, the ATSDR classified 4% of Superfund sites as an Urgent Hazard, 49% as a Health Hazard, and 33% as an Intermediate Hazard (due to an absence of data). The ATSDR classified 14% as No Apparent Hazard or No Hazard. (See figure 6.)

Figure 6.

Public Health Assessments
of Superfund Sites from 1993-1995

Prepared by CRS with data from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

· The ATSDR estimates that approximately 11 million people live within one mile of the nation's 1,210 Superfund sites. Demographic data show that a significantly higher percentage of minority populations live near Superfund sites than in other parts of the affected counties.

Epidemiologic Studies

· The extent of exposure to hazardous substances among people living in proximity to Superfund sites is unknown. However, exposure assessment studies conducted by the ATSDR show that compounds such as lead, arsenic, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and bromides are found at levels of health concern in people living near some hazardous waste sites.

· Exposure studies focusing on lead show that soil is the most common pathway of exposure of children living near hazardous waste sites. Other studies have demonstrated increased exposure to several 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 disfunction, 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 and, though it is less well documented, some specific cancers.

· Data from the ATSDR's National Exposure Registry for persons exposed to trichioroethylene or benzene indicate an elevated rate of some chronic diseases (e.g., stroke, liver disease, diabetes, anemia, kidney disease, urinary tract disorders). 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 at least 10% of sites with completed exposure pathways (i.e., sites with documented human exposure). Of these 30 substances, five are known human carcinogens and eight are reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen.

· The ATSDR has established a national database on the public health hazard of all Superfund sites that it has assessed. The database, called HazDat, is available through the ATSDR's Homepage on the internet at http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/atsdrhome.html. 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 40 fact sheets on priority substances, which also are available through the ATSDR's Homepage at the above internet address.

State Superfund Programs

The state role at Superfund sites can range from sharing cleanup costs at federally funded cleanups (as required by GERCLA) to actively managing a site. Of the nearly 13,000 CERCLIS sites, roughly 90% 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. There also are other potentially hazardous sites that are not included in CERCLIS. 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 their jurisdictions.⁸⁶

· By the end of 1995, 41 states had passed their own superfund laws to authorize cleanup enforcement, and the remaining states had included enforcement authority in other statutes. During FY1995, 44 states actively managed cleanup sites in their jurisdictions.⁸⁷

· A total of 35 states maintain an official priority list, registry, or inventory of potentially hazardous sites within theirjurisdictions. There are roughly 18,000 sites on these lists. However, the states differ widely in the criteria used for listing a site.⁸⁸

· States also track potentially hazardous sites by classifyng 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 activities than the state lists indicate. At the end of 1995, the states reported a total of almost 30,000 sites needing attention, and five states reported having more than 1,000 sites in this classification. New Jersey reported 6,500 sites, the highest number of any state, and North Dakota did not report any sites either on its state list or as needing attention. ⁸⁹

· Nearly all states have established funds for cleanup activities, but Nebraska and the District of Columbia do not have a fund. The total balance of all state funds was $1.46 billion at the end of 1995, and the average state fund balance was $29.3 million. At the end of 1995, the states had spent a total of $386.1 million on cleanup activities ($203 million, 52.6%, of it at nonNPL sites), and each state had spent an average of $1.1 million on cleanup activities. ⁹⁰

· States use a variety of revenue sources to fund cleanup activities. Table 9 lists the common sources of funding for state cleanup activities.

Table 9. Common Sources of Funding
for State Cleanup Activities

Source: Environmental Law Institute (ELI). An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1995 Update. Washington, 1996. 293 p. ELI Project #941724.

· 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. To identify liable parties, 43 states enforce retroactive liability standards, and 41 states additionally enforce strict liability standards. To allocate the amount of the release for which a party is responsible, 37 states enforce joint and several liability standards. Six states additionally allow parties to seek proportional allocation, but five states specify proportional liability as the only applicable standard. The remaining states do not specify standards to allocate liability.⁹¹

· State superfund programs have the flexibility to select among federal standards or to develop their own standards for cleanup activities at nonNPL sites within their jurisdictions. By the end of 1995, 24 states had completed and announced their own cleanup standards, and the remaining states selected among the federal standards. However, nearly all states follow EPA guidelines either in selecting federal standards or developing their own. Fifty states use drinking water standards, 49 states use surface water criteria, 45 use health-based risk assessment, 37 use ground water criteria, and 27 use soil criteria to select or develop standards for cleanup activities.⁹²

· During 1995, the states completed 7,960 removal and remedial actions at non-NPL sites, and 16,090 actions were ongoing. Since the beginning of state superfund programs, the states have completed 44,690 removal and remedial actions at non-NPL ⁹³ (Site cleanup typically involves multiple remedial or removal actions. The actual number of non-NPL sites that states have cleaned up is lower than the indicated number of completed removal and remedial actions.)

International Comparisons

A study of five European countries and Canada indicated that a significant number of potentially contaminated sites may warrant cleanup activities, ranging from as many as 250,000 in Germany to 500 in Denmark. Some of these countries have made substantial progress in identifying and assessing these sites, while others have just begun. Compared to the United States, the study concluded that these countries have a less comprehensive process to characterize potentially hazardous sites and less stringent standards to determine and enforce a party's liability for a hazardous release.⁹⁴

Austria ⁹⁵

Austria has identified about 7,000 potentially hazardous sites and estimates that the cost to clean them up will be roughly $2 billion.

The national and state governments are authorized to require responsible parties to conduct or finance cleanup activities. The national government funds unrecoverable cleanup costs through a $16/ton tax on industrial hazardous waste generation and a $3.30/ton tax on nonhazardous industrial waste generation.

Canada ⁹⁶

Within their jurisdictions, the provincial governments identify, assess, and clean up the majority of potentially hazardous sites across the country. The National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program evaluates sites where a responsible party cannot be identified or where the site owner is financially unable to pay the cleanup costs.

Environment Canada, the national environmental agency, is responsible for identifying and assessing potentially hazardous sites on publicly owned land. (Roughly 40% of Canada is publicly owned land.) As of March 31, 1994, Environment Canada had identified and assessed 231 sites and begun cleanup activities at 11 of these sites.

General tax revenues finance cleanup costs, and the national and provincial governments divide these costs evenly. Canada does not collect fees or taxes on hazardous waste generation to finance cleanup costs.

Denmark ⁹⁷

There are roughly 500 potentially hazardous sites in Denmark. The total cost to assess and clean up these sites could range between $1 and $3 billion.

Responsible parties are required to pay for cleanup costs, and private property owners must certify that a site is clean before developing it. However, the national and county governments pay for cleanup costs at sites where a responsible party is financially insolvent.

Germany ⁹⁸

There are roughly 250,000 potentially hazardous sites in Germany, including 14,000 military sites. The total cost to identify, assess, and clean up these sites could reach $260 billion. Current cleanup expenditures are nearly $4 billion annually.

Whenever possible, Germany enforces liability for contamination. However, the Unification Treaty between West and East Germany exempts investors from liability who acquired sites in the former East Germany where the contamination occurred before July 1, 1990. The national government pays 60% of the cleanup costs, and the German states pay the remainder. The German states are authorized to develop tax revenue structures to finance cleanup costs. Some states collect fees or taxes on waste generation and ground water use to finance cleanup costs.

Netherlands ⁹⁹

There are roughly 110,000 potentially hazardous sites in the Netherlands. The total cost to clean up these sites could reach $25 billion. Cleanup activities are complete at more than 1,000 sites.

General tax revenues initially finance cleanup costs. However, the national government recovers these costs from the responsible parties after cleaning up a site.

Sweden ¹⁰⁰

There are roughly 8,000 potentially hazardous sites in Sweden, of which 4,000 are municipal waste disposal sites.

General tax revenues finance most cleanup costs because the country's liability laws limit recovering these costs from responsible parties. Targeted tax revenues to finance cleanup costs through taxes on hazardous and nonhazardous waste disposal have been proposed but rejected.

Mexico ¹⁰¹

In addition to the above countries, Mexico also has a hazardous waste program, which it announced on October 9, 1996. The new program will establish information requirements for government and industry, revise hazardous waste regulations, promote cooperation between government and industry, and identify sites for waste confinement and treatment.

The national government reports that the country's industry produces 8 million tons of hazardous waste annually and that 88% of this waste is disposed unsafely or illegally. The new program has compiled an inventory of 55 sites that potentially warrant cleanup. These sites are located in central Mexico and represent about 65% of the country's hazardous waste. The national government expects to construct at least four hazardous waste confinement and processing facilities to clean up these sites.

Endnotes

1 P.L. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767 (1980). CERCLA, as amended, is codified at 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675.

2 P.L. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 (1986).

3 P.L. 101-508, §6301, 104 Stat. 1388-319 (1990).

4 For additional details, see Taxes to Finance Superfund. by Sal Lazzari. CRS Report 96-774 E. September 13, 1996. 8 p.

5 U.S. Department of the Treasury. Financial Management Service. "Hazardous Subetance Superfund Trust Fund (20X8145) Income Statement for the Period 10/01/94 Through 09/30/95." November 3, 1995. 2 p.

6 40 CFR 300.5. "Definitions."

7 EPA. Federal Register. March 29, 1995. p.16053.

8 EPA. Federal Register. December 23, 1996. p.67656.

9 Ibid,. p. 67656-67657.

10 Ibid., p.67657.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 GA0. Superfund: Estimates of Number of Future Sites May Vary. GAO/RCED 95-18. December 1994. p.2.

16 Clean Sites, Inc. Main Street Meets Superfund: Local Government Involvement at Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites, January 1992, p.16.

17 EPA. Federal Register. December 23,1996. p.67657.

18 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 19,1998.

19 42 U.S.C. 9620. "Federal Facilities."

20 EPA. Federal Register. April 11,1995. p. 18474.

21 Ibid., December 23,1996. p. 67657.

22 GAO. Federal Facilitie8: Consistent Relative Risk Evaluations Needed for Pn'on'tizing Cleanups. GAO/RCED-96-150. June 1996, p.28.

23 Ibid., p.14.

24 Ibid, p. 7

25 Ibid., p.29.

26 Ibid., p.9.

27 42 U.S.C. 9621. "Cleanup Standards."

28 42 U.S.C. 9621(d). "Degree of Cleanup."

29 40 CFR 300.400(g)(1). "Identification of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements."

30 40 CFR 300.400(g)(2).

31 40 CFR 300.400(g)(3).

32 40 CFR 300.400(g)(4).

33 EPA. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR). 1991.

34 EPA. OERR. Telephone conversation with Terry Eby. January 14,1997.

35 U.S. Congressional Budget Office. Analyzing the Duration of Cleanup at Sites on Superfund's National Priorities List. March 1994. p.2.

36 Guerrero, Peter. Superfund: Current Progress and 188ue8 Needing Further Attention. GAO Testimony. June 1992. p.8.

37 Acton, Jan Paul. Understanding Superfund. RAND Institute for Social Justice. 1989.

38 EPA. OERR. End of the Year FYl996 Superfund Historical Performance Report.

39 U.S. Congress. Congressional Budget Office. The Total Costs of Cleaning Up Nonfederal Supe~nd Sites. Washington, U.S. GPO, 1994.

40 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, 1991.

41 Ibid., p.39.

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

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 EPA. OSWER. Superfund Enforcement Program Highlight8, CERCLIS. 1993. And EPA. Superfund Administrative Reforms Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1996. December 1996. p. xiv.

48 EPA. Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs. Telephone conversation with Kevin Matthews, January 27, 1997

49 GAO. Superfund: Legal Expenses for Cleanup-Related Activities of Major U.S. Corporations. GAO/RCED-95-46. December 1994 p. 4

50 Ibid., p. 5-6.

51 Ibid., p.11-12.

52 House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Mfairs, 1990, as referenced in Business Reundtable, 101 Terms & Facts on Superfund, November 1993.

53 Hembra, Richard. Superfund Pollution Claims. Government Accounting Office (GAO). 1992.

54 Acton, Jan Paul, and Lloyd S. Dixon, p. x-xi.

55 40 CFR 300.435(f). "Operation and Maintenance."

56 Ibid.

57 GAO. Superfund: Operations and Maintenance Activities Will Require Billions of Dollars. GAO/RCED 95-275. September 1995. p.4.

58 Ibid., p.9.

59 Ibid., p.8.

60 Ibid., p.6.

61 Ibid,. p. 4-9.

62 Church, Thomas W. and Robert T. Nakamura. Cleaning Up the Mess:Implementation Stretegies in Superfund. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution [1993]. p.175.

63 EPA, Technology Innovation Office, 1992, as referenced in Business Reundtable, 101 Terms & Facts on Superfund. November 1993.

64 Kovalick, Walter, Jr. EPA. OSWER. Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technolo~, April 1993.

65 EPA. OSWER. Physical State of Waste. Superfund: NPL Site Charoctenzation Project Report. 1991. p.53.

66 42 U.S.C. 9622(g). "De Minimis Settlements."

67 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9622(g)(1)(B).

68 EPA. Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement. Revised De Minirnis Contributor Consent Decree. EPA Memorandum. September 29, 1995.

69 EPA. Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement. Revised Guidance on CERCLA Settlements with De Micromis Waste Contributors. EPA Memorandum. June 3, 1996.

70 GAO. Superfund & Number of Potentially Responsible Parties at Superfund Sites is Difficult to Determine. GAO/RCED-96-75. March 1996. p.4.

71 Ibid., p.4. The data were reported in ranges for each site: 0,1, 2-10, 11-50, 51-100, 101-500, 501-1,000, and more than 1,000 de minimis parties. GAO reached its estimate by using the low and high ends of each range.

72 Ibid.

73 Ibid.

74 EPA. The First 125 De Minimis Settlements. October 1993. p.3.

75 EPA. Superfund Administrative Reforms Annual Report, Fi8ca1 Year 1996. December1996. p. vi'.

76 EPA. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Interim Guidance on Orphan Share Compensation for Settlors of Remedial Design/Remedial Action and Non-Time-Critical Removals. EPA Memorandum. June 3, 1996.

77 Ibid.

78 EPA. OSWER. Mixed Funding Evaluation Report. The Potential Costs of Orphan Share8. September 1998.

79 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(4)(C). "Liability."

80 42 U.S.C. 9607(f). "Natural resources liability; designation of public trustees of natural resources."

81 GAO. Outlook for and Experience with Natural Resource Damage Settlements. GAO~CED-96-7l. April 1996. p.4-5.

82 Ibid., p.5.

83 Ibid,. p. 6

84 Environmental Law Institute. An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1995 Update. ELI Project #941724. p.46.

85 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Report to Congress: 1993, 1994, 1995. 1996. 68 p.

86 Environmental Law Institute (ELI). An Analysis of State Superfund Pogram8:50-State Study, 1995 Update. Washington, 1996.293 p. ELI Project #941724.
In addition to all 50 states, ELI also treated the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as states in their study.

87 Ibid., p.10.

88 Ibid., p. 67-69.

89 Ibid., p.67-69.

90 Ibid., p.81-85.

91 Ibid., p.41-44.

92 Ibid., p 35.

93 Ibid., p.70.

94 "New Alternatives Advanced for Financing Site Remediation," The Hazardous Waste Consultant. vol.13, no.2. March/April 1995. p.1.13-1.15.

95 Ibid.

96 Ibid.

97 Ibid.

98 Ibid

99 Ibid.

100 Ibid.

101 "Mexico: Hazardous Waste Program Announced; Inventory Covers Zones for Treatment Units," Daily Environment Report. October 15,1996 (no.199). p. AA-1.

Glossary of Superfund Terms¹⁰²

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' 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 Register.

 

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 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. 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.

 

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.

 

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 waters.

 

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 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 the EPA to make a nonbinding estimate of the proportional share that each of the various responsible parties at a Superfund site should pay toward the costs of cleanup.

 

Notice letter. EPA's formal notice by letter to PRPs, also called a Section 104(e) letter, that CERCLA-related action is to be undertaken at a site with those PRPs being considered responsible.

 

NPL. National Priorities List. The list of (currently, approximately 1,200) hazardous waste sites that have been determined (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 the EPA or USCG 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. The EPA's legal office in the regions. Tyrpically, 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.

 

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.

 

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 USCG 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 the EPA under the emergency removal provisions of CERCLA, that enables the agency to take preliminary steps to clean up a site or reduce its danger when there is an imminent and substantial threat to public health or the environment. A removal cannot exceed $2 million or 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.

 

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 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.

Endnotes to Glossary

102 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 Regulation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold [1992].

Committee for the National Institute for the Environment 1725 K Street, NW, Suite 212, Washington, D.C. 20006-1401 Phone (202) 530- 5810 cnie@cnie.org Fax (202) 628-4311