Superfund is a United States federal government program designed to fund the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances and pollutants. Sites managed under this program are referred to as “Superfund” sites. It was established as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (USEPA 1980). It authorizes federal natural resource agencies, primarily the EPA, states, and Native American tribes to recover natural resource damages caused by hazardous substances, though most states have and most often use their own versions of CERCLA. CERCLA created the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The EPA may identify parties responsible for hazardous substances releases to the environment (polluters) and either compel them to clean up the sites, or it may undertake the cleanup on its own using the Superfund (a trust fund) and costs recovered from polluters by referring to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Approximately 70% of Superfund cleanup activities historically have been paid for by parties responsible (PRPs) for the cleanup of contamination. The exceptions occur when the responsible party either cannot be found or is unable to pay for the cleanup. Until the mid‐1990s, most of the funding came from a tax on the petroleum and chemical industries, reflecting the polluter pays principle, but since 2001 most of the funding for cleanups of hazardous waste sites has come from taxpayers. Despite the name, the program has suffered from under‐funding, and Superfund cleanups have decreased to a mere 8 in 2014, out of over 1200. As a result, the EPA typically negotiates consent orders with the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to study sites and develop cleanup alternatives, subject to EPA oversight and approval of all such activities.
The EPA and state agencies use the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) to calculate a site score (ranging from 0 to 100) based on the actual or potential release of hazardous substances from a site. A score of 28.5 places a site on the National Priorities List, eligible for long‐term remedial action (i.e. cleanup) under the Superfund program. As of 12 June 2019, there were 1344 sites listed, an additional 255 had been delisted, and 41 new sites have been proposed.
History
CERCLA was enacted by Congress in 1980 in response to the threat of hazardous waste sites, typified by the Love Canal disaster in New York, and the Valley of the Drums in Kentucky. The initial trust fund to clean up a site where a polluter could not be identified, could not or would not pay (bankruptcy or refusal) consisted of about $1.6 billion (Beins and Lester 2015).
The EPA published the first HRS in 1981, and the first National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983. Implementation during early years, the two terms of the Reagan administration was ineffective, as only 16 of the 799 Superfund sites were cleaned up, and only $40 million of $700 million in recoverable funds from responsible parties were collected. Reagan’s policies were described as laissez‐faire.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 added minimum cleanup requirements in Section 121 and required that most cleanup agreements with polluters be entered in federal court as a consent decree subject to public comment (section 122). This was to address sweetheart deals between industry and the Reagan‐era EPA, that Congress had discovered.
According to U.S. Government Accountability Office (2015) report, since 2001, most of the funding for cleanups of hazardous waste sites has come from taxpayers; a state pays 10% of cleanup costs in general and at least 50% of it is operated by the facility responsible for contamination. By 2013 funding had decreased from $2 billion in 1999 to less than $1.1 billion (Ryan 2004).
Provisions
CERCLA authorizes two kinds of response actions:
- Removal actions. These are typically short‐term response actions, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response. Removal actions are classified as (i) emergency; (ii) time‐critical; and (iii) non‐time critical. Removal responses are generally used to address localized risks such as abandoned drums containing hazardous substances, and contaminated surface soils posing acute risks to human health or the environment.
- Remedial actions. These are usually long‐term response actions. Remedial actions seek to permanently and significantly reduce the risks associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances and are generally larger more expensive actions. They can include measures such as using containment to prevent pollutants from migrating, and combinations of removing, treating, or neutralizing toxic substances. These actions can be conducted with federal funding only at sites listed on the EPA NPL in the United States and the territories. Remedial action by responsible parties under consent decrees or unilateral administrative orders with EPA oversight may be performed at both NPL and non‐NPL sites, commonly called Superfund Alternative Sites in published EPA guidance and policy documents.
A PRP is a possible polluter who may eventually be held liable under CERCLA for the contamination or misuse of a particular property or resource. Four classes of PRPs may be liable for contamination at a Superfund site:
- the current owner or operator of the site
- the owner or operator of a site at the time that disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant occurred
- a person who arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant at a site
- a person who transported a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant to a site, who also has selected that site for the disposal of the hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
Procedures
Map of Superfund sites. Red indicates currently on final National Priority List, yellow is proposed, green is deleted (usually meaning having been cleaned up). This map is as of 13 September 2018. Upon notification of a potentially hazardous waste site, the EPA conducts a Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI), which involves records reviews, interviews, visual inspections, and limited field sampling. Information from the PA/SI is used by the EPA to develop a HRS score to determine the CERCLA status of the site. Sites that score high enough to be listed typically proceed to a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The RI includes an extensive sampling program and risk assessment that defines the nature and extent of the site contamination and risks. The FS is used to develop and evaluate various remediation alternatives. The preferred alternative is presented in a Proposed Plan for public review and comment, followed by a selected alternative in a record of decision (ROD). The site then enters into a Remedial Design phase and then the Remedial Action phase. Many sites include long‐term monitoring. Five‐year reviews once the Remedial Action has been completed are required whenever hazardous substances are left on‐site above levels safe for unrestricted use.
- The CERCLA information system (CERCLIS) is a database maintained by the EPA and the states that lists sites where releases may have occurred, must be addressed, or have been addressed. CERCLIS consists of three inventories: the CERCLIS Removal Inventory, the CERCLIS Remedial Inventory, and the CERCLIS Enforcement Inventory.
- The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program supports development of technologies for assessing and treating waste at Superfund sites. The EPA evaluates the technology and provides an assessment of its potential for future use in Superfund remediation actions. The SITE program consists of four related components: the Demonstration Program, the Emerging Technologies Program, the Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program, and Technology Transfer Activities.
- A reportable quantity is the minimum quantity of a hazardous substance which, if released, must be reported.
- A source control action represents 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 C.F.R. 300.5).
- A section 104(e) letter is a request by the government for information about a site. It may include general notice to a potentially responsible party that CERCLA‐related action may be undertaken at a site for which the recipient may be responsible (42 U.S.C. 9604 e). This section also authorizes the EPA to enter facilities and obtain information relating to PRPs, hazardous substances releases, and liability, and to order access for CERCLA activities. The 104(e) letter information‐gathering resembles written interrogatories in civil litigation.
- A section 106 order is a unilateral administrative order issued by EPA to PRP(s) to perform remedial actions at a Superfund site when the EPA determines there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment because of an actual or threatened release of a hazardous substance from a facility, subject to treble damages and daily fines if the order is not obeyed.
- A remedial response is 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.
- A nonbinding allocation of responsibility (NBAR) is a device, established in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, 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.
- Relevant and appropriate requirements are those United States 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 C.F.R. 300.5).
Implementation
As of 12 June 2019, there were 1344 sites listed on the National Priority List, an additional 255 had been delisted, and 41 new sites were proposed.
Historically, about 70% of Superfund cleanup activities have been paid for by PRPs. When the party either cannot be found or is unable to pay for the cleanup, the Superfund law originally paid for toxic waste cleanups through a tax on petroleum and chemical industries. The chemical and petroleum fees were intended to provide incentives to use less toxic substances. Over five years, $4.2 billion was collected, and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Hazard Ranking System
The HRS is a scoring system used to evaluate potential relative risks to public health and the environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous wastes at uncontrolled waste sites. Under the Superfund program, the EPA and state agencies use the HRS to calculate a site score (ranging from 0 to 100) based on the actual or potential release of hazardous substances from a site through air, surface water, or groundwater. A score of 28.5 places the site on the National Priorities List, making the site eligible for long‐term remedial action (i.e. cleanup) under the Superfund program.
Environmental Discrimination
Federal Actions to address the disproportionate health and environmental disparities that minority and low‐income populations face through Executive Order (E.O) 12898 required federal agencies to make environmental justice central to their programs and policies. Superfund sites have been shown to impact minority communities the most. Despite legislation specifically designed to ensure equity in Superfund listing, marginalized populations still experience a lesser chance of successful listing and cleanup than areas with higher income levels. After the executive order had been put in place, there persisted a discrepancy between the demographics of the communities living near toxic waste sites and their listing as Superfund sites, which would otherwise grant them federally funded cleanup projects. Communities with both increased minority and low‐income populations were found to have lowered their chances of site listing after the executive order, while on the other hand, increases in income led to greater chances of site listing (O’Neil 2007). Of the populations living within 1 mile radius of a Superfund site, 44% of those are minorities despite only being around 37% of the nation’s population. It has also been shown that the government responds slower to community demands from minority communities than from white communities. Superfund sites near white communities have seen better clean up and harsher penalties for the polluters than minority communities (Bullard 2012).
Case Studies in African American Communities
In 1978, residents of the rural black community of Triana, Alabama, were found to be contaminated with DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and PCB (Polychlorinated byphenyl), some of whom had the highest levels of DDT ever recorded in human history (Bullard 2012). The DDT was found in high levels in Indian Creek, which many residents relied on for sustenance fishing. Although this major health threat to residents of Triana was discovered in 1978, the federal government did not act until five years later after the mayor of Triana filed a class‐action lawsuit in 1980.
In West Dallas, Texas, a mostly African American and Latino community, a lead smelter poisoned the surrounding neighborhood, elementary school, and day cares for more than five decades. Dallas city officials were informed in 1972 that children in the proximity of the smelter were being exposed to lead contamination. The city sued the lead smelters in 1974, then reduced its lead regulations in 1976. It wasn’t until 1981 that the EPA commissioned a study on the lead contamination in this neighborhood, and found the same results that had been found a decade earlier. In 1983, the surrounding day cares had to close due to the lead exposure while the lead smelter remained operating. It was later revealed that EPA Deputy Administrator John Hernandez had deliberately stalled the clean‐up of the lead‐contaminated hot spots. It wasn’t until 1993 that the site was declared a Superfund site, and at the time it was one of the largest ones. However, it was not until 2004 when the EPA completed the clean‐up efforts and eliminated the lead pollutant sources from the site.
The Afton community of Warren County, North Carolina is one of the most prominent environmental injustice cases and is often pointed to as the roots of the environmental justice movement. PCBs were illegally dumped into the community and then it eventually became a PCB landfill. Community leaders pressed the state for the site to be cleaned up for an entire decade until it was finally detoxified (Braithwaite et al. 2009). However, this decontamination did not return the site to its pre‐1982 conditions. There has been a call for reparations to the community which has not yet been met.
Bayview‐Hunters Point, San Francisco, a historically African American community, has faced persistent environmental discrimination due to the poor remediation efforts of the San Francisco Naval Shipyard, a federally declared Superfund site. The negligence of multiple agencies to adequately clean this site has led Bayview residents to be subject to high rates of pollution, gentrification, and has been tied to high rates of cancer, asthma, and overall higher health hazards than other regions of San Francisco.
Case Studies in Native American Communities
One example is the Church Rock uranium mill spill on Navajo Nation. It was the largest radioactive spill in the United States, but received a long delay in government response and cleanup after being placed as a lower priority site. Two sets of five‐year clean‐up plans have been put in place by US Congress, but contamination from the Church Rock incident has still not been completely cleaned up. Today, uranium contamination from mining during the Cold War era remains throughout the Navajo Nation, posing health risks to the Navajo community.
Cuts to the EPA’s funding and resources would hinder the regulation and remediation of Superfund sites. This would perpetuate the exposure to health risks that adjacent communities face from proximity to the Superfund site. Delays in government response to Superfund conditions increase the exposure of health risks to proximate communities (Konisky 2015; U.S. Government Accountability Office 2015).
Leave a Reply