The
Role
of
Enforcement
In
Addressing
National
Priorities
List
Sites
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
ENFORCEMENT
2
Who
Is
Liable
for
Superfund
Cleanups?

T
Current
owners/
operators
of
the
site.

T
Prior
owners/
operators
at
the
time
of
disposal.

T
Persons
who
arranged
for
disposal
at
the
site.

T
Persons
who
accepted
hazardous
substances
for
transport
to
the
site.
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
ENFORCEMENT
What
are
parties
liable
for?

T
Take
actions
to
response
to
a
actual
or
threatened
release
of
hazardous
substances
that
may
present
an
imminent
and
substantial
endangerment
(
CERCLA
Section
106)

T
Reimbursement
of:

T
all
costs
of
removal
or
remedial
action
not
inconsistent
with
the
National
Contingency
Plan
(
NCP),

T
Other
necessary
response
costs
incurred
consistent
with
the
NCP
T
Natural
resource
damages.
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
ENFORCEMENT
What
is
meant
by
strict,
joint
and
several,
and
retroactive
liability?

°
Strict
Liability:
Liable
for
acts
regardless
of
care
exercised
or
legality
at
the
time
committed.

°
Joint
and
Several
Liability:
Liable
for
entire
cleanup
regardless
of
amount
contributed.

°
Retroactive
Liability:
Liable
for
acts
prior
to
the
passage
of
CERCLA
in
1980.
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
ENFORCEMENT
Potentially
Responsible
Parties
contribute
significantly
to
Superfund
cleanups
since
the
"
Enforcement
First"
policy
in
1990!

°
Since
1990,
PRPs
have
initiated
have
approximately
70%
of
the
long­
term
cleanups
at
non­
Federal
sites
on
the
NPL.

°
This
compares
to
less
than
30%
PRP­
lead
long­
term
cleanups
in
the
late
1980s.
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
ENFORCEMENT
Since
1993,
EPA
has
implemented
Enforcement
Reforms
have
been
implement
to
encourage
settlement
with
PRPs,
reduce
transaction
costs,
and
facilitate
re­
use
of
Superfund
Sites.

°
Such
Reforms
have
included:

T
Orphan
Share
Compensation
Policy
T
De
minimis
and
de
micromis
settlement
policies
T
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Settlement
Policy
T
Ability­
to­
Pay
Guidance
T
Prospective
Purchaser
Guidance
T
Comfort
Letter
Policy
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
­
ENFORCEMENT
Superfund
Enforcement
Leverages
Trust
Fund
Dollars
and
Helps
Replenish
the
Fund.

FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
Program
to
Date
Value
of
PRP
response
work
(
Work
&
Cashouts)
$
888.5
$
451.5
$
806.2
$
552.5
$
1335.5
$
1,329.1
$
16.5
Billion
Value
of
CR
settlements
$
451.6
$
158.1
$
229.6
$
232.8
$
145.8
$
413.6
$
3.5
Billion
Total
Value
of
PRP
commitments
$
1,340.1
$
609.6
$
1,035.8
$
785.3
$
1,481.3
$
1,742.7
$
20
Billion
CR
collections
returned
to
Treasury
$
248.9
$
313.3
$
319.6
$
319.7
$
230.5
$
202.1
$
2.8
Billion
Funds
collected
in
special
accounts
$
87
$
80
$
311.0
$
878
Million
Interest
earned
on
special
accounts
$
135
Million
Total
Funds
in
treasury
accounts
$
406.7
$
310.5
$
513.1
$
3.
8
Billion
