Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0005-0024
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-12-10T05:00Z

Superfund
Overview
Superfund
Subcommittee
June
18,
2002
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
OERR
(
Reed)
2
Outline
I.
Origins/
Legislative
History
I.
Statutory
Provisions
I.
Regulatory
Structure
I.
Administrative
Reforms
I.
Budget
Overview
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
OERR
(
Reed)
Origins/
Legislative
History
°
Three
hazardous
waste
sites
in
the
late
1970s
and
early
1980s­
Love
Canal,
Valley
of
the
Drums
and
Times
Beach
 
led
to
a
heightened
national
awareness
of
the
dangers
to
public
health
and
the
environment
posed
by
such
sites.

°
Congress
responded
to
this
environmental
and
public
health
threat
by
passing
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and
Liability
Act
(
CERCLA)
of
1980.

°
CERCLA
established
a
$
1.6
billion
Hazardous
Waste
Trust
Fund
to
pay
for
the
costs
of
cleaning
up
abandoned
or
uncontrolled
hazardous
waste
sites.

°
Two
bedrock
principles
of
CERCLA
are:

Protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
and

Polluters
must
pay.
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
OERR
(
Reed)
Statutory
Provisions­
CERCLA
°
CERCLA
provides
comprehensive
authority
for
the
government
to
act.

°
EPA
can
respond
to
a
"
release"
or
"
substantial
threat"
of
a
release
of

a
"
hazardous
substance"
into
the
environment;
or

"
any
pollutant
or
contaminant
which
may
present
an
imminent
and
substantial
danger
to
public
health
or
welfare."

°
CERCLA
defines
"
hazardous
substances"
by
referring
to
other
environmental
statutes
(
for
example,
"
toxic
pollutants"
under
the
Clean
Water
Act).

°
While
"
pollutant
or
contaminant"
are
broadly
defined
and
include
any
substance
that
"
may
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
cause
death,
disease,
behavior
abnormalities,

cancer,
genetic
mutation,
physiological
malfunctions
or
physical
deformations"

(
excludes
petroleum
and
natural
gas).

°
EPA
responses
take
one
of
two
forms:

removals
(
primarily
address
environmental
emergencies)
or
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
OERR
(
Reed)

remedial
actions
(
long­
term,
permanent
cleanups).

Statutory
Provisions­
SARA
°
Congress
reauthorized
Superfund
in
1986
after
EPA's
early
experience
in
implementing
CERCLA
led
to
a
realization
that
the
problem
of
abandoned
sites
was
much
greater
than
originally
understood.

°
The
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
(
SARA)
strengthened
the
Superfund
program
by:

adding
tough
civil
penalties
for
polluters;

defining
and
supporting
a
role
for
the
public
and
communities;

setting
clear
and
tough
cleanup
standards;
and

giving
the
President
authority
to
settle
with
polluters
who
are
cleaning
up
their
sites.

SARA
significantly
increased
the
taxing
authority
for
Superfund
from
$
1.6
billion
to
$
8.5
billion.
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
OERR
(
Reed)
Regulatory
Structure

EPA
created
three
major
regulatory
mechanisms
under
Superfund
to
establish
cleanup
standards
and
procedures.

The
National
Contingency
Plan
(
NCP)
is
the
primary
regulation
dictating
CERCLA
response
actions;
it
tells
EPA,
the
States
and
private
parties
what
procedures
to
follow
when
selecting
and
conducting
emergency
removals
and
longterm
cleanup
actions.

The
Hazard
Ranking
System
(
HRS)
is
a
numerically­
based
screening
system
that
uses
information
from
initial,
limited
investigations
to
assess
the
hazards
a
site
poses
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

The
HRS
score
is
the
primary
method
for
determining
placement
on
the
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL).
It
identifies
the
sites
that
are
national
priorities
for
receiving
further
investigations
and
long­
term
cleanup
actions.
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
OERR
(
Reed)
Administrative
Reforms
°
Beginning
in
the
late
1980s,
the
Agency
undertook
several
evaluations
of
the
Superfund
program.

°
The
result
of
those
evaluations
was
the
initiation
of
a
series
of
administrative
reforms
aimed
at
revitalizing
Superfund.

°
EPA
implemented
three
rounds
of
reforms
consisting
of
almost
50
initiatives
that
improved
the
effectiveness
of
cleanups
and
increased
enforcement
fairness.

°
These
reforms
included
efforts
to:

reduce
litigation
and
transaction
costs;

make
cleanup
decisions
more
cost­
effective;

encourage
the
redevelopment
of
cleaned
up
sites;

get
States,
Tribes
and
communities
more
involved;
and

encourage
innovative
technologies.
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
OERR
(
Reed)
Budget
Overview
°
EPA's
Superfund
budget
for
2002
is
$
1.27
billion,
excluding
post­
9/
11
appropriations

Appropriations
have
been
declining
since
Superfund's
peak
in
1991
($
1.6
billion)

In
1999,
the
Superfund
appropriation
was
reduced
by
$
100
million
°
Approximately
half
of
the
Superfund
appropriation
is
used
to
implement
the
Response
program
in
the
Regions;
the
remainder
is
used
for:

Enforcement
program,
including
Department
of
Justice
support
(
13%)

Management
support
functions,
e.
g,
finance,
legal,
inspector
general,
rent
(
11%)

Headquarters
policy
and
implementation
management
(
9%)

Brownfields
and
federal
facility
response
programs
(
10%)

Research
and
development
(
3%)

Other
federal
agency
support
of
the
Superfund
program
(
1%)
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
OERR
(
Reed)
Budget
Overview
(
continued)

Regional
Superfund
resources
are
used
for
a
mix
of
site
and
non­
site­
specific
purposes:

Site
assessment
and
National
Priorities
List
additions

Removal
and
counter­
terrorism
responses
and
preparedness

Investigations,
remedy
selection
and
design,
remedial
construction

Oversight
of
responsible
party
cleanup
actions

State
and
Tribal
program
development/
support

Community
involvement

Laboratory
and
other
technical
support

Contract
management

Records
and
data
management

Payroll
and
equipment

Each
year,
Headquarters
allocates
resources
among
the
Regions,
based
partly
on
historic
use
patterns,
and
partly
on
their
site­
specific
planned
needs
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
OERR
(
Reed)

Budget
Overview
(
continued)

EPA
has
generally
been
able
to
augment
its
annual
resource
allocation
by
recouping
previously
appropriated
resources
that
were
not
expended
(
deobligations)

due
to
the
changing
resource
needs
of
projects
over
time

Deobligations
have
been
a
substantial
source
of
resources
in
recent
years,

but
the
pool
of
funds
available
for
deobligation
is
declining
and
such
funds
are
becoming
more
difficult
to
retreive

The
largest
discrete
block
of
resources
for
which
Regions
use
resources
is
Fund­
financed
construction
(
remedial
action)
to
remove,
contain,
and/
or
treat
contaminated
media

The
2002
budget
allocation
remedial
action
is
approximately
$
220
million
(
excluding
payroll
and
technical
support
costs)

Although
Regions
have
flexibility
in
using
these
remedial
action
resources,
they
are
commonly
directed
by
Headquarters
for
use
at
specific
sites,

as
identified
by
the
Regions
through
an
annual
workplanning
process
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
OERR
(
Reed)

Budget
Overview
(
continued)

Headquarters'
priority
for
remedial
actions
is
first
to
continue
funding
multi­
year
projects
to
allow
them
continue
at
an
efficient
pace

EPA
uses
a
combination
of
risk
and
construction
progress
criteria
to
make
decisions
on
what
new
projects
to
start
with
the
remaining
remedial
action
budget

Because
EPA
has
a
limited
budget,
large­
scale
construction
projects
(
often
mega­
sites)
must
be
funded
at
the
expense
of
other
construction
projects
or
other
parts
of
the
response
program
(
e.
g.,
site
assessment,
investigations,
State
involvement)

For
FY
2002,
80%
of
the
resources
requested
by
the
Regions
for
ongoing
construction
projects
was
to
be
used
at
less
than
20%
of
the
total
number
of
ongoing
projects
needing
funding
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
OERR
(
Reed)
Budget
Overview
(
continued)

Because
the
resource
needs
of
Fund­
financed
actions
that
are
ongoing
and
ready
to
start
exceed
the
current
budget
for
remedial
action,
EPA
must
look
for
ways
to
stretch
resources
by:

°
Re­
examining
the
accuracy
of
cost
estimates
°
Spreading
construction
costs
over
time
°
Improving
the
coordination
of
project
schedules
to
continue
ongoing
work
rather
than
start
projects
with
insufficient
funds