Followers of this blog will know that I am not a fan of CERCLA. It is not merely because CERCLA is so poorly drafted. It is also because it is a poor use of a finite pool of environmental protection dollars. Simply put, CERCLA does a very poor job in tying investigations and cleanup requirements to the actual risks posed by Superfund sites.
Because the risks posed by superfund sites pale in comparison to the risks posed by air pollution and broader water pollution issues regulated under the Clean Water Act, I have been and remain deeply skeptical of the Trump administration’s decision to make Superfund EPA’s core mission.
Given all this, and as much as it galls me to say so, I have to admit that this recent statement from EPA Administrator Zeldin resonated with me:
My goal is that if a dollar is spent, that the dollar is spent on directly remediating the environmental issue. I do not want to see a dollar spent to some group to tell us that we have an issue that needs to get dealt with.
I ask – rhetorically, in case it wasn’t obvious – whether there is a single Superfund lawyer out there who hasn’t dealt with a site in which the exposure pathway was well known, and the appropriate way to protect against that exposure pathway was also well known, but EPA nonetheless insisted on turning the remedial investigation into a Ph.D dissertation? The NCP already provides that:
The purpose of the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) is to assess site conditions and evaluate alternatives to the extent necessary to select a remedy. (Emphasis added.)
A clear directive from the EPA administrator that Superfund project managers should take this statement to heart would go a long way towards addressing the problem of endless investigations.
If this administration can reorient Superfund so that the RI/FS process is focused on identifying and addressing exposures that actually present risks, and addressing such exposures cost-effectively, Superfund would still be much less important that the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, but at least more of the money spent on Superfund sites would actually contribute to reduction of risks in the community.
