| OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics 2006 The Future of the Superfund: Where is it Headed and How Will it Get There? Bryon Prince This paper is a critical analysis of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program, turned 25 last year. This paper will provide a historical overview of the program's development in managing environmental contamination. It will also discuss the more recent problems the program finds itself addressing. The corporate taxes that helped finance the Superfund Trust Fund expired in 1995. Now the question is: does the cleanup program still need $1.4 billion a year, or is it time to start cutting appropriations as the list of sites are completed? This paper will challenge the belief that current funding levels are sufficient to complete the cleanup of the remaining contaminated sites that exist throughout the nation. Specifically, five assumptions of those who argue for fewer appropriations will be thoroughly examined. Introduction After twenty-five years of cleaning up old mines, chemical plants, landfills, rivers and other areas around the country contaminated by toxic waste, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), still has plenty rnore work to do. Existing contamination levels ensure that ^e costs associated with the agency's cleanup obligations will ^ot decline before 2010 at the very earliest, and then by only a small amount (Stevens, 2004). Even though the EPA has successfully cleaned up over 1,400 contaminated sites under the ubiquitous federal "Superfund" law, new sites continue to be discovered that are more expensive and extensive than eyer. Due to the fact that the Superfund Trust Fund is empty jtfter the industrial tax expired in 1995, the central question has become whether the cleanup program still needs appropriations of $1.4 billion a year, and if so, where is future fund-lrig going to come from (Stevens, 2004)? Is the Superfund Pr°gram "ramping down" after two decades of toxic waste c*eanup? This essay will contend that current funding levels are sufficient to meet the tasks assigned to the Superfund. specifically, five assumptions of those who argue for fewer appropriations will be thoroughly examined. Love Canal Initiates a National Debate iri 1976 President Jimmy Carter declared Love Canal, locat- e<J in New York, in a state of emergency. The President's action provided federal funds to relocate a large portion of the P°Pulation from the Niagara Falls community, which was uilt on top of a former chemical landfill. In the 1940s and 50s this landfill was the repository for an enormous amount of chemical waste. Over 21,000 tons of waste was dumped into the landfill during a ten year period (EPA, 2004). The landfill was completely covered up by 1953. In the 1960s and into the 1970s, residents of the Love Canal area reported odors and incidents of chemical residue in their basements and lawns. More than twenty years after the chemical landfill was covered, studies showed that chemicals had seeped up through the water table, contaminating surrounding land, sewers, creeks, and the Niagara River. This evidence, along with unusually high reported cases of miscarriages, birth defects, respiratory ailments, and cancer rates were recorded in the area. For example, the Homeowners Association found that 56% of the children born in the Love Canal area from 1974-1978 had a birth defect. State investigations found high levels of chemical contamination in the air and soil in the immediate area around the Love Canal landfill (EPA, 2004). In declaring the Love Canal area a state of emergency, the President provided federal funds to permanently relocate 250 families. Later in 1979 another 300 families in the surrounding area were relocated because of evidence showing the same health problems from chemical exposure (EPA, 2004). Love Canal sparked a serious national concern for hazardous waste contamination. What the nation learned was that Love Canal was not an isolated incident. That same year of 1979, the EPA concluded that there were thousands more inactive and uncontrolled waste and chemical spill sites in the U.S. that could pose the same health threats as Love Canal (EPA). As Senator John Heinz (R-Pennsylvania) stated: People at Love Canal were driven from their homes. In Pittston, PA., people lived in fear of breathing cyanide gas. In Youngsville, P.A., PCB contaminants have infiltrated the soil about 100 yards from the town's water supply. There are 43 |
