Opinion ID: 6498785
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: CERCLA and the National Priorities List

Text: Enacted by the Congress to address the “growing problem of inactive hazardous waste sites throughout the United States,” Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. EPA (Eagle-Picher IT), 759 F.2d 922, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1985), CERCLA authorizes the EPA “to establish and revise annually a National Priorities List of known hazardous waste sites considered high priorities for environmental remediation,” Genuine Parts Co. v. EPA, 890 F.3d 304, 308 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 9605(a)(8)(A)). Once a site is listed on the NPL, the EPA 4 may use Superfund! moneys to fund remedial? actions. 40 C.F.R. § 300.425(b)(1). “The EPA’s listing a site on the NPL, however, does not necessarily mean it will order remedial action at that site; rather, it guarantees only more detailed study.” Carus Chem. Co. v. EPA, 395 F.3d 434, 437 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). Listing can “have significant adverse consequences for the owner of a listed property,” id. (consequences may include damage to business reputation or ' CERCLA is “also known as the Superfund statute,” Add. Richfield Co. v. Christian, 140 S. Ct. 1335, 1345 (2020), because “it establishes a fund, the ‘Superfund’, to finance EPA remedial action on contaminated sites,” Apache Powder Co. v. United States, 968 F.2d 66, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 9611). Initially financed through excise taxes on the chemical and petroleum industries, the Superfund is now financed by, inter alia, transfers from the U.S. Treasury’s General Fund and cost recovery actions against potentially responsible parties. Anthony A. Cilluffo and David M. Bearden, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IF11982, Superfund Tax Legislation in the 117th Congress 1 (Nov. 29, 2021). Because inclusion on the NPL establishes eligibility for Superfund-financed remedial action, 40 C.F.R. § 300.425(b)(1), NPL sites are “commonly known as Superfund sites.” Atl. Richfield, 140 S. Ct. at 1346. 2 CERCLA provides for removal actions and remedial actions. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(23), 9601024). Removal actions are generally interim measures involving the “cleanup or removal of released hazardous substances from the environment.” See id. § 9601(23). “Remedial action” is a “permanent remedy” and is employed “‘in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance into the environment, to prevent or minimize the release of hazardous substances so that they do not migrate to cause substantial danger to present or future public health or welfare or the environment.” Id. § 9601(24). 5 lower property values), and it can take decades for a site to be removed from the NPL. Indeed, it has been almost forty years since the EPA first listed the Reilly Tar & Chemical Site (Reilly Tar Site), an NPL site largely northwest of the plume at issue. See Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan; National Priorities List, 48 Fed. Reg. 40,658, 40,670 (Sept. 8, 1983). In essence, “the NPL is simply the first step in a process—nothing more, nothing less.” Eagle-Picher II, 759 F.2d at 932. Listing serves as “a tool for identifying quickly and inexpensively those sites meriting closer environmental scrutiny,” Wash. State Dep’t of Transp. v. EPA, 917 F.2d 1309, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1990), and “does not determine any party’s liability for the cost of cleanup at the site,” Kent County v. EPA, 963 F.2d 391, 394 (D.C. Cir. 1992).