Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

State environmental policy
U.S. environmental policy
Endangered species policy
State endangered species
Federal land policy
Environmental terms

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980, and gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) power to regulate hazardous substances at contaminated waste sites nationwide. The act also permitted the EPA to judge individuals or companies liable for contamination and force these parties to pay for the cleanup of sites.

The act also created the Superfund program, a federal system of contaminated sites listed by priority and level of waste contamination. The Superfund program is also known as the National Priorities List. The EPA must update the National Priorities List once every year, and sites near the top of the list receive the most attention.

HIGHLIGHTS

The Superfund program contains potential polluted sites on a prioritized list for potential long-term cleanup and regulation.

As of January 2016, the average number of Superfund sites per state was 26.

New Jersey had the most sites—113 sites—while North Dakota had the fewest—zero sites.

Key features

Superfund

See also: Superfund and National Priorities List

This map of Superfund sites showed the location of Superfund sites on the National Priorities List as of October 2013. Red indicates the site was on the National Priority List in October 2013, yellow is the location of a proposed site in October 2013 and green indicates a site that has been taken off the National Priorities List (usually indicating the site has been cleaned up).

CERCLA established the Superfund program, a federally managed list of uncontrolled and abandoned waste sites. Under this program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies potential polluted sites and places them on a prioritized list for potential long-term action and regulation. To establish which sites receive priority, the EPA uses what is known as a Hazard Ranking System (HRS), an investigative process to assess a site's riskiness and level of contamination (which includes inspecting the sites). The EPA collects information about each site and uses this information to score each location. In addition to the scores, the EPA consults other federal studies before placing sites on the National Priorities List. The EPA must update the National Priorities List once every year, and sites near the top of the list receive the most attention. Before any potential contaminated site receives federal funds for cleanup, it must be on the National Priorities List.

The law also created a liability structure for owners and operators of contaminated sites. Cleanup costs are borne by site owners or operators if the EPA has declared them liable for the pollution. If owners or operators cannot pay the costs, the federal government itself will finance the cleanup through the Superfund Trust Fund, which is financed by federal taxes; however, some cleanup costs must be borne by the state where a contaminated site is found.

For cleanups at federal facilities (where the federal government is most likely responsible), the federal agencies managing those sites are required to fund cleanup from their own budgets, although the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Energy will often handle the actual cleanup at federal facilities.

The Superfund program also includes sites that are lower risk, which are called "brownfield properties." These sites are usually cleaned up for economic redevelopment purposes after having been "abandoned, idled or underutilized" because of some suspicion of contamination. At first, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided loans and grants for cleanup actions and economic redevelopment, but after the act was amended in 2002, Congress created a separate Brownfields grant program. The program provides competitive grants to state and local governments for cleanup activities at low-risk sites.

Cleanup standards

Cleanup standards vary depending on the kind of site and how much pollution is present. The law does not specify how clean a site must be, but it does require the EPA take actions that are "relevant" and "appropriate" to protect the surrounding environment, leaving the EPA with broad authority to demand different kinds of cleanup actions. A state government may also enforce stricter cleanup standards.

Although cleanup standards may vary, the law does require cleanup actions to reduce water pollutants in potential drinking water sources under the Safe Drinking Water Act and to meet water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. However, these requirements may not be applicable to all polluted sites.

Costs and benefits

In 2011, Shanti Gamper-Rabindran, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh, and Christopher Timmins, professor of economics at Duke University, published a study looking at median housing values on blocks located near cleaned up Superfund sites compared to similar Superfund sites that had not been cleaned. The researchers relied on housing price data from the United States Census Bureau. The blocks evaluated in the study were around the size of a typical city block. The authors concluded that blocks located near restored Superfund sites on the National Priority List saw median housing values appreciate by 19 percent for houses located within one kilometer of a cleaned up site when compared to similar housing near non-restored Superfund sites. When housing was located within three kilometers of a cleanup site, median housing values rose by 5.8 percent compared to housing near Superfund sites that were not cleaned. The researchers concluded that Superfund cleanups produced benefits to homeowners nearby, but they did not study whether those benefits exceeded cleanup costs. The researchers also emphasized that the benefits were localized, affecting only a certain number of houses and not all houses on a particular block. The full study can be found here.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), between 1981 and 1993 the Superfund program cost the federal government $7 billion in cleanup costs, which excludes costs reimbursed by liable site owners and operators. Between 1981 and 1993, private parties spent nearly $6.3 billion on cleanup costs at Superfund sites while state governments spent $100 million during that same period. In total, the CBO estimated that federal and state governments and private parties spent nearly $20 billion on Superfund cleanup between 1981 and 1993. These figures do not include the cost of cleaning up federal facilities. In May 2010, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spent $243 million annually between 2000 and 2009 on Superfund cleanup actions.

Public participation

Like the Clean Air Act, CERCLA has allowed public comment periods whenever the EPA is selecting Superfund sites or certain cleanup actions. The EPA is required to respond to each "significant" public comment it receives, although the law does not define a "significant public comment." Public comments can be submitted to the EPA online, and once a final decision is made regarding a Superfund site or a cleanup action, the EPA provides public notice of its decision. Usually, the EPA uses public notices to inform particular communities near a potential or actual Superfund site about its cleanup decisions. The law also allows federal grants (up to $50,000) for community groups to provide technical assistance to the EPA on a cleanup activity. These grants are only available to groups near a Superfund site.

One provision of the law allows citizens to challenge the adequacy of the EPA's cleanup actions in court, although the time frame for litigation is limited. Citizens may not bring a civil suit until a cleanup has been completed and lawsuits must be brought to the district court where the alleged violation occurred. Courts may require the EPA to correct a violation and may impose civil penalties if the violation is proved in court.

Toxic substances and disease registry

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is a federal agency responsible for studying contaminated sites that pose potential health risks from air, soil or water contamination, such as pollutants that contribute to cardiovascular disease or respiratory problems. The agency serves mostly as an information database of the potential health risks around a particular site, and advises the EPA on specific cleanup techniques. The agency's findings are often used to inform cleanup decisions made by the EPA, although the law does not require that the EPA accept the agency's conclusions.

Enforcement

See also: Enforcement at the EPA

Martin's Creek, a then-polluted creek near the Kin-Buc Landfill Superfund site in Edison, New Jersey.

The EPA enforces CERCLA through the Superfund Enforcement program. This program allows three options for the EPA to enforce the law if responsible owners and operators of a site are found and can pay for cleanup costs: administrative and judicial orders, voluntary settlement agreements and cost-recovery actions. The EPA can, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, take the responsible parties to court. In addition to litigation, responsible parties can face additional penalties or fines.

Administrative and judicial orders

The EPA can issue an administrative order or can partner with the U.S. Department of Justice and issue a judicial order that requires responsible parties to begin cleanup of a contaminated site. The law allows for fines of up to $25,000 per day for failing to comply with the EPA's orders. A responsible party that has not cleaned up a contaminated site may be liable for up to three times the site's cleanup cost. Parties, however, are allowed to prove that they are not liable for site cleanup and can be reimbursed from the Superfund Trust Fund if their claims are proven.

Voluntary settlement agreements

Parties that are potentially liable for a contaminated site may enter into a voluntary settlement with the EPA to avoid prosecution, although the EPA has discretion over whether to begin a settlement agreement. The benefit of a voluntary settlement agreement is to allow the responsible party to avoid greater costs. For example, if the EPA decides a party is responsible for a contaminated site, the person or business could instead make a payment to the federal government or begin cleanup in exchange for limiting legal costs.

Cost-recovery actions

If the EPA is required to use federal dollars from the Superfund Trust Fund for a site cleanup, it may require liable owners or operators to reimburse the fund. The EPA has between three years to six years to pursue liable site owners and collect funds from them, depending on how long the site cleanup takes.

Role of state governments

If a state government wants federal funds to finance a site's cleanup, it must agree to share the costs with the federal government. If site owners or operators are found to be liable for a polluted site, the state government is not required to share cleanup costs, but if no liable owner is found, a state must cover the remaining costs. A state government must pay 10 percent of the cleanup costs of a particular site, otherwise the federal government will refuse to assist with federal dollars from the Superfund Trust Fund, leaving the state to pay the entire cost. States are allowed "substantial and meaningful involvement" with site cleanup actions at non-federal Superfund sites, and a state has the opportunity to initiate, develop or select the specific cleanup actions."

Background

Congress had previously passed laws, such as the Clean Air Act (1963) and the Clean Water Act (1972), aimed at preventing future pollution but it had not legislatively addressed areas already contaminated by pollution. Waste sites, such as the Love Canal neighborhood in Niagara Falls, New York, and areas surrounding Times Beach, Missouri, received wide attention during the 1970s, sparking health concerns and motivating people to call for federal regulation of contaminated sites. In response, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), which gave power to the federal government to clean up polluted areas and collect fines from liable site owners and operators. A major part of CERCLA is the Superfund program, a federal system created to manage polluted areas and administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Amendments were made to CERCLA between 1980 and 2002, clarifying who was liable for a contaminated site and how the EPA should go about proving liability. Other amendments allowed federal facilities to be placed into the Superfund system and created a fund to clean up decommissioned military facilities administered by the U.S. Department of Defense.

Superfund sites by state

See also: Superfund sites in the United States

The table below summarizes the number of Superfund sites in each state as of January 2016. Among the 50 states, there were 1,303 Superfund sites.

The states with the most Superfund sites were New Jersey (113 sites), California (97 sites) and Pennsylvania (95 sites). The states with the fewest Superfund sites were North Dakota (no sites), Nevada (one site) and South Dakota (two sites).

News

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms CERCLA. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act - Google News

See also

• 

  Environmental policy in the U.S.

• 

  Energy policy in the U.S.

• 

  Endangered species policy in the U.S.

• Glossary of environmental terms
• Superfund
• National Priorities List

External links

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency homepage
• Code of Federal Regulations
• Federal Register