HOME
The Info List - Superfund Amendments And Reauthorization Act


--- Advertisement ---



Superfund
Superfund
is a United States federal government program designed to fund the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances and pollutants. Sites managed under this program are referred to as "Superfund" sites. It was established as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).[1] It authorizes federal natural resource agencies, primarily the Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), states and Native American tribes to recover natural resource damages caused by hazardous substances, though most states have and most often use their own versions of CERCLA. CERCLA created the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The EPA may identify parties responsible for hazardous substances releases to the environment (polluters) and either compel them to clean up the sites, or it may undertake the cleanup on its own using the Superfund
Superfund
(a trust fund) and costs recovered from polluters by referring to the U.S. Department of Justice. Approximately 70% of Superfund
Superfund
cleanup activities historically have been paid for by parties responsible (PRPs) for the cleanup of contamination. The exceptions occur when the responsible party either cannot be found or is unable to pay for the cleanup. Until the mid-1990s, most of the funding came from a tax on the petroleum and chemical industries, reflecting the polluter pays principle, but since 2001, most of the funding for cleanups of hazardous waste sites has come from taxpayers. Despite the name, the program has suffered from under-funding, and Superfund
Superfund
cleanups have decreased to a mere 8 in 2014, out of over 1,200. As a result, the EPA typically negotiates consent orders with PRPs to study sites and develop cleanup alternatives, subject to EPA oversight and approval of all such activities. The EPA and state agencies use the Hazard Ranking System
Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) to calculate a site score (ranging from 0 to 100) based on the actual or potential release of hazardous substances from a site. A score of 28.5 places a site on the National Priorities List, eligible for long-term remedial action (i.e., cleanup) under the Superfund
Superfund
program. As of 9 August 2016[update], there were 1,328 sites listed; an additional 391 had been delisted, and 55 new sites have been proposed.

Contents

1 History 2 Provisions 3 Procedures 4 Implementation

4.1 Hazard Ranking System

5 Environmental Discrimination

5.1 Case Studies in African American communities 5.2 Case Studies in Native American communities

6 Accessing data 7 See also 8 References 9 Further reading 10 External links

History[edit]

Workers in hazmat suits check the status of a cleanup site

CERCLA was enacted by Congress in 1980 in response to the threat of hazardous waste sites, typified by the Love Canal
Love Canal
disaster in New York, and the Valley of the Drums
Valley of the Drums
in Kentucky.[2] The initial trust fund to clean up a site where a polluter could not be identified, could not or would not pay (bankruptcy or refusal) consisted of about $1.6 billion.[3] The EPA published the first Hazard Ranking System
Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) in 1981, and the first National Priorities List
National Priorities List
(NPL) in 1983.[4] Implementation during early years, the two terms of the Reagan administration was ineffective, as only 16 of the 799 Superfund
Superfund
sites were cleaned up, and only $40 million of $700 million in recoverable funds from responsible parties were collected. Reagan's policies were described as laissez-faire.[5]:5 The Superfund
Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) added minimum cleanup requirements in Section 121, and required that most cleanup agreements with polluters be entered in federal court as a consent decree subject to public comment (section 122). [6] This was to address sweetheart deals between industry and the Reagan-era EPA, that Congress had discovered.[citation needed] In 1994, President Bill Clinton proposed a new Superfund
Superfund
reform bill, Executive Order (E.O) 12898, which called for federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice a requirement by addressing low income populations and minority populations that have experienced disproportionate adverse health and environmental effects as a result of their programs, policies, and activities.[7] The regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
now had to apply required guidelines for its managers to take into consideration data analysis, managed public participation, and economic opportunity when considering the geography of toxic waste site remediation.[8] Some environmentalists and industry lobbyists saw the Clinton administration’s environmental justice policy as an improvement, but the bill did not get bipartisan support. The newly elected Republican Congress made numerous unsuccessful efforts to significantly weaken the law. The Clinton Administration then adopted some industry favored reforms as policy and blocked most major changes.[9] Until the mid-1990s, most of the funding came from a tax on the petroleum and chemical industries, reflecting the polluter pays principle.[10] Even though by 1995 nearly $4 billion in fees were in the superfund, Congress did not reauthorize to collect these and by 2003 the superfund was empty.[11]:1 According to a 2015 U.S. Government Accountability Office
U.S. Government Accountability Office
report, since 2001, most of the funding for cleanups of hazardous waste sites has come from taxpayers; a state pays 10 percent of cleanup costs in general and at least 50 percent of it operated the facility responsible for contamination. By 2013 funding had decreased from $2 billion in 1999 to less than $1.1 billion (in constant dollars).[10]:11 From 2000-2015, Congress allocated about $1.26 billion of general revenue to the Superfund
Superfund
program each year. Consequently, less than half the number of sites were cleaned up from 2001 to 2008, compared to before. The decrease continued during the Obama Administration, and since under the direction of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
Gina McCarthy
Superfund cleanups decreased even more from 20 in 2009 to a mere 8 in 2014.[3]:8 The preliminary 2018 Trump Administration
Trump Administration
Superfund
Superfund
budget would cut the program by $330 million out of its nearly $1.1 billion budget, a 30% reduction to the Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
program.[12] Provisions[edit] CERCLA authorizes two kinds of response actions:

Removal actions. These are typically short-term response actions, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response. Removal actions are classified as: (1) emergency; (2) time-critical; and (3) non-time critical. Removal responses are generally used to address localized risks such as abandoned drums containing hazardous substances, and contaminated surface soils posing acute risks to human health or the environment.[13] Remedial actions. These are usually long-term response actions. Remedial actions seek to permanently and significantly reduce the risks associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances, and are generally larger more expensive actions. They can include measures such as using containment to prevent pollutants from migrating, and combinations of removing, treating, or neutralizing toxic substances. These actions can be conducted with federal funding only at sites listed on the EPA National Priorities List
National Priorities List
(NPL) in the United States and the territories. Remedial action by responsible parties under consent decrees or unilateral administrative orders with EPA oversight may be performed at both NPL and non-NPL sites, commonly called Superfund
Superfund
Alternative Sites in published EPA guidance and policy documents.[14]

A potentially responsible party (PRP) is a possible polluter who may eventually be held liable under CERCLA for the contamination or misuse of a particular property or resource. Four classes of PRPs may be liable for contamination at a Superfund
Superfund
site:

the current owner or operator of the site;[15] the owner or operator of a site at the time that disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant occurred;[16] a person who arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant at a site;[17] and a person who transported a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant to a site, who also has selected that site for the disposal of the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants.[18]

The CERCLA also required the revision of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 9605(a)(NCP).[19] The NCP guides how to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP established the National Priorities List, which appears as Appendix B to the NCP, and serves as EPA´s information and management tool. The NPL is updated periodically by federal rulemaking.[citation needed] The identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in:[citation needed]

Determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of risks to human health and the environment Identifying what CERCLA-financed remedial actions may be appropriate Notifying the public of sites the EPA believes warrant further investigation Notifying PRPs that the EPA may initiate CERCLA-financed remedial action

Including a site on the NPL does not itself require PRPs to initiate action to clean up the site, nor assign liability to any person. The NPL serves informational purposes, notifying the government and the public of those sites or releases that appear to warrant remedial actions.[citation needed] The key difference between the authority to address hazardous substances and pollutants or contaminants is that the cleanup of pollutants or contaminants, which are not hazardous substances, cannot be compelled by unilateral administrative order.[citation needed] Despite the name, the Superfund
Superfund
trust fund lacks sufficient funds to clean up even a small number of the sites on the NPL. As a result, the EPA typically negotiates consent orders with PRPs to study sites and develop cleanup alternatives, subject to EPA oversight and approval of all such activities. The EPA then issues a Proposed Plans for remedial action for a site on which it takes public comment, after which it makes a cleanup decision in a Record of Decision (ROD). RODs are typically implemented under consent decrees by PRPs or under unilateral orders if consent cannot be reached.[20] If a party fails to comply with such an order, it may be fined up to $37,500 for each day that non-compliance continues. A party that spends money to clean up a site may sue other PRPs in a contribution action under the CERCLA.[21] CERCLA liability has generally been judicially established as joint and several among PRPs to the government for cleanup costs (i.e., each PRP is hypothetically responsible for all costs subject to contribution), but CERCLA liability is allocable among PRPs in contribution based on comparative fault. An "orphan share" is the share of costs at a Superfund
Superfund
site that is attributable to a PRP that is either unidentifiable or insolvent.[22] The EPA tries to treat all PRPs equitably and fairly. Budgetary cuts and constraints can make more equitable treatment of PRPs more difficult.[citation needed] Procedures[edit]

Map of Superfund
Superfund
sites. Red indicates currently on final National Priority List, yellow is proposed, green is deleted (usually meaning having been cleaned up). This map is as of October 2013.

Upon notification of a potentially hazardous waste site, the EPA conducts a Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI), which involves records reviews, interviews, visual inspections, and limited field sampling.[23] Information from the PA/SI is used by the EPA to develop a Hazard Ranking System
Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) score to determine the CERCLA status of the site.[24] Sites that score high enough to be listed typically proceed to a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The RI includes an extensive sampling program and risk assessment that defines the nature and extent of the site contamination and risks. The FS is used to develop and evaluate various remediation alternatives. The preferred alternative is presented in a Proposed Plan for public review and comment, followed by a selected alternative in a ROD. The site then enters into a Remedial Design phase and then the Remedial Action phase. Many sites include Long-Term Monitoring. 5-year reviews once the Remedial Action has been completed are required whenever hazardous substances are left onsite above levels safe for unrestricted use.

The CERCLA information system (CERCLIS) is a database maintained by the EPA and the states that lists sites where releases may have occurred, must be addressed, or have been addressed. CERCLIS consists of three inventories: the CERCLIS Removal Inventory, the CERCLIS Remedial Inventory, and the CERCLIS Enforcement Inventory.[22] The Superfund
Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program supports development of technologies for assessing and treating waste at Superfund
Superfund
sites. The EPA evaluates the technology and provides an assessment of its potential for future use in Superfund
Superfund
remediation actions. The SITE program consists of four related components: the Demonstration Program, the Emerging Technologies Program, the Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program, and Technology Transfer activities.[22] A reportable quantity (RQ) is the minimum quantity of a hazardous substance which, if released, must be reported.[22][25] A source control action represents the construction or installation and start-up of those actions necessary to prevent the continued release of hazardous substances (primarily from a source on top of or within the ground, or in buildings or other structures) into the environment (40 C.F.R. 300.5).[22] A section 104(e) letter is a request by the government for information about a site. It may include general notice to a potentially responsible party that CERCLA-related action may be undertaken at a site for which the recipient may be responsible.<42 U.S.C. 9604(e)>. This section also authorizes the EPA to enter facilities and obtain information relating to PRPs, hazardous substances releases, and liability, and to order access for CERCLA activities.[26] The 104(e) letter information-gathering resembles written interrogatories in civil litigation.[26] A section 106 order is a unilateral administrative order issued by EPA to PRP(s) to perform remedial actions at a Superfund
Superfund
site when the EPA determines there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment because of an actual or threatened release of a hazardous substance from a facility, subject to treble damages and daily fines if the order is not obeyed.[22] A remedial response is a long-term action that stops or substantially reduces a release of a hazardous substance that could affect public health or the environment. The term remediation, or cleanup, is sometimes used interchangeably with the terms remedial action, removal action, response action, remedy, or corrective action.[22]

A nonbinding allocation of responsibility (NBAR) is a device, established in the Superfund
Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act, that allows the EPA to make a nonbinding estimate of the proportional share that each of the various responsible parties at a Superfund
Superfund
site should pay toward the costs of cleanup.[22][27]

Relevant and appropriate requirements are those United States federal or state cleanup requirements that, while not "applicable," address problems sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is appropriate. Requirements may be relevant and appropriate if they would be "applicable" except for jurisdictional restrictions associated with the requirement (40 C.F.R. 300.5).[22]

Implementation[edit]

Polluted Martin's Creek on the Kin-Buc Landfill
Kin-Buc Landfill
Superfund
Superfund
site in Edison, New Jersey

Main article: List of Superfund sites
List of Superfund sites
in the United States As of 9 August 2016[update], there were 1,328 sites listed on the National Priority List; an additional 391 had been delisted, and 55 new sites were proposed.[28] Historically about 70 percent of Superfund
Superfund
cleanup activities have been paid for by potentially responsible party (PRPs). when the party either cannot be found or is unable to pay for the cleanup, the Superfund
Superfund
law originally paid for toxic waste cleanups through a tax on petroleum and chemical industries. The chemical and petroleum fees were intended to provide incentives to use less toxic substances.[citation needed] Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected, and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.[citation needed] The last full fiscal year (FY) in which the Department of the Treasury collected the tax was 1995.[11]:1 At the end of FY 1996, the invested trust fund balance was $6.0 billion. This fund was exhausted by the end of FY 2003;[11]:3 Since that time superfund sites for which the potentially responsible parties could not pay, have been paid for from the general fund appropriated by Congress.[11]:1 Hazard Ranking System[edit] The Hazard Ranking System
Hazard Ranking System
is a scoring system used to evaluate potential relative risks to public health and the environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous wastes at uncontrolled waste sites. Under the Superfund
Superfund
program, the EPA and state agencies use the HRS to calculate a site score (ranging from 0 to 100) based on the actual or potential release of hazardous substances from a site through air, surface water or groundwater. A score of 28.5 places the site on the National Priorities List, making the site eligible for long-term remedial action (i.e., cleanup) under the Superfund program.[29] Environmental Discrimination[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Federal Actions to address the disproportionate health and environmental disparities that minority and low-income populations face through Executive Order (E.O) 12898, required federal agencies to make environmental justice central to their programs and policies.[30] Superfund
Superfund
sites have been shown to impact minority communities the most.[31] Despite legislation specifically designed to ensure equity in Superfund
Superfund
listing, marginalized populations still experience a lesser chance of successful listing and cleanup than areas with higher income levels.[32] After the executive order had been put in place, there persisted a discrepancy between the demographics of the communities living near toxic waste sites and their listing as Superfund
Superfund
sites, which would otherwise grant them federally funded cleanup projects. Communities with both increased minority and low-income populations were found to have lowered their chances of site listing after the executive order, while on the other hand, increases in income led to greater chances of site listing.[33] Of the populations living within 1 mile radius of a Superfund
Superfund
site, 44% of those are minorities despite only being around 37% of the nation's population. It has also been shown that the government responds slower to community demands from minority communities than from white communities.[34] Superfund
Superfund
sites near white communities have seen better clean up and harsher penalties for the polluters than minority communities. Case Studies in African American communities[edit] In 1978, residents of the rural black community of Triana, Alabama were found to be contaminated with DDT
DDT
and PCB, some of whom had the highest levels of DDT
DDT
ever recorded in human history.[34] The DDT
DDT
was found in high levels in Indian Creek, which many residents relied on for sustenance fishing. Although this major health threat to residents of Triana was discovered in 1978, the federal government did not act until 5 years later after the mayor of Triana filed a class-action lawsuit in 1980. In West Dallas, Texas, a mostly African American and Latino community, a lead smelter poisoned the surrounding neighborhood, elementary school, and day cares for more than five decades. Dallas city officials were informed in 1972 that children in the proximity of the smelter were being exposed to lead contamination. The city sued the lead smelters in 1974, then reduced its lead regulations in 1976. It wasn't until 1981 that the EPA commissioned a study on the lead contamination in this neighborhood, and found the same results that had been found a decade earlier. In 1983, the surrounding day cares had to close due to the lead exposure while the lead smelter remained operating. It was later revealed that EPA Deputy Administrator John Hernandez had deliberately stalled the clean up of the lead-contaminated hot spots. It wasn't until 1993 that the site was declared a Superfund
Superfund
site, and at the time it was one of the largest ones. However, it was not until 2004 when the EPA completed the clean-up efforts and eliminated the lead pollutant sources from the site. The Afton community of Warren County, North Carolina
Warren County, North Carolina
is one of the most prominent environmental injustice cases and is often pointed to as the roots of the environmental justice movement. PCB's were illegally dumped into the community and then it eventually became a PCB landfill. Community leaders pressed the state for the site to be cleaned up for an entire decade until it was finally detoxified.[35] However, this decontamination did not return the site to its pre-1982 conditions. There has been a call for reparations to the community which has not yet been met. Bayview-Hunters Point, San Francisco, a historically African American community, has faced persistent environmental discrimination due to the poor remediation efforts of the San Francisco Naval Shipyard, a federally declared Superfund
Superfund
site.[36] The negligence of multiple agencies to adequately clean this site has led Bayview residents to be subject to high rates of pollution, gentrification, and has been tied to high rates of cancer, asthma, and overall higher health hazards than other regions of San Francisco.[37] [38] Case Studies in Native American communities[edit] One example is the Church Rock uranium mill spill
Church Rock uranium mill spill
on Navajo Nation. It was the largest radioactive spill in the US, but received a long delay in government response and cleanup after being placed as a lower priority site. Two sets of five-year clean up plans have been put in place by US Congress, but contamination from the Church Rock incident has still not been completely cleaned up. Today, uranium contamination from mining during the Cold War era remains throughout the Navajo Nation, posing health risks to the Navajo community. Cuts to the EPA's funding and resources would hinder the regulation and remediation of Superfund
Superfund
sites. This would perpetuate the exposure to health risks that adjacent communities face from proximity to the Superfund
Superfund
site. Delays in government response to Superfund
Superfund
conditions increases the exposure of health risks to proximate communities. Accessing data[edit] The data in the Superfund
Superfund
Program are available to the public.

EPA Superfund
Superfund
Information Systems: Report and Product Descriptions[39] EPA Superfund
Superfund
Information Systems: Superfund
Superfund
Product Order Form[40] TOXMAP is a Geographic Information System (GIS) from the Division of Specialized Information Services[41] of the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) that uses maps of the United States to help users visually explore data from the EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and Superfund
Superfund
programs. TOXMAP is a resource funded by the US Federal Government. TOXMAP's chemical and environmental health information is taken from NLM's Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET),[42] PubMed, and other authoritative sources.

See also[edit]

Environment portal Government of the United States portal

Brownfield land Formerly Used Defense Sites - Environmental restoration program Hazardous Materials Transportation Act National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

References[edit]

^ United States. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Pub.L. 96–510, approved December 11, 1980. 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. ^ "Superfund: 20th Anniversary Report: A Series of Firsts". Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Archived from the original on 2010-09-09. Retrieved 18 July 2010.  ^ a b Kaley Beins and Stephen Lester. Superfund
Superfund
Polluters Pay So Children Can Play. 35th Anniversary Report. December 2015, 80 pp, The Center for Health, Environment & Justice ^ " Superfund
Superfund
History". EPA. 2017-05-15.  ^ "Opinion – Not So Super Superfund". New York Times. 7 Feb 1994. Retrieved 18 July 2010.  ^ "Superfund: SARA Overview". EPA. Archived from the original on 2010-09-07. Retrieved 18 July 2010.  ^ Konisky, David M. (2015). Failed Promises: The Federal Government's Response to Environmental Inequality. MIT Press. pp. 29, 56. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262028837.001.0001. ISBN 9780262028837.  ^ Holifield, Ryan (2004). "Neoliberalism and Environmental Justice in the United States Environmental Protection Agency: Translating Policy into Managerial Practice in Hazardous Waste
Waste
Remediation". Geoforum. 35 (3): 285–297. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.11.003.  ^ John H. Cushman Jr. (6 Oct 1994). "Congress forgoes its bid to hasten cleanup of dumps". New York Times. Retrieved 18 July 2010.  ^ a b U.S. Government Accountability Office, Superfund: Trends in Federal Funding and Cleanup of EPA's Nonfederal National Priorities List Sites. GAO Report Number GAO-15-812, September 2015, 58pp. ^ a b c d " Superfund
Superfund
Program: Updated Appropriation and Expenditure Data" (PDF). U.S. Government Accountability Office. February 18, 2004. p. 6. Retrieved 27 January 2014.  ^ [President Trump's budget would cut Superfund
Superfund
toxic cleanup program by 30%] by Ledyard King, USA Today, April 7, 2017 ^ Code of Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 300.415. ^ 40 C.F.R. 300.430. ^ CERCLA section 107(a)(1) ^ CERCLA 107(a)(2) ^ CERCLA 107(a)(3) ^ CERCLA 107(a)(4); 42 U.S.C. § 9607. ^ 40 C.F.R. 300. ^ CERCLA 104, 106, 12242 U.S.C. 9606, 9622 § 9604, 9606, 9622. ^ CERCLA 42 U.S.C. 9613(f). ^ a b c d e f g h i  This article incorporates public domain material from the Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
document "Superfund Fact Book: Superfund
Superfund
Glossary, Updated March 3, 1997" by Mark Reisch & David Michael Bearden, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. ^ "Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection". EPA. Retrieved 27 January 2014.  ^ "Introduction to the Hazard Ranking System". EPA. Retrieved 27 January 2014.  ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 4 February 2011. Retrieved 17 January 2011.  ^ a b Carole Stern Switzer, Lynn A. Bulan (2002-01-01). CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund). ISBN 9781590311165.  ^ Allocating Responsibility for Groundwater
Groundwater
Remediation Costs ^ "NPL Site Totals by Status and Milestone". USEPA. Retrieved 12 August 2016.  ^  This article incorporates public domain material from the Congressional Research Service
Congressional Research Service
document " Superfund
Superfund
Fact Book: Superfund
Superfund
Glossary, Updated March 3, 1997" by Mark Reisch & David Michael Bearden, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. ^ EPA, OA, OP, ORPM, RMD, US. "Summary of Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations US EPA". US EPA. Retrieved 2017-10-05. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) ^ Crawford, Collin (1994). "Strategies for Environmental Justice: Rethinking CERCLA Medical Monitoring Lawsuits". Faculty Publications at Reading Room. 74 B.U. L. Rev. 267. ^ O’Neil, Sandra George (5 April 2007). "Superfund: Evaluating the Impact of Executive Order 12898". Environmental Health Perspectives. 115 (7): 1087–1093. doi:10.1289/ehp.9903. ISSN 0091-6765. PMC 1913562 . PMID 17637927.  ^ O’Neil, Sandra George (May 2007). "Superfund: Evaluating the Impact of Executive Order 12898". Environmental Health Perspectives. 115 (7): 1087–1093. doi:10.1289/ehp.9903.  ^ a b Bullard, Robert (2012). The Wrong Complexion for Protection: How the Government Response To Disaster Endangers African American Communities. New York: NYU Press. pp. 100–125. ^ Ronald L. Braithwaite, Sandra E. Taylor, Henrie M. Treadwell (2009). "African Americans on the Front Line". Health Issues in the Black Community. John Wiley & Sons. p. 179. ISBN 978-0-47055-266-7. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) ^ Dineen, J.K. (29 June 2017). "Hunter's Point Shipyard: Ex Workers Say Fraud Rampant at Navy Cleanup". SF Gate. Retrieved December 12, 2017.  ^ Nuru, Mohammed (13 April 2000). "Community Call for Environmental Justice for Bayview- Why does the Department of Defense promise to clean up hazardous wastes apply to the Presidio but not to the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard?". SF Gate. Retrieved December 12, 2017.  ^ Davis, Lisa (May 21, 2003). "Hot story; navy admits burning 600,000 gallons of radioactive fuel at S.F. shipyard". SF Gate. Retrieved December 12, 2017.  ^ "Report and Product Descriptions". United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 11 August 2010.  ^ " Superfund
Superfund
Product Order Form". United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 11 August 2010.  ^ "SIS Specialized Information System". United States National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 11 August 2010.  ^ "Toxnet". United States National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 11 August 2010. 

Further reading[edit]

EPA (October 1992). "CERCLA/ Superfund
Superfund
Orientation Manual." Document No. EPA/542/R-92/005. EPA (2010-05-10). "Introduction to the Hazard Ranking System."

External links[edit]

Wikisource
Wikisource
has original text related to this article: Superfund

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Superfund
Superfund
sites.

Superfund
Superfund
Program – EPA Superfund
Superfund
sites by state – EPA Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry National Priorities List
National Priorities List
of Hazardous Substances "High Court Limits Liability in Superfund
Superfund
Cases." – New York Times, 2009-05-05 "Without Superfund
Superfund
Tax, Stimulus Money Helps Pay for Cleanups." – New York Times, 2009-04-26

v t e

Superfund
Superfund
sites in the United States

States

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Federal district

Washington, D.C.

Insular areas

American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands

v t e

United States environmental law

Supreme Court decisions

Missouri v. Holland
Missouri v. Holland
(1920) Sierra Club v. Morton
Sierra Club v. Morton
(1972) United States v. SCRAP (1973) Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
(1978) Vermont Yankee v. NRDC (1978) Hughes v. Oklahoma
Hughes v. Oklahoma
(1979) Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
(1992) United States v. Bestfoods
United States v. Bestfoods
(1998) Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (2000) SWANCC v. Army Corps of Engineers (2001) Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen
Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen
(2004) Rapanos v. United States
Rapanos v. United States
(2006) Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife
(2007) Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
(2009)

Major federal legislation and treaties

Rivers and Harbors Act (1899) Lacey Act (1900) Weeks Act (1911) North Pacific Fur Seal Convention of 1911
North Pacific Fur Seal Convention of 1911
(1911) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934) Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (1954) Clean Air Act (1963, 1970) National Environmental Policy Act
National Environmental Policy Act
(1970) Clean Water Act
Clean Water Act
(1972) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(1972) Noise Control Act (1972) Endangered Species Act
Endangered Species Act
(1973) Safe Drinking Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
(1974) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(1976) Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977) CERCLA (Superfund) (1980) Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(1986) Emergency Wetlands Resources Act
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act
(1986) Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
(2016)

Federal agencies

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Council on Environmental Quality Office of Surface Mining United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Regulations and concepts

Best available technology Citizen suit Discharge Monitoring Report Effluent guidelines Environmental crime Environmental impact statement Environmental justice National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Priorities List New Source Performance Standard Not-To-Exceed
Not-To-Exceed
(NTE) Right to know Total maximum daily load Toxici

.