The National Environmental Committee: APropasal to Relieve Regulatory Gridlock at Federal Facility Superfund Sites

• Author: Major Stuart W Risch
• Pages: 01

STUART W. RISCH' I The Problem and B Solution

A. The ProblemFederal agencies' are engaged in a fierce battle2 with an

Debra K R u b et SI, Base Clranups Fme .h;rw Era of Cuts and Commrfmmts. 234

ENCIXEERI~C

SEWE.RIC 36, 36 (.Mar 6,

1995) [heremaitsr &iw Era ofcutsl

"The Pentagan has btated that the problem af cleaning up toxic and hazardous ~.aefesited at millfar) fachfies LI 1t8 'largest challenge "' Deportment o(~efPnsP Encil Programs Hearing8 Before the Readinaee Subcomm, fhr Emf1 Resfarafron Panel, nnd the DepY a i Enern Defense Nuclear Facilities Pawl of the House Camm on Armed Sei~icaa, 102d Can8 , laf Sese. 194 (19911 [hereinafter House Armed Seruicrs Comm 1991 Hearings1 lfeatmony ai Thomas E Baca. Deputy A~smanf Seeretaw ai Defense [En> tl), quoted an Rirhsrd A Weegmen & Harold G Bade) Jr,

unusual opponent-the hazardous wastes3 that they have generat. ed and improperly disposed far decades at their awn facilities acme the nation Since the mid-ISOOs, these agencies have jeopardized human health and safety and endangered the environmenti by discarding toxic nates and materials st thousands of federal facility sites in ever? state Consequently. many of these faachties: are "laced with almost every imaBnable contaminant-toxic and hazardous wastes, fuels. solvents, and unexploded

Accordmgly, these agencies have had to adopt new strategies

Tibe Challenge ofCteanrng l'p Yilitary Wnsfrs Whin L'S Basra Air Closed. 21

nmg the teim hazardour waite"8. Id 5 9601 148 ance',. me also znfm note8 79. 136 'detailed definI ulll use the terms "hazardous ' tan-

Y L 9 665 8681199

ardoui iubitarce and 'toxic w83re'' interchangeably

4 See idam Babich. Our Frdiralzsnb, Our Hamrdous Wnsre and Our Good Frrrunr, 54 113 L R n 1416, 1522-23 & nn2i-31 ,1994,

IhereinsfferFad~ialirmand

Hainidour Mh.fs1 , ' T he mmi dangerous haiardoua uaiie sites in the United Stater are those that the federal goiernment created ti elf" , Kyle Bettigole. Defending.ipamst Defense Cirii Res~fanct.

.Yeeeeeit> ond the Cnrfed Staler Milifani Toric Lpeaci 21 B C E\ITL .?Fi L RET 667. 667-68 & nn 2-6 '19941 r'the Deoanmenf. of

Hob16 CON~RO~T~NC THE TOXIC LEGACY

OF

'~ronmenfal conditions within rhe D O E G Dmzmn and R~r)clmg

I" the Hanfoid Clrani!p, 93 (Spring 19931 tdiscusring the Hsnford uC e c m a t m t e w m f o t e OEE 17 major nuele~rueepons research and production Faciliiier that me replete uifh radiosellie and r m ~ e wastes The article

reierr to the Hanfard d e

The term "fscdify" braadli defined 8s "$A> m y burlding, structure inilalla. hon equlpmeni pipe. or plpehne %ell pit. lagoon. impoundment ditch. landfill storage canta~ner malei whicle mlllng stack. 07 aircraft, or 'B, an? n l s or a ~ e s where a hazardous substance has been depoeited stared. disposed of, 01 placed. or otherwise come to be lacated"42 U 9 C 3 9601t9: "Federal faellllles' BTP defined 8s ismlifiea u hich ere orned or operated by B depanment. agency or msfrumentsllty of the Lmted States 'Id S 96208a)821 Thebe definitions include 8118s contlgilmb to ied-era1 fsriliiies shere hazardous zubztances may have extended beyond the bovndsries o i *he iacilit? 40 C FR 3 260 10 The twm federal iaciliry as vied I" lhls arncle, in~orporsfei iheterm iederal agenciec"

Ken hlrller Pentagon Saw Em ir~nrnmf~l

.Mean will Cast S25 Bdltan G&\hIPT

Srai Srmici \Is) 13 1993 at 1 quoting the Deputy Under Serrerav of Defense

iTH S

I"l?

O F

TmY,

8s "hame to one of the largeit and mosr complex waste cleanup projects the uorld haa ever men ',

hws, S Doc NO 9E, lOlrf Cang. 2d neaies such ab C B ~ C ~ T

brain damage, e prablemc are among the many health dangers created by direct contact uifh hazardous bubatancea, or rndirect exposure to canrammated air or drinking water'' Ssr Frederrck R Anderson, .Vwotiafian and fnfoimol&inn Acfmn TheCaseofSwerfund. 1963DUKE L J 261.266 11955

1ELtl"g CO\GRCSIIONIL BLDCLI OFFICE.

and fundamentally change long-standing practices to promote and protect the environment? They collectively have spent tens of billions of dollars to date in an attempt to clean up their environmental messes.1o Estimates predict that the final clean-up cost8 could run into the trdliona.11 These diligent efforts have allowed the agencies to gain signifiesnt gmund, yet much work remain6.12

Federal agencies have been battling to rid them facilities of this toxic menace since the mid to late 1970s. It was only then that the dangers posed by hazardous wastes at both pnrste and federal facilities across the nation first vaulted to the forefront of national attention.13

As a result of the nation's increased concern over thls threat to the environment, Congress responded by enacting a wave of environmental legislation in the late 1970d4 and early 19808. It passed ltnvlranmental decunty) (DCSD(ES):. Shem Waiaerman Goodman ~n tebtlmon? before the Hou~e&med Selvxes subcomm~ttee,

See. @E., DIPUTMENTor DLILYSE.

DEFENSE

EWROIIIE\T~

Is The threat posed b) mpmperlg dmpaaed hsrardavs wmes NU fhmst ~ n f ~ the

lnnellght m 1980 wth the &ravery of the Lave Canal mar Niagara Fall%. ber Yoark. andiimrlartavewastedumps,tasnebonu7depae,ogdR9db.nikst o a m radente See SENATE Corn ON Ernn & PUB \\-oRKs EXvm EXERGEICI FZEPOISE

An, S RIP NO

848. 36th COW, 2d Seis 7, 8 119601 Ih;remdtor S REP NO 8181 30s also rnfio nater 100.06 and Bccompanyng text ldetuled discuasmn ofvanaus hara;dous waste hiteal

"Thraughaut the 197ub. the United States eatabhshed a world-claea track record for eoseting mnovst~ve enmrmmental ISY.B

" Parer B Preatle?, The Future of

Superfund. 75AB A. J 62. 82-63 iAur 1993)

15 Pub L No 91 tlans ai 42 us c

PROGRAM

AINU& REPORT l o Co\on~ss FOR Flscu YmR 1993. at 1.4 'Mar 31, 19941 [hereinafter DERP 1953 REPORTI (acknawledpng thst "new pals and srrareglei must be established m eaQh of the ~raeram area-lesnu~. cumehance conielvatlon diu.

CLEA\L.P

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRAllE in 1976 and the Comprehensive Envmnmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLAll6 in 1980 (commonly referred LO as the "Superfund") li Together, the two statutes inspired peat expecta. tmns, but m reality have demonstrated limited SUCCOSE in combatting toxic wastee The statutes' ambigaity, substantive omiss~on$. and piecemeal application have led to claims that the Superfund IS'%broken," and that the pace of cleanups at toxic waste sitee 1s too sIow.19 the costs exorbitant.20

xi The CERCLA ~niri~ll?rreared B 515 billion fund far use I" 'erpanding i o

relessei or threatened ieleabeb of hsiardaua iubiiancea at any site natmnwde hence

the mckname"8uperfund 'Sei infra notes 131-36 and accompanying text Idiscuesing the fund m wearer derail

15 See R S Hanash Sumrfund Reform. 6 FED FACILITIES E\vTL J 116 116?Ylnter 1995 96) I".%ftiter lhiears, the Supeiivnd program IO often described as m e that has 'eocf bilhann. cleaned up htfle. and eamfied no one,' and Canmess 1s stdl debarme aver how to fix I~Sm ~ m deficienciei'r. Babich. E Y D ~ note 4. 8t 1520, the

. . .o The werage amount at time from the diceawry of B cantammaled site fhroosh the cleanun has raneed from 12-15 rears Since the Suoerfun

term P ~ O J O C ~

that some expeflr believe w11 take BI long a i 60 years ' Preat.e? mpra note 14. at 62

ha% been deroted to ~zseesmng eonfamination rather than cleaning It up'

The tots1 estimated bill for cleanins UD contaminated mreb narmaide has > ar-

Yet these criticisms have been heard time and again. Many before me have written on the ills of the Superfund program and recommended specific revisions to the statutes.21 I wdl not fall into that rank of cntxs. Although these specific mea6 of reform are a vitally important part of the Superfund debateFz this article focuses on the administrative body that implements all of the require-menteimpased by a variety of federal, state, and local environmental l a w m n federal facilities appearing on the National Priorities List (NPL) 23

UP a Sumfund eite has been rrlaeed between $25 and

Federal fseilifiei mll bear the hn's share of the c1esn.u~cost% at Suoerfund s i t e

The a w r w coif af elesnln~

Presently, the possibility exists that both the RCRA and the CERCLA will govern hazardous waste cleanupsz4 at federal facility NPL sites Cangresênacted the RCRA to regulate the future gener. ation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous It created the CERCLA to confront those wastes disposed of prior to the RCRAs

Typically, the Enwonmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces the CERCLA, but delegates authority to enforce the RCRA to the states. However, when both statutes simultaneously apply to a federal facdity cleanup-the "RCRAiCERCLA interface"-the statutory overlap creates a regulatory overlap 2i Disputed erupt between the states, federal facilities, and the EPAover control of the cleanup. Aduplication of effort occurs because federal facilities must evaluate sites under both statutes. Conflicts arise over the appropnate clean-up standards and remedy.28 In short, "regulatory gndlock develope29

This gridlock arises out af the two statutes' failure to address important issues. Who controls the cleanup? Who sets the clean-up

See Melinda R Kssien The Inadequacm o/ Congresrional Atfrmpls to roglalnta Fedemf Facility Compliance ufh Enuironmmtaf Rrquiiemmb, 51 MD L REV 1475, 1475 n4 119941 MI Kaosen indieafee that 'Igli.en the magnitude and complexity of the contamination st these Ifedersil fscilitiee, B complete 'clean up' at these sites 18 not possible However, because the use of this phrase has become endemic in this field, if appear& throughout the article " I adopt her line of thinlung

. .

4ug 6.

1990, at 20, i4 isfating that "[rlhe tug of -81 bet&n enwrmmenfal eoncerni may grow more tense, pertly because the term cleanup LJ B m~snamer Wkle the w m f mtes muht e v e n t d I ~ he avilable for limited evriaee meis. ther will never he completely s& Even the mhtap's iueceee m m s can ieaie inghtening lrgaeie~

''j

28 Clllmafely, federal faclllty cleenvps experience B conromlfant...