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