外文翻譯---美國環(huán)保署發(fā)表的第一份超級基金年報

1、<p>　　本科畢業(yè)設計（論文）</p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　EPA Publishes First Superfund Annual Report</p><p>　　In an effort to inform the publi

2、c about the progress of the Superfund program, EPA has issued the first-ever Superfund Annual Report. The report, which is entitled FY 2004 Superfund Annual Report, highlights the environmental and financial performance

3、of the Superfund program during fiscal year (FY) 2004. The report also includes a detailed history of Superfund, outlines components of the program, and describes trends that EPA has initiated to improve the program.<

4、/p><p>　　Superfund History</p><p>　　The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was passed by Congress in 1980 to address the dangers of abandoned or uncontrol

5、led hazardous waste sites. The legislation was enacted in response to a number of serious hazardous waste disasters that occurred in the 1970s, such as Love Canal (Niagara Falls, NY), Valley of the Drums (Kentucky), and

6、Times Beach (Missouri).</p><p>　　CERCLA gives EPA and other federal agencies the authority to respond to a release, or substantial threat of a release, of a hazardous substance into the environment. It also

7、covers releases, or potential releases, of any pollutant or contaminant that may endanger public health or the environment. </p><p>　　The law established a trust fund, called the Superfund, for EPA to use in

8、 cleaning up sites when responsible parties could not be found or were unable to pay for cleanup. The fund was financed primarily by a tax on crude oil and certain chemicals. CERCLA also allows the federal government to

9、recover its response costs from responsible parties or to compel them to clean up sites at their own expense. </p><p>　　In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). SARA

10、added several provisions to the original legislation.</p><p>　　Superfund Program Features</p><p>　　The Superfund program comprises several types of activities, including the following:</p>

11、<p>　　? Site assessment—EPA screens potential Superfund sites using three procedural steps:</p><p>　　—1) Preliminary assessment, which consists of the collection and review of readily available inform

12、ation;</p><p>　　—2) Site inspection, which is an onsite assessment; and</p><p>　　—3) Calculation of a score for the site using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS), which is a numerically-based scree

13、ning system that assesses the hazards a site poses to human health and the environment.</p><p>　　? National Priorities List (NPL)— Sites with HRS scores ≥28.5 may be listed on the NPL, EPA’s list of high pri

14、ority sites for action.</p><p>　　? Site response—In situations where immediate action is required, EPA may undertake short-term or emergency actions (i.e., removal actions). At sites where immediate response

15、 is not necessary, long-term cleanups (i.e., remedial actions) are taken to provide a more permanent solution. Remedial actions may take years to complete. After remedial actions are finished, long-term maintenance may b

16、e necessary to maintain the integrity of the response actions.</p><p>　　? Enforcement—CERCLA gives EPA the authority to 1) conduct cleanups and seek cost recovery from the responsible parties, 2) enter into

17、settlement agreements, or 3) issue a unilateral administrative order to force responsible parties to conduct a cleanup or pay for cleanup.</p><p>　　? Federal facilities cleanup—SARA added a provision to make

18、 CERCLA expressly applicable to federal facilities. Numerous federal facilities are listed on the NPL and many large cleanups are underway, mainly at U.S Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Energy facilities.<

19、;/p><p>　　? Community involvement and stakeholder participation—A major thrust of the Superfund process is to include community members and stakeholders in cleanup planning and implementation decisions.</p&g

20、t;<p>　　? Redevelopment and reuse—EPA’s Superfund Redevelopment Initiative offers communities assistance to identify reasonably anticipated future land uses for Superfund sites. </p><p>　　FY 2004 Acco

21、mplishments </p><p>　　Table 1 outlines EPA’s Superfund program accomplishments during FY 2004. The information is grouped into the following categories:</p><p>　　? Financial resources,</p>

22、<p>　　? Expenditures,</p><p>　　? Cost recovery,</p><p>　　? National Priorities List,</p><p>　　? Cleanup actions at Superfund sites,</p><p>　　? Removal actions, a

23、nd</p><p>　　? Federal facilities.</p><p>　　Trends Identified</p><p>　　In addition to providing information on the status of the Superfund program, the report outlines trends that EP

24、A has initiated to improve the program. These trends are outlined below.</p><p>　　Cost Management Measures</p><p>　　As the Superfund program has evolved, EPA has seen an increase in the number o

25、f complicated sites, site size, and cleanup length. This has put pressure on the Superfund budget. In FY 2004, EPA committed more than 52% of the Superfund budget to long-term, ongoing cleanup work at just nine sites. A

26、similar situation is expected in FY 2005.</p><p>　　To address the resulting budgetary shortfall, EPA has taken steps to make the program more cost efficient. These steps include the following actions:</p&

27、gt;<p>　　? EPA takes continuing steps to make sure that potentially responsible parties (PRPs) pay for, or conduct, cleanups. In FY 2004, EPA obtained $109 million from PRP settlements.</p><p>　　? His

28、torically, some funds remain attached to cleanup agreements with states and contracts with private companies for work no longer required. The agency makes efforts to deobligate prior year’s funds from these agreements an

29、d contracts. The recaptured funds are used for long-term construction, site investigation, remedy selection, emergency response, and other activities.</p><p>　　? The agency is working to increase the efficie

30、ncy and effectiveness of remedies by reviewing and improving high cost remedies and paying careful attention to design and operation. Specifically, EPA has:</p><p>　　—Created the Contaminated Sediments Techn

31、ical Advisory Group. This group of EPA experts monitors the progress at large, complex, or controversial contaminated sediment Superfund sites and provides advice to EPA regions in order to help control costs.</p>

32、<p>　　—Updated remedies based on changes in science, technology, or new information. For instance, in FY 2003, EPA updated 60 remedies, saving an estimated $85 million.</p><p>　　—Developed new cost est

33、imating tools for use during design.</p><p>　　—Reviewed and modified contaminated groundwater treatment systems.</p><p>　　? Finally, EPA is using new, more effective technologies for site manage

34、ment. For instance, the agency is exploring the use of the Triad Approach that involves 1) systematic project planning, 2) dynamic work plan strategies, and 3) real-time measurement technologies for site investigation. S

35、ince this approach uses more real-time sample analysis and decision making, it can potentially reduce costs and cleanup time.</p><p>　　PRP Settlements</p><p>　　EPA continues to actively pursue P

36、RP settlements to pay for Superfund cleanup and removal actions. For every case where EPA’s total past costs exceed $200,000, the agency attempts to either settle with the PRPs, file a claim against them, or formally doc

37、ument its reasons for waiving cost recovery before the statute of limitations expire. </p><p>　　The agency also seeks cash out settlements, which are cash payments in resolution of liability for past and fut

38、ure costs, that designate funds to a special, interest-bearing account. The number of settlements creating site specific special accounts has increased over the last five years. In FY 2004, 106 special accounts were crea

39、ted.</p><p>　　Private party cleanup commitments are also sought. In FY 2004, EPA negotiated $523 million in private party commitments for future response work, including cash outs, and $157 million in privat

40、e party commitments for EPA’s past costs. Private party commitments have increased steadily from FY 2001, when they totaled $20 billion, to $22.8 billion in FY 2004.</p><p>　　In Situ Remediation</p>&

41、lt;p>　　In order to efficiently target contaminants and decrease cleanup time, EPA has been selecting in situ remediation at more and more Superfund sites. In situ methods also reduce operation and maintenance costs, a

42、nd effectively treat contaminants that are hard to remediate (e.g., dense nonaqueous phase liquids, chlorinated solvents). The percentage of groundwater records of decision that specified in situ remediation increased st

43、eadily from FY 1986 through FY 2002.</p><p>　　Reducing Human Health Threats</p><p>　　In FY 2004, the Superfund program protected human health through response actions that reduced current, direc

44、t human exposures to contaminants. At the end of FY 2004, human exposures were under control at 83% of affected NPL sites (i.e., 1,242 of 1,493 sites with human health exposures). At these sites, protective controls are

45、in place to prevent any unacceptable human exposures under current land and groundwater use.</p><p>　　Outlook for FY 2005</p><p>　　According to EPA, the Superfund program faces a backlog of new

46、cleanup projects ready to begin construction. Meanwhile, there are several large and complex ongoing projects that require large amounts of resources. The projected FY 2005 needs will exceed appropriated funding levels.

47、Therefore, EPA must continue to rely on debilitations and carryover to fund new projects.</p><p>　　Due to the funding dilemma, EPA is stepping up its efforts to get PRPs to pay for site work. This includes e

48、ncouraging PRPs to conduct site activities earlier in the cleanup process (i.e., at the remedial investigation/ feasibility study stage). EPA is also working to strengthen financial assurance requirements for operating h

49、azardous waste sites (and PRPs doing work at NPL sites). This will help ensure that money is available in the future for site closure and maintenance. Furthermore, the agen</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b><

50、;/p><p>　　美國環(huán)保署發(fā)表的第一份超級基金年報</p><p>　　為了努力向市民告知超級基金計劃的進展情況，美國環(huán)保署發(fā)表了有史以來第一份超級基金年報。該報告的題目是2004超級基金年度報告，重點介紹了2004年度超級基金的環(huán)境和財政計劃。該報告還包括了超級基金的詳細歷史記錄和方案組成，并描述了美國環(huán)保署的計劃改善趨勢。</p><p><b>　　

51、一、超級基金的歷史</b></p><p>　　1980年經美國國會通過的《綜合環(huán)境反應賠償和責任法》，簡稱《環(huán)境法》，目的是為了處理遺棄物或不受控制的危險物的威脅。該法律的頒布減少了嚴重危害物的數量，例如20世紀70年代的尼亞加拉大瀑布，肯塔基州山谷和密蘇里州發(fā)生的嚴重危險物的侵害。</p><p>　　《環(huán)境法》賦予美國環(huán)保署和其他聯邦機構一個反對排放有害物質的權力，他包括

52、任何污染物的排放，和可能危機公眾健康的潛在污染物的排放。</p><p>　　法律設立了一項信托基金，稱為超級基金，用于無法找到環(huán)保責任方或責任方無法支付清理費用時使用的環(huán)?；?。該基金的資金來源主要是一些原油和化學品稅，環(huán)境法還允許政府從責任方收回環(huán)境成本，或利用一些手段迫使他們自費清理費用。</p><p>　　1986年，美國國會通過了超級基金的修正和重新授權，宗教局還增加了一些新的

53、規(guī)定到原有法例中。</p><p>　　二、超級基金的計劃特點</p><p>　　超級基金計劃包括了多種類型，主要有以下內容：</p><p>　?。ㄒ唬┈F場評估——美國環(huán)保署網站使用超級基金的三個步驟：</p><p>　　1、初步評估，是對收集的現成資料的審查；</p><p>　　2、現場評估，這是一個現場檢查

54、；</p><p>　　3、使用在風險排序系統(tǒng) (HRS)，這是一個基于數值的篩選系統(tǒng)，評估危險站點的得分，以計算對人類健康和環(huán)境的影響。</p><p>　　國家優(yōu)先項目清單——危險站點的得分大于28.5的網站可能會被列出，環(huán)保署根據站點列表采取行動。</p><p>　　場地響應——在那些需要立即采取行動的情況下，美國環(huán)保署可能采取短期或緊急行動（即，遣返行動）

55、。在站點，立即反應是沒有必要的，長期的清理（即補救措施）是為提供更持久的解決辦法。補救行動可能需要幾年時間才能完成。完成補救行動后，長期維護可以維持響應行動的完整性。</p><p>　?。ǘ﹫?zhí)法——環(huán)境法賦予環(huán)保署的權利：1）進行清理，并要求責任方負擔清理成本；2）簽訂和解協(xié)議；3）發(fā)出單方面的行政命令，強制責任方進行清理或支付清理費用。</p><p>　　（三）聯邦設施清理——宗教

56、局增加了明確規(guī)定，使環(huán)境法適用于聯邦設施。許多聯邦機構都在清理不良貸款和大清理，主要是美國國防部和美國能源設施不。</p><p>　?。ㄋ模┥鐓^(qū)參與和利益相關者的參與——設立超級基金的主要目的是在規(guī)劃和實施決策清理社區(qū)成員和利益相關者。</p><p>　?。ㄎ澹┲亟ê驮倮谩h(huán)保署的超級基金為社區(qū)重建計劃提供援助，以確定合理預期的超級基金場址。</p><p>

57、;　　三、2004年度的主要成就</p><p>　　在此列出了2004年度美國環(huán)保署的超級基金計劃的成就。該成就主要分為以下幾類：</p><p><b>　　1、財政資源；</b></p><p><b>　　2、支出；</b></p><p><b>　　3、收回成本；</b&

58、gt;</p><p>　　4、國家優(yōu)先項目清單；</p><p>　　5、超級基金場址的清理行動；</p><p><b>　　6、遣返行動；</b></p><p><b>　　7、聯邦設施。</b></p><p><b>　　四、確定的趨勢</b>

59、;</p><p>　　除了提供關于超級基金計劃的狀態(tài)信息，該報告還概述了美國環(huán)保署發(fā)起的改善方案趨勢。這些趨勢概述如下：</p><p><b>　　（一）成本管理措施</b></p><p>　　由于超級基金計劃的不斷演變，美國環(huán)保署在網站的大小，長度的增加和清理方面出現增長，這對超級基金預算施加了壓力。在2004財政年度，美國環(huán)保局承諾了

60、九個場址超過52％的超級基金預算，致力于長期的清理工作。類似的情況，預計在2005財政年度。</p><p>　　為了解決由此產生的預算短缺，美國環(huán)保署已采取措施，使方案更具成本效益。這些措施包括了以下行動：</p><p>　　1、美國環(huán)保署繼續(xù)采取措施，確保潛在責任方進行清理或支付清理費用。2004年度，美國環(huán)保署索取了覆檢委員會1.09億美元。</p><p>

61、;　　2、由歷史來看，一些基金保持連續(xù)的狀態(tài)，并不再需要與私營公司簽訂清理協(xié)議。該機構作出努力，使私營公司前一年就繳納協(xié)議和合同的資金。收取的資金主要用于長期建設，實地調查，緊急應變以及其他活動。</p><p>　　3、該機構正致力于增加審查和補救措施大的成本，并密切注意設計運行效率和補救措施效力，具體來說，美國環(huán)保署有：1）創(chuàng)建了污染底泥技術咨詢小組。這個環(huán)保專家小組主要是監(jiān)測大型的、復雜的或有爭議的超級基金

62、場址的污染成績無的清理，并向環(huán)保署提供咨詢意見，幫助控制成本。2）基于科學、技術和信息的變化或更新的補救措施，例如2003年度，美國環(huán)保署更新了60%的補救措施，大約節(jié)省了8500萬美元。3）在設計過程中開發(fā)新的成本估算工具。4）檢修受污染的地下水處理系統(tǒng)。</p><p>　　4、最后，環(huán)保署正在使用新的，更有效的現場管理技術。該機構正在探討的方法涉及到三合會調查方法的使用，1）系統(tǒng)的項目規(guī)劃；2）動態(tài)工作計劃

63、策略；3）現場調查的實時測量技術。由于這種方法使用了更多的實時采樣分析和決策，它可以潛在地降低成本和清理時間。</p><p>　　（二）潛在責任方的清理責任</p><p>　　環(huán)保署繼續(xù)積極推進潛在責任方的清理和遣返行動。在過去，環(huán)保署每一次的總費用超過20萬美元?，F在，環(huán)保署試圖與潛在責任方進行結算，在正式文件到期前進行索賠。</p><p>　　環(huán)保署還要求

64、對過去和未來的決議費用使用現款結算，劃入一個特殊的計息賬戶，在過去五年，專用賬戶的數目在不斷增加。在2004年，共創(chuàng)建了106個專用賬戶。</p><p>　　此外，還尋求私人當事方的清理承諾。在2004年度，美國環(huán)保署通過談判，共獲得523萬美元的私人資金，以支持環(huán)保清理工作，包括逾157萬美元的現金。私人責任人承諾資金從2001年度的總額200億美元，到2004年度達228億美元的增加。</p>

65、<p><b>　?。ㄈ┈F場修復</b></p><p>　　為了有效地減少污染物和清理時間，環(huán)保署在現場修復中中選擇越來越多的超級基金站點，以降低運營成本和維護費用，有效清理污染物。地下水的現場修復比例從1986年到2002年穩(wěn)步上升。</p><p>　?。ㄋ模p少對人類健康的威脅</p><p>　　在2004財政年度中，通

66、過超級基金計劃的保障響應行動，減少了污染物對人類健康的威脅，避免人類直接接觸到污染物。截至2004年度結束時，在防護控制程序的保護下，防止83%以上的人類暴露在現行的土地和地下水的污染下。</p><p>　　五、對2005年度的展望</p><p>　　美國環(huán)保局的超級基金計劃的一系列新的凈化工程開始施工，與此同時，有幾個龐大而復雜并且需要大量資源的項目也在同步進行。由于2005年的預計