{
  "id": "97-914",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "97-914",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 105022,
      "date": "1997-10-02",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:57:32.020941",
      "title": "Superfund Cleanup Standards Reconsidered",
      "summary": "For Congress, the reauthorization of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,\nCompensation,\nand Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, has particularly focused on\ntwo major areas of reform: liability and the selection of cleanup standards/remedies. This report\naddresses the latter, and within that general topic, discusses six issues that have received attention\nfrom a number of stakeholders: the role of risk assessment; cost-effectiveness of treatment; complete\nor partial elimination of what are called ARARs (the statutory requirement that Applicable or\nRelevant and Appropriate Requirements from federal and state environmental and facility-siting laws\nbe applied to Superfund site cleanups) and elimination of the statute's preference for permanence and\ntreatment; future land use considerations; the role of the states; and community involvement in the\nremedy selection process. The report contains brief summaries of the pertinent provisions of the\nleading Senate bill,  S. 8 , as it appears in the \"draft chairman's mark\" of August 26,1997.\n  To address the criticism that the Superfund program favors excessively costly remedies, some\ncritics argue that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should change its risk assessment\nprocedures and increase the role of risk assessment in selecting remedies. Other recommended\nreforms include establishing a single national risk criterion for cleanup decisions rather than the\ncurrent use of risk ranges. Some stakeholders suggest elevating the importance of cost in EPA's\nevaluation of alternative cleanup strategies. Cost is currently considered in evaluating alternatives;\nhowever, critics claim that the statute's deference to ARARs and its preference for permanence and\ntreatment (as opposed to containing waste and controlling land use) have resulted in high cleanup\ncosts. Some stakeholders cite Superfund's reliance on ARARs for determining site specific cleanup\nstandards as the cause for lengthy debates over which federal or state regulations (or combinations\nthereof) apply to a site and for the selection of more costly remedies than are necessary to protect\nhuman health and the environment. \n  Stakeholders who advocate elevating the role of risk assessment in selecting remedies also urge\nincreased consideration of a Superfund site's future land and water use. Many of these stakeholders\nadvocate that state and local governments, rather than EPA, decide future land and ground water use. \nSome critics of Superfund claim that the current system of shared federal and state responsibility leads\nto delay, duplication of effort, confusion among stakeholders, and higher transaction costs. Some\nstates want full Superfund authority, and others only want delegation of the federal program. Some\nstakeholders are in favor of full authority for the states, while others are concerned about the burden\non businesses that responding to as many as 50 state programs could create. The degree of\ncommunity involvement in the process of selecting cleanup remedies is an additional topic of debate.\n  Though often heavily criticized since its passage, the goals of Superfund are widely supported. \nSince 1980, the program has improved practices in the management of hazardous wastes to protect\nhuman health and the environment, and is an evolving instrument.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/97-914",
          "sha1": "1cb3915e00554026bf514616680fe6fc5a639633",
          "filename": "files/19971002_97-914_1cb3915e00554026bf514616680fe6fc5a639633.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19971002_97-914_1cb3915e00554026bf514616680fe6fc5a639633.html",
          "source": "pymupdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Energy Policy",
    "Environmental Policy"
  ]
}