Encyclopedia of Environmental Science and Engineering, Volume I and II

364 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

contaminant levels for drinking water provided by public

water systems. It also governs underground injection of

wastewater and limits federal development programs in

areas designated as “sole source aquifers.” Special programs

are included for the protection of aquifer recharge areas and

areas contiguous to wellheads.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

RCRA (40 USC 6901 et seq. ) is the statute that governs

the management of hazardous waste in the United States.

RCRA’s approach to hazardous waste management consists

of 4 major elements:

• federal identification of hazardous wastes:


• a manifest system of tracing hazardous wastes from
  generator, to transporter, to treatment, storage, or
  disposal facility;


• federal minimum standards for hazardous waste
  treatment, storage, and disposal, enforced through
  a permit system; and


• state implementation of hazardous waste manage-
  ment programs at least equivalent to the federal
  program.

First enacted in 1976, RCRA was signifi cantly amended

in 1984. Under the 1984 amendments the land disposal of

hazardous waste, including deep well injection, must be

banned unless EPA determines that a particular method of

land disposal will be consistent with protecting human health

and the environment. A method of land disposal cannot be

acceptable unless a petitioner demonstrates that there will be

no migration from the land disposal unit for as long as the

waste remains hazardous. If a disposability determination is

not made within sixty-six months, land disposal of the haz-

ardous waste is automatically banned.

The 1984 RCRA amendments also prohibited the land-

fi lling of noncontainerized liquids, tightened performance

standards for existing landfi lls, and established a regulatory

program for underground storage tanks.

Occupational Safety and Health

Act (29 USC 651 et seq.)

This statute imposes a duty on employers to furnish each

employee with a place of employment that is free of rec-

ognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause illness,

injury or death. The Department of Labor can promulgate

safety and health standards, conduct inspections, issue cita-

tions, impose penalties, and require employers to maintain

records. Health standards may be expressed as “permissible

exposure limits” (PELs) which must be imposed where there

is a signifi cant risk to worker health and safety. PELs must

be technologically and economically feasible.

Consumer Product Safety Act (15 USC 2051 et seq.)

Congress, through this Act, created the Consumer Product

Safety Commission and authorized it to impose performance

standards or packaging and labeling requirements on con-

sumer products in order to prevent an “unreasonable risk

of injury.” This entails a benefi t-cost analysis before the

Commission can impose a restriction on a consumer product.

In an extreme case, a hazardous product may be banned

from commerce.

CLEANUP-RESPONSE STATUTES

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

CERCLA (42 USC 1901 et seq. ), also known as “Superfund,”

established an 8.5 billion dollar fund to fi nance cleanup

activities at currently operational and abandoned facilities.

The Act also contains spill notifi cation provisions covering

listed hazardous substances.

When a release has occurred, EPA can use fund monies

to clean up the site and then proceed against responsible

parties for reimbursement, or move against responsible

parties in the fi rst instance. CERCLA imposes strict “joint

and several” (recovery may be obtained from one or all)

liability against (1) current owners or operators of facilities,

(2) owners or operators at the time the hazardous substances

were released, and (3) generators and transporters of the haz-

ardous substances that were ultimately released by the facil-

ity. Only innocent purchasers who have made reasonable

investigations are insulated from cleanup liability. CERCLA

amendments enacted in 1986 have signifi cant bearing on how

quickly, and to what extent, superfund sites will be cleaned

up. Remedial investigation/feasibility studies for facilities on

the National Priority List must be commenced at the follow-

ing rate: 275 with in three years; and additional 175 within

four years; and an additional 200 within fi ve years; for a total

of 650 by 1991.

The amendments require EPA to select, to the maximum

extent practicable, remedial actions that utilize permanent

solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource

recovery technologies. A preference is established for reme-

dial actions that utilize treatment to permanently and signifi -

cantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous

substances. Offsite transport and disposal without treatment

is the least preferred option where practicable treatment

technologies are available. If the selected remedy does not

achieve the preference for treatment, EPA must publish expla-

nation. For on-site remedial actions, the amendments require

attainment of “legally applicable or relevant and appropri-

ate Federal and state standards, requirements, criteria, or

limitations” (ARARs), unless such requirements are waived.

Maximum contaminant level goals under the Safe Drinking

Water Act and water quality standards under the Clean Water

Act must be met where relevant and appropriate.

Congress’ failure to reauthorize CERCLA has caused a

depletion of Superfund so that State cleanup funds are now of

primary importance for site remediation. However, since 1990

CERCLA has been amended to provide various incentives for

remediation of urban (“Brownfi elds”) contaminated sites.

C005_010_r03.indd 364C005_010_r03.indd 364 11/18/2005 10:25:16 AM11/18/2005 10:25:16 AM