Menu
Understanding CERCLA
What Lead to CERCLA
By the end of the 1970's, the US government had implemented laws such as RCRA (1976) and TSCA (1976) to regulate sources of pollution within the environment and to provide the citizens of the US protection against dangerous chemicals, however these laws failed to address responsibility for the release of pollution into the environment. It was not until the discovery of severely contaminated sites, such as love canal, NY and the toxic waste fire that occurred in Bridgeport, NJ that the US government responded to the lack of responsibility for environmental pollution with the enactment of CERCLA.
Toxic Waste Fire in Bridgeport (1977)A large chemical fire broke out in Bridgeport New Jersey, killing 6 and injuring 35 people. The fire was said to have propelled waste drums through the air. The city was blanketed in a funnel of black smoke that supposedly reached hundreds of feet into the sky.
|
Love Canal (1978)Due to a rapid increase in skin rashes, miscarriages, and birth defects that began to occur at Love Canal, NY, a state of emergency was declared. The effects seen here were directly attributed to the toxic waste that was dumped at the site years prior. This occurrence raised public on how the unregulated dumping of toxic waste can impact communities and families.
|
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
On December 11, 1980, CERCLA was enacted by the US federal government, and the EPA posses's the power to enforce CERCLA. The act focuses on remediating contaminated sites where hazardous waste is present, as well as focusing on prevention of future site contamination. This is done through two different courses of action that were established by CERCLA.
The First course of action is to identify liable persons or potentially responsible parties (PRPs). If they are found to be responsible for the site contamination, they are obligated to provide proper funds for remediation at their own expense.
PRPs are found by the EPA through looking for evidence to determine liability by matching wastes found at the site with parties that may have contributed wastes to the site. There are four different entities that can qualify as a PRP.
1. Current Owners/Operator
The second course of action set up by CERCLA is to use money from a trust fund (superfund) which was created in order for the EPA to remediate contaminated sites when no liable persons or PRPs can be identified.
This trust fund was originally funded by a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries. This tax was created by the enactment of CERCLA in 1980. Over 5 years, $1.6 billion was collected through this tax, which went directly into the trust fund that became the "superfund". This superfund provided money to remediate sites of contamination when no no liable persons or PRPs can be identified. However, of the $1.6 billion that was collected for the superfund, only $300 million went to actual clean up initally, while $1.3 billion was "wasted" through litigation processes.
The First course of action is to identify liable persons or potentially responsible parties (PRPs). If they are found to be responsible for the site contamination, they are obligated to provide proper funds for remediation at their own expense.
PRPs are found by the EPA through looking for evidence to determine liability by matching wastes found at the site with parties that may have contributed wastes to the site. There are four different entities that can qualify as a PRP.
1. Current Owners/Operator
- Excludes property acquired through foreclosure or a security interest
- Includes current owners even if they made no contribution to the hazardous release
- Prior owners/operators are held liable for any release of toxic substance that occurred during their possession/control of the land
- Person or people who arranged for disposal of a hazardous substance at a site
- Does not include producer of contaminants, only includes persons who arranged for disposal of contaminants
- Person or people who transported a hazardous substance to the site
- Transporter liability is premised on the transporter playing some role in the selection of the site where the hazardous substances are taken.
- If the transporter moves the substance from one contaminated area of a parcel to another, uncontaminated area, the transporter will still be held liable.
The second course of action set up by CERCLA is to use money from a trust fund (superfund) which was created in order for the EPA to remediate contaminated sites when no liable persons or PRPs can be identified.
This trust fund was originally funded by a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries. This tax was created by the enactment of CERCLA in 1980. Over 5 years, $1.6 billion was collected through this tax, which went directly into the trust fund that became the "superfund". This superfund provided money to remediate sites of contamination when no no liable persons or PRPs can be identified. However, of the $1.6 billion that was collected for the superfund, only $300 million went to actual clean up initally, while $1.3 billion was "wasted" through litigation processes.
The EPA allows for two different types of responses to contamination, Short term and Long term.
Short term - A prompt and immediate response to a contaminated site. Aims to minimize or stabilize the contamination.
Long term - The release of hazardous materials, however the contamination is not an immediate threat to life. Aims to produce a more permanent solution.
Short term - A prompt and immediate response to a contaminated site. Aims to minimize or stabilize the contamination.
Long term - The release of hazardous materials, however the contamination is not an immediate threat to life. Aims to produce a more permanent solution.
Remediation
The remediation of a contaminated site is a complex process that has numerous steps that are required by CERCLA.
1. Site Assessment
- Review of historical information and includes visiting a site to evaluate the potential for a release of hazardous substances
- 2. National Priorities List (NPL) site listing process
- The list is mainly based off of Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score, a system that ranks sites based on their risk and level of contamination.
- Sites with the highest scores are addressed first
- Minimum score of 28.5 is required to be placed on the NPL
- Evaluation of the nature and extent of contamination
- Evaluation of the potential performance and cost of the treatment options
- EPA recommends a preferred remedy
- EPA also resents the cleanup plan in a document called "Proposed Plan for public comment"
- After hearing public comments, the EPA release a final Record of Decisions
- Detailed cleanup plans are developed and implemented
- Physical cleanup activities at a site have been completed, even though final cleanup levels may not have been reached
- Ensure that cleanup work at a site continues to protect human health and the environment
- Activities include, routine monitoring of a site; routine reviews of the site to ensure cleanup continues to be effective; and enforcing any long term site restrictions
- Occurs after cleanup goals have been achieved and sites are fully protective of human health and the environment
- EPA works with communities to make sure sites or portions of sites are used safely
CERCLA Amendments
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) - 1986
CERCLA Section 120 - 1986
Enforcement First - 1989
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act - 1990
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) - 1992
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act - 2002
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) - 2009
- Stressed the importance of permanent remedies and innovative treatment technology
- Increased State involvement in every phase of the Superfund program
- Provided new enforcement authorities and settlement tools
- Required Superfund actions to consider the standards and requirements found in other State and Federal environmental laws and regulations
- Superfund actions to consider the standards and requirements found in other State and Federal environmental laws and regulations
- increased the focus on human health problems posed by hazardous waste sites
- increased the size of the Superfund trust fund to $8.5 billion
- Required EPA to revise the Hazard Ranking System to ensure it accurately assessed risk to human health and the environment posed by uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that may be placed on the National Priorities List
CERCLA Section 120 - 1986
- provision of SARA
- requires federal agencies to comply with CERCLA to the same extent as non-governmental entities
Enforcement First - 1989
- Enacted to allow the EPA to prioritize finding PRP's and hold them accountable for site contamination clean-up
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act - 1990
- Renewed Superfund appropriations through 1994
- Authorized chemical industry tax through 1995
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) - 1992
- expedited the traditional Superfund response process
- provided earlier enforcement in order to reduce risk more effectively
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act - 2002
- Exempted specific groups from cleanup liability of contaminated sites. These groups are described as;
- People who contributed small amounts of waste or non-hazardous waste
- People whose property was contaminated as a result of waste migration from a neighboring property
- Potential property purchasers who are hesitant as a result of cleanup liability
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) - 2009
- Helped provide more funding to the Superfund program
- Specifically includes $7.22 billion for programs and projects administered by EPA
- $100 million goes towards the revitalization, cleanup, and sustainable use of Brownfields
- $600 million towards the cleanup of hazardous waste sites
- $200 million towards the cleanup of petroleum leaks from underground storage tanks
- Since the chemical industry tax expired in 1995, the Superfund depended on interest and general appropriations. This slowed down the cleanup process
CERCLA Now
As of February 5th, 2020, the superfund statistics are as follow;
- Total Proposed NPL sites = 51
- Total NPL sites = 1335
- Total deleted NPL sites = 424
- Total NPL sites with partial deletion = 82
- Total NPL sites with completed construction = 1212
Proposed, Current, and Deleted NPL Sites Throughout the United States of America as of February 5th, 2020
The data points on the maps above are described as;
- Red points are proposed NPL sites
- Yellow points are current NPL sites
- Green points are deleted NPL sites