ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY: The USA Superfund cleanup program Table of Contents 1. Summary 2 2. Overview of Cleanup operations and Capabilities 4 3. Statutory Authorities 4 4. Hazardous Substances Sites 5 5. Program Organization 6 6. Cleanup Policies 6 7. Public Participation 7 8. Funds 7 9. Enforcement 8 10. Conclusion 8 11. References 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY: The USA Superfund cleanup program 1. Summary The states in the US executed a law known as the Superfund Act that supported the cleaning up of the environment with the help of local agencies. Since these states are not part of the NPL sites they are not part of the cleanup fund that is in the federal Superfund program. They are financed by the state of volunteers. The states make it possible for the restoration of risky sites for advancement and application in assuring a safe place for animals and plants. The sites are maintained after the program is done. This paper will assess the practices that are used in the Superfund program; finances, policies, authorities involves and organization among others. Introduction From the 1980s, a number of states have come with laws that manage the cleanup of dangerous land and coming up with finance to cater for the projects. These states have cleaned up land and have supervised this process for long. The Superfund cleanup program is a program that is targeted at cleaning up contaminated land and water from dangerous substances. This program started as a law in New Jersey that acquired support of cleaning of both the federal and state centers which at present focus their efforts in handling several sites in focus by the US Environmental Protection Agency’s priority list (NPL). This list has details of the threats to the environment which are of top consideration for future resolution. According to the NPL, varied states have varied duties to clean up their environment. However, a number of sites are not in line with the needs of the NPL (Church, 1993). The federal government may however play a role in handling these issues of contaminated sites. The desire to include the government in all of the sites may rely on the desire and ability of the states to come up with programs that work, acquisition of necessary an sufficient resources for the clean ups, motivate other sectors to get involved in the clean ups and supervise the process. The Superfund program is comprised of states with the help of the EPA which is charged with coming up with policies that are connected to the objective of the Superfund Act; SARA (Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act) (Environment Law, 2002). It similarly acquires and assesses data on these states’ aptitude to offer or manage cleanups of the contaminated sites. The Environment Law Institute Center in the states is used to assist them and the federal body to elevate state environment initiatives and advance improved public cohesion in the state and the federal body. This paper will assess the clean programs for the US in terms of cleanup program and supervisory aptitude, sites cleaned, workforce, fiancés, standards and public involvement (EPA, 2002). 2. Overview of Cleanup operations and Capabilities The state cleanup programs have developed over time and have noticed growth in the efficiency of the Superfund program in terms of efficiency. However, the program has been faced by limitation of staff and finances. The visible developments involve the cleanups in 1989 where most of the states were involved in the initiative in non-NPL sites by 1997 about all of the, were cleaned. About 29,000 cleanups have been undertaken this smaller than the 1998 one which recorded 41,000 (Church, 1993). Moreover, there were over 7,000 voluntary cleanups that took place and 2,200 were successfully finished (Environment Law, 2002). According to mandatory cleanups that were done in 1997, there was a decline in the number, which states that most states opted to go for voluntary cleanups though less than the general cleanups annually. By 1989 only two states had formed a fund that financed the cleanups in the absence of parties responsible for the operation. At the end of the 1989 financial year, a section of the states that acquired finances were not enough to finances the project. The state cleanup have developed and shown maturity in the level of cleaning needed. In 80 some of them were not well versed with the right level needed. This called for the use of a site-to-site basis as guidance for the needed level. This level has developed with time; by 1997 44 states came up standards that would guide the cleanup process. Generally a good number of states have improved in coming up with expectable choices for this vital operation. 3. Statutory Authorities A number of states came up with statutes to handle the cleaning of dangerous substances, the laws comprise; cleanup finances, voluntary programs, and stewardship operations. From 1998, states took part in the coming up with legislation that form or change brownfields and voluntary initiatives. Twelve states come up with new brownfields policies (United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1991). Moreover, states like Indiana altered its tax credit program. Other six states came up with voluntary cleanup policies since 1997. Arizona law changed its voluntary program as Alabama and Nevada approved voluntary program cleanup program bent on the Hazard Materials Provision. ELI looked into new sites where 26 of them were ratified to have long-term control in regard to the policies in place. 4. Hazardous Substances Sites The programs have a duty over several sites. As 1200 are in the NPL radar, several others are not hence the states are charged over them. ELI has come three sections for reporting the size of non-NPL sites; known and suspected sites, sites desiring attention and states on inventory. The biggest risk-bound sites are the known ad suspected sites that show the biggest sites. They have not gone through evaluation (U.S. EPA, 2004). This section is vital in knowing the size of these sites and marking limits to ways of handling the dangerous sites. By 2000, there were over 63,000 known and suspected sites. There has however been a drop in these sites due to the cleanups to 4,600. There are also sites that need urgent attention. These sites need intense focus and are mostly used to show the level of work for every state program and are vital in strategizing the state program. There have been 23,000 in 2000. There have however been efforts in cleaning up these areas; New Jersey, Kansas, Michigan and Wisconsin among others (U.S. EPA, 2004). The last list is the inventory list seen in 40 states that require keen focus, for instance Florida with 46 sites on the register but 2460 that require focus. The cleanup operation in the non-NPL sites by 2000 were over 4500 adding to 29,000 from 41,000 in 1997. This drop has been due to re-categorization of the states. 5. Program Organization The dangerous substances are managed within a state department that has the main duty for environmental issues. The organization program varies from state to state and hence hard to sum up. In the state, the department that undertakes the state’s waste initiative normally managed the risky materials programs. Certain states have a combined cleanup programs. In terms of staffing, the 47 states have 3,344 staff in the programs (EPA, 2002). As per states, the numbers are different; 537 in New Jersey and 2 in South Dakota. The numbers have dropped when compared to 1998 which were 3474. This is due to the information offered in the voluntary programs. In legal aspect, 46 states have 178 attorneys that offer them with legal backing. This is however a decline of 28 from 1998. It is 44 states have been known to have details of their source of funding for the cleanup programs employees and management costs. Federal grants comprise of the Environmental Protection Agency vital Superfund program grant. Other sources of funding include reimbursement from certain players in the program. Virginia finances its programs through federal grants. 6. Cleanup Policies The cleanup policies that are applied are meant to meet the intended objectives so as to know the level of the setting and the health threats decline to be acquired through viable methods. Initially there were no cleanup standards and the future was not taking into consideration. The standards have made it possible for most states to have effective cleaning levels. When compared to 1997, a number of states have not changed since then in terms of the state and voluntary cleanup. Other states like were Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, and Utah among others for the VCP programs (EPA, 2002). The method used is risk evaluation, background levels, quality of water, contamination levels, ground tests, chemical levels and land applications. Change has however been noticed in the standards from one state to another. In 1997, just seven stated applied the tiered method with 23 in 2001. This method is composed of four options which limit the choices in terms of cost and operations done. A good example is the one in Oklahoma that uses a three tier model. Generally the data issued by states on the cleanup policies show the level of progress using the tier systems. 7. Public Participation Several states need public involvement in matters regarding state hazard material cleanups and voluntary programs. Their involvement is needed by law. The level public involvement is connected to the interest of the same public. When compared to 1997, the number of public involvement has gone up from 41 states to 47 states (CRS Report, 2006). This high number is due to the application of new policy; Illinois and Maine are some examples. On the other hand 25 states have regulatory policies for public involvement. For this to take place, the states develop public participation plans that strategies are done for the cleanup program. 8. Funds States are supposed to come up with operations that will finance the cleanup operations. This is a vital element for the cleanup programs. A fund that is different from the operating money of the environment agency makes it possible for the agency to avoid interruptions. A fund makes it possible for the state to assess, plan, model and undertake reactions at the places where they are needed. A fund makes it possible for the states to manage the speed of the cleanups. A state fund is vital for the enforcement program. The size of money needed relies on the size of the site and forms of expense required. States like Puerto Rico have funds or offer methods for the state body to finance for the varied cleanups that take place at the non-NPL locations. 9. Enforcement The states threat materials cleanup laws have enforcement that is different from one state to another. On the other hand, states have enforcement laws that manage their operations in this program laws on solid waste, and ground-waters among others (CRS Report, 2006). A good example is Nebraska enforcement law that comprises of ground-water law and is used on contamination of the waters found below the ground. 10. Conclusion The superfund program is a program that manages the cleanup processes in varied states in the US. The program is composed of several practices that are applied so as to ensure that is effective in all the states. The program is managed by an environment agency that ensures that the environment is kept clean all the time from dangerous material that may harm man, animals and plants. The program has developed to be successful over time and is expected to in the future to create a clean United States of America. 11. References Church, T (1993). Cleaning up the mess: implementation strategies in Superfund. Washington: Brookings Institution Press. CRS Report (2006). Superfund: Overview and Selected Issues. Retrieved from: Environment Law (2002). An analysis of state Superfund programs. Retrieved from: EPA (2002). The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response: State and Tribal Role in Superfund. Retrieved from: United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (1991). The Superfund program: ten years of progress, Volume 70, Issue 9. Washington: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. EPA (2004). Office of Inspector General, Congressional Request on Funding Needs for Non-Federal Superfund Sites, Report 2004-P-00001, pp. 4, 8-9.