Arguably, CERCLA has not been as effective in preventing future hazardous waste disposal sites. CERCLA was enacted as a reactive measure to known and unknown hazardous waste disposal sites. As the EPA, federal and local governments move forward amendments need to be made to transform the EPA and CERCLA into a proactive agency and policy. This can be achieved by maintaining oversight on known hazardous waste sites, while regulating and preventing the occurrence of new hazardous waste sites. This approach can be facilitated in several different ways.
First would be too reinstate the Superfund tax as a financial preventative measure to specific “risky” industries. When CERCLA was enacted, remedial costs were collected through taxation of chemical …show more content…
States that satisfy the EPA terms and conditions may be reimbursed for their costs at specific sites on the NPL. Furthermore, states are encouraged to enter into a memoranda agreement that establishes the respective roles and coordination between the EPA and the state during the remedial process.
By putting remediation and cleanup programs back in the hands of individual states, the back log of CERCLA remedial and cleanup costs diminish. In many cases CERCLA is only providing a baseline standard where local governments are able to build on the standard and be more restrictive in legislation (Dybdahl, David). Moreover, potentially hidden hazardous waste sites that are being shunned by owners and operators in fear of being saddled with cleanup costs, would be exposed.
Voluntary state cleanup programs would also allow for greater incentives. These incentives would include relief from liability for future cleanup; variable (versus uniform) cleanup standards that link the level of required cleanup to the future use of the site; flexible enforcement of environmental regulations; expedited permitting; and financial support for remediation through mechanisms such as grants, loans, subsidies, and tax incentives (U.S. EPA 2005). By 2004, roughly 20,000 contaminated sites had participated in, or were participating in, state voluntary cleanup …show more content…
Currently, there is disagreement on what is to be accomplished at remediation sites: “is the goal to reduce exposure to current threats, to minimize the likelihood of future risk, to curtail the spread of contamination, or is it to restore sites and natural resources to an uncontaminated state—to "clean them up?" (Probst, Katherine). With a program that has been in force for over thirty years, there is little data or literature on the success of CERCLA remediation’s and risk reduction in current and future sites.
To reduce the reoccurrence of future hazardous site occurrence CERCLA should require risky operations and potentially risk operations to carry environmental insurance. It is a common misconception that environmental insurance and losses are related to only a few industries. However, both are far reaching across several industry lines. The environmental insurance market operates by assessing premiums in relation to known and perceived risks. When losses occur liability and remedial costs are handling immediately through
First would be too reinstate the Superfund tax as a financial preventative measure to specific “risky” industries. When CERCLA was enacted, remedial costs were collected through taxation of chemical …show more content…
States that satisfy the EPA terms and conditions may be reimbursed for their costs at specific sites on the NPL. Furthermore, states are encouraged to enter into a memoranda agreement that establishes the respective roles and coordination between the EPA and the state during the remedial process.
By putting remediation and cleanup programs back in the hands of individual states, the back log of CERCLA remedial and cleanup costs diminish. In many cases CERCLA is only providing a baseline standard where local governments are able to build on the standard and be more restrictive in legislation (Dybdahl, David). Moreover, potentially hidden hazardous waste sites that are being shunned by owners and operators in fear of being saddled with cleanup costs, would be exposed.
Voluntary state cleanup programs would also allow for greater incentives. These incentives would include relief from liability for future cleanup; variable (versus uniform) cleanup standards that link the level of required cleanup to the future use of the site; flexible enforcement of environmental regulations; expedited permitting; and financial support for remediation through mechanisms such as grants, loans, subsidies, and tax incentives (U.S. EPA 2005). By 2004, roughly 20,000 contaminated sites had participated in, or were participating in, state voluntary cleanup …show more content…
Currently, there is disagreement on what is to be accomplished at remediation sites: “is the goal to reduce exposure to current threats, to minimize the likelihood of future risk, to curtail the spread of contamination, or is it to restore sites and natural resources to an uncontaminated state—to "clean them up?" (Probst, Katherine). With a program that has been in force for over thirty years, there is little data or literature on the success of CERCLA remediation’s and risk reduction in current and future sites.
To reduce the reoccurrence of future hazardous site occurrence CERCLA should require risky operations and potentially risk operations to carry environmental insurance. It is a common misconception that environmental insurance and losses are related to only a few industries. However, both are far reaching across several industry lines. The environmental insurance market operates by assessing premiums in relation to known and perceived risks. When losses occur liability and remedial costs are handling immediately through