Superfund: A Brief Comparison of the Chairmen's Bills (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (18 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
May 28, 1998 |
| Report Number |
98-257 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
The chairmen of three subcommittees with jurisdiction over Superfund have introduced comprehensive reauthorization bills: Senator Bob Smith introduced S. 8 (the May 19, 1998 reported version is used here), Representative Sherwood Boehlert introduced H.R. 2727 (the subcommittee-approved version of March 11, 1998, is used here) and Representative Michael Oxley introduced H.R. 3000. This report compares the three bills, focusing on four disputed issues: liability, remedy selection, the role of the states, and natural resource damages. All three bills would provide protection from liability for small businesses and parties who contributed small amounts of waste to sites on the National Priorities List, though the precise categories of exemption vary substantially. They all also would establish an allocation process, conducted by a neutral person, to divide cleanup costs among responsible parties, while limiting litigation. Those not accepting the allocation would be subject to CERCLA's joint and several liability. The remedy selection titles of the bills all require that human health and the environment be protected while adding flexibility to increase the pace and reduce the costs of cleanup. They delete the present law's preference for treatment, permitting hazardous substances to remain onsite provided that institutional controls are used that ensure protection; H.R. 2727 and S. 8 retain a preference for treatment of high risk source materials or areas. All three require remedy selection to consider current and reasonably anticipated uses of land and water resources, state and local viewpoints, and reasonableness of cost. Regarding the current law's applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), the bills delete the "relevant and appropriate" language to help clarify which federal and state requirements do apply to cleanups. Groundwater remediation requirements and details differ among the bills. The bills all require EPA to conduct facility-specific risk assessments or evaluations, and to communicate the results in easily understood language. All of the bills would authorize EPA either to delegate or authorize program responsibility over all or some NPL facilities in a state, and for all or some aspects of cleanup activity, giving states the flexibility to choose; federal funding would be provided. EPA could withdraw the authority under certain circumstances. The bills would reduce states' share of operation and maintenance costs from 100% to no more than 10%. The House bills would give Governors a veto over the addition of new sites to the National Priorities List. They would also give states with program authorization the power to use state law for cleanup of federal facilities; S. 8 expressly bars the use of state standards at federally owned sites. Regarding natural resource damages, the three bills would bar recovery for "non-use" values (values that are unrelated to actual use of the resource), and would base damage assessments on site-specific conditions and restoration requirements. S. 8 would also require the Interior Department to rewrite its assessment rules. H.R. 3000 forbids the use of contingent valuation methodology; S. 8 allows it, but bars recovery of its costs. The restoration alternative must be feasible and cost-effective; S. 8 would require considering natural recovery as an option.
