- Funded at $11.97 billion through 1994.
SARA also required EPA to revise the HRS:
"... shall ensure, to the maximum extent feasible, that the hazard ranking system accurately assesses the relative degree of risk to human health and the environment posed by sites and facilities subject to review."
SARA also required many specific revisions to the HRS. These are detailed in the preamble to the HRS Rule. HRS Training Section 1: Regulatory Context of the HRS Section-by-Section Analysis of Rule Changes, 55 FR 51569 - 51581. Some examples of revisions include the following:
- SARA 105(a)(8)(A) requires EPA to take into account
the damage to natural resources that may affect human food chain and the
potential to release to ambient air. Both of these considerations are in the
- SARA 118 required EPA to give high priority to sites where contamination has resulted in closing of drinking water wells, or has contaminated a principal drinking water supply. Therefore, the revised HRS gives greater weight (higher scoring points) to actually contaminated targets.
A substantially revised HRS was promulgated in 1990 (the one currently used).
[Slide 3 of 8] [Home]