The Hazardous Waste Superfund is a special, billion-dollar program run by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responsible for cleaning up sites polluted with toxic and other dangerous materials. The Superfund was first established in the early 1980s, following a highly publicized story of hazardous waste buried beneath the community of Love Canal in New York. Because its members were outraged by the actions of a chemical company that left behind tons of toxins for children to play in and homeowners to live atop, Congress created the Superfund to locate and clean up deadly sites across the United States. Today, there are 1,302 sites on the EPA priority list that need to be dealt with, including the nation’s most daunting clean-up operation at the former nuclear weapons facility near Hanford, Washington. The Superfund program received $582 million as part of the Obama administration’s stimulus package. According to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, 50 Superfund sites in 28 states will gain the benefits of that money. Half these sites were not being cleaned up, or were experiencing delays, because the EPA was running out of money. In addition, Obama proposed restoration of a tax that expired in 1995, which would provide much-needed revenue for the Superfund budget.
The Superfund was born in the wake of the Love Canal tragedy that surfaced in the 1970s. Love Canal was a neighborhood in La Salle, New York, near Niagara Falls. In the 1890s, William T. Love sought to build a planned industrial community known as Model City in the area. A canal was constructed to carry water from the Niagara River to a hydroelectric plant that would provide power for Love’s community. The power plant and the community never came to be, but the canal was unearthed, and sat unused until 1942 when the Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation purchased the site.
Between 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical disposed of approximately 22,000 tons of mixed chemical wastes into the Love Canal. Shortly after Hooker ceased use of the site, the canal was sealed over and the land was sold to the Niagara Falls School Board for $1. In 1955, the 99th Street Elementary School was constructed on the Love Canal property and opened its doors to students. Subsequent development of the area would see hundreds of families take up residence in the suburban, blue-collar neighborhood of the Love Canal.
Beginning the late 1950s, homeowners began noticing strange things with their property, such as black sludge seeping through the walls of basements. Trees and shrubs died. Noxious chemical smells hung over the neighborhood. Schoolchildren developed strange rashes and vague, unexplained allergies. Babies were born with multiple birth defects.
The Niagara Gazette began reporting in October 1976 about chemicals seeping into basements in the Love Canal neighborhood, with stories of harm to humans, pets, and plant life. Chemical analyses showed 15 organic chemicals, including three toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons, were present. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state and county health departments began to take notice, testing the neighborhood’s soil, water and air, as well as blood samples from residents. In August 1978, the state health commissioner declared a state of emergency for Love Canal, closing the school and ordering an evacuation of pregnant women and children under two years of age.
Shortly thereafter it was learned about Hooker’s burying of toxic waste in the clay-lined canal, which proved more porous than company officials had thought it would be. Congressman Al Gore (D-Tennessee) charged in 1979 that the tragedy had been avoidable. He publicized a 1958 internal Hooker Chemical memo, describing children who had been burned by materials at the Love Canal waste site. Lawsuits were filed in 1979 against Hooker, and a federal judge eventually found the company negligent but not reckless. Hooker’s parent company, Occidental Petroleum, settled with the EPA for $129 million.
The government ordered the widespread evacuation of Love Canal, as officials bought condemned homes and tore them down. Hundreds of families were relocated. News stories ran throughout the country about the disaster, prompting Congress to do something to handle the Love Canal cleanup and others like it. In 1980 the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress and signed by President Jimmy Carter just before leaving office.
CERCLA created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and used broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that endanger public health or the environment. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected and put into a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA also established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites and liability for persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites.
Both short-term and long-term response actions were created under the Superfund program. Long-term cleanup projects were placed on the EPA’s National Priorities List, which quickly grew in the 1980s as dozens of toxic waste sites were discovered around the country. As the Cold War came to a close, the federal government began shutting down some of its nuclear weapons facilities, adding to the volume of hazardous waste sites in need of remediation. In 1989, the Hanford plutonium plant was closed, beginning what experts labeled the largest environmental cleanup project in the world for the Superfund program.
Located in southeastern Washington State near the Columbia River, Hanford is a 586-square-mile site created in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/cleanup.nsf/9f3c21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/2f133ac95a7d2684882564ff0078b367/$FILE/Pkg7060.jpg A total of nine nuclear reactors were eventually constructed at Hanford, resulting in more than 43 million cubic yards of radioactive waste and over 130 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris. Approximately 475 billion gallons of contaminated water was discharged to the soil. Some of the contaminants have made it to groundwater sources under the site, creating large contaminant plumes. EPA officials estimate it will be decades before the cleanup at Hanford is complete.
In March 2004, EPA officials declared that Love Canal was clean enough to be taken off the National Priorities List, after 21 years and $400 million of work. While new buildings went up nearby in the neighborhood, called Black Creek Village, “volatile” chemical contamination related to Love Canal was found in early 2011 in the neighborhood of La Salle, triggering a new investigation.
A report released in 2004 entitled “Cleaning Up the Nation’s Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends” (pdf) gave an overview of what was expected for the EPA and Superfund over the next 30 years. More than 350,000 contaminated sites are expected to need cleanup, which will require more than $250 billion. Smaller sites, such as underground storage tanks and hazardous waste properties will require greater attention than they have previously been given.
The Obama Recovery Act has allocated funding for 11 new sites. As of March 15, 2012, there were 1,302 sites on the National Priority List, along with 359 sites that have been delisted, and 62 new sites that have been proposed.
In his FY 2013 budget, President Barack Obama has called for the reinstatement of Superfund taxes, including Superfund excise taxes and environment income tax of, conditionally, 0.12% of corporate income.
Superfund 30th Anniversary Report (EPA)
Love Canal History (EPA) (pdf)
The Tragedy of the Love Canal (by Marisa Brook, DamnInteresting.com))
Love Canal: The Truth Seeps Out (by Eric Zuesse, Reason Magazine)
Love Canal and the Poisoning of America (by Michael Brown, Atlantic Monthly)
National Priorities List (NPL) (EPA)
Contamination related to Love Canal found in LaSalle (by Nick Mattera and Rick Pfeiffer, Niagara Gazette)
The Superfund is a special program managed by the EPA that finances and oversees cleanup of hazardous waste sites across the country. Locations of Superfund sites are published on the National Priorities List (NPL).
The Superfund process begins with discovery of hazardous waste; that information is then communicated to the EPA to warn of possible dangers to human health and the environment. Sites are often discovered by various parties, including citizens, state agencies, and EPA regional offices. Sites are then entered into the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), a computerized inventory of potential hazardous substance release sites managed by the EPA. Federal environmental officials evaluate the potential for a release of hazardous substances from the site.
The Superfund enforcement program involves locating the companies or people responsible for contamination at a site and negotiating with them to perform the clean up or pay for the work done by another party. If a responsible party does not agree to do the cleanup, EPA works with the Department of Justice to pursue legal action against the company or individual.
The Superfund is managed by several offices within EPA. The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) oversees the entire program. Within OSWER is the Office of Emergency Management, which handles short-term clean-up projects. Two other OSWER offices are the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation and the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office, which take the lead for managing long-term Superfund projects, including those involving federal government facilities.
Each year the Superfund program publishes a list of accomplishments and performance measures regarding ongoing cleanup projects.
In addition to getting compliance from companies and contracting with businesses to perform remediation work, Superfund’s work involves help from state environmental agencies and participation by local communities. Once projects are deemed completed by the Superfund, the program continues to perform follow up work that involves reuse of former hazardous waste sites.
From the Superfund Web Site:
Accomplishments, Benefits and Performance Measures
Contaminated Media, Human Health, and Environmental Effects
According to USAspending.gov the Environmental Protection Agency spent $305,746,985 on 2,415 contractor transactions for work involving Superfund cleanup sites from 20020-2011.
Contracts were awarded for architect and engineering services ($61.6 million), construction of structures and facilities ($39.4 million), and A&E management engineering services ($33.4 million), among others.
The top five Superfund contracts for FY 2011 were awarded to:
1. Computer Sciences Corporation $10,064,315
2. Environmental Restoration LLC $9,940,347
3. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. $3,270,000
4. SRA International Inc. $3,201,807
5. Lockheed Martin Corporation $2,869,992
According to the FY 2013 EPA Budget (pdf), the following is the planned administrative distribution of funds from the 2013 budget:
Superfund Programs $1,142,342
Science and Technology $23,225
Inspector General $10,864
Total Obligation $1,176,431
Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010 (pdf)
Interagency Agreements Between the EPA and Department of Defense Needed
The United States Government Accountability Office found, in a July 2010 report, that the EPA and Department of Defense (DoD) have used different terms and standards to report cleanup progress, making it unclear exactly how much work has been done at the Fort Meade Army Base, and Tyndall and McGuire Air Force Bases. The EPA has said that all three sites are in early cleanup phases, while the DoD is saying they are further along. A main reason for this discrepancy is that the DoD uses smaller increments to report cleanup progress. The DoD also didn’t receive the EPA’s approval for cleaning up certain areas, so the EPA does not recognize the work being done there. Furthermore, because the DoD has failed to enter interagency agreements (IAGs) for some work, cleanup has become delayed in areas.
Interagency Agreements and Improved Project Management Needed to Acheive Cleanup Progress at Key Defense Installations (United States Government Accountability Office) (pdf)
EPA’s Needs Expected to Exceed Funding
In May 2010, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a Superfund report that found that the EPA had underestimated the cost to clean up current sites, and that more sites are expected to be added to the National Priorities list. More than 60% of the sites on that list have more than half of their work left to be done, despite the fact that over $4.2 billion had been spent on them by the end of fiscal year 2009. Despite this, the EPA stated that some sites have not received sufficient funding. While the EPA has currently allocated $220-$267 million for each year from 2010 to 2014, a 2010 GAO report states that costs will be between $335-$681 million a year. Estimated costs also do not include sites in the early cleanup phase, or sites for which a responsible party is currently funding cleanup, but may not be able to fund in the future.
EPA's Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites Exceed Current Funding Levels, and More
Sites Are Expected to Be Added to the National Priorities List (United States Government Accountability Office) (pdf)
Locals Reject Superfund Designation
In 2009, controversy was raised over the designation of Brooklyn’s Gowanus Canal as a federal Superfund site. EPA testing found high levels of cancer-causing PCBs and metal arsenic in the water. Designation as a Superfund site permits government money to clean up the water. Gowanus is a popular fishing spot for locals. Developers, such as Toll Brothers, opposed the measure claiming it would drive people away from the area, stigmatize the region, and make it difficult to sell property. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg joined in the opposition, citing similar claims of economic detriment if Gowanus were to become a Superfund site. Bloomberg allotted $150 million to a project that would presumably improve water quality and avoid EPA intervention, including an upgrade to the canal’s wastewater pumping station, in addition to an upgrade on the existing flushing system. New York officials said cleanup was expected to be completed in 9½ years under the new plan, which is faster than what the EPA suggested. The EPA, however, was concerned with the city’s plan, which it said had too many overlapping areas and didn’t allocate funds properly. On March 4, 2010, the EPA did place the Gowanus Canal on its Superfund National Priorities List.
The EPA has sent letters to more than 20 companies stating that they may be responsible for cleanup payments because of previous involvement with the canal. These companies include: Amerada Hess Corporation, Bayside Fuel Oil Depot Corp., Rapid American Corp., Cibro Petroleum Products, Inc., Beazer East, Brink’s, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, the U.S. Navy, Kraft Foods, Citigroup, BP, and ExxonMobil.
The Gowanus Canal cleanup effort has brought an oxygenation system to the canal to replace its flushing tunnel. The purpose of the system is to maintain oxygen levels in the water, which will help it sustain life. After the cleanup, the canal is expected to meet recreational boating and fishing standards, which has excited many community members and nearby residents. EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck has said the cleanup is expected to take 10 to 12 years.
The EPA completed an investigation of the site in early 2011 that identified the sources of numerous contaminants and canal characteristics that will help shape the forthcoming cleanup effort.
$150 Million Price Tag Put on Gowanus Effort (Brooklyn Daily Eagle)
City Proposes New Plan for Gowanus Canal Cleanup (by Mireya Navarro, New York Times)
Gowanus Canal, Polluted for Many Decades, May Become Superfund Site (by Mireya Navarro, New York Times)
New System to Help Gowanus Canal Breathe Easier (by Andy Newman, New York Times)
A Score of Companies Could Share Bill for Gowanus Cleanup (City Limits—Community Service Society of New York)
Superfund Polluters Allowed to Clean Up Own Sites
The Center for Public Integrity reported in May 2007 that at least three corporate polluters were being paid by the EPA to clean up their own hazardous waste sites. The Center found that the EPA awarded contracts to Lockheed Martin Corp., Halliburton Company, and a subsidiary of Tyco International Ltd. to work on four Superfund sites where at least one company was involved as a “potentially responsible party.” All three companies confirmed that each was possibly responsible for pollution at one site, and in one case at two sites. The EPA said it was watching out for conflicts of interest, but environmental watchdogs questioned the agency’s effort. “It doesn’t seem right to allow a company that polluted some site to then secure contracts that would earn them money from the taxpayers to clean up the same mess,” said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at Public Citizen, a nonprofit public interest group.
EPA Pays at Least Three Firms to Clean up Pollution They may have Helped Create (by Anupama Narayanswamy, Center for Public Integrity)
Superfund Not Getting Job Done
The Center for Public Integrity issued another report in 2007 that found the Superfund was short of money to clean up abandoned waste sites, creating a backlog of sites that “continue to menace the environment and, quite often, the health of nearby residents.” The center reported that nearly half of the U.S. population lived within 10 miles of one of the 1,304 active and proposed Superfund sites listed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Cleanup work was started at about 145 sites in the previous six years, while the startup rate was nearly three times as high for the previous six years. Lacking sufficient funding, EPA officials said they had to delay needed work at some hazardous sites, use money left over from other cleanups and resort to cheap, less effective fixes.
The center also reported that the amount of money Superfund was getting back from companies in reimbursements for cleanups had steadily declined. Recovered costs peaked in the fiscal years 1998 and 1999, at about $320 million each year. By fiscal 2004, collected cost recoveries had dropped well below the $100 million mark. And in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the EPA collected about $60 million each year.
Furthermore, the investigation found that Superfund officials kept details about the program secret, meeting behind closed doors to rank which sites were the most dangerous and in need of immediate attention. Some EPA insiders said the secrecy was intended to avoid provoking the public into demanding a solution from Congress.
Massive Undertaking to Clean up Hazardous Waste Sites has Lost Both Momentum and Funding (by Joaquin Sapien, Center for Public Integrity)
Bush Administration Accused of Weakening Superfund
Complaints from congressional Democrats surfaced in 2002 over the Bush administration’s lack of funding for Superfund. “It’s no longer ‘super’ and it’s not much of a fund,” asserted Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-New Jersey) during a hearing on the Superfund. “It would be more honest to cancel the program.” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) added: “The very foundation of the program is being undermined.” A report on the funding of Superfund cleanup efforts stated that as of June 1, 2002, EPA regions had requested $450 million for remedial actions but EPA headquarters allocated only $224 million. Democrats asserted that under the Bush administration fewer Superfund sites were being cleaned, and they were being cleaned at a slower pace because of insufficient funding. The Obama administration has generally been supportive of the Superfund, and EPA spokespersons have credited Bush’s successor with giving the agency greater transparency and less bureaucratic hurdles. Nonetheless, cleanup costs continue to outstrip funding. For example, in 2011, a 20-year-old contamination lawsuit was settled when the Hecla Mining Company agreed to pay $263.4 million plus interest for the cleanup of environmental damage caused by the firm’s mining waste in Idaho’s Coeur d'Alene Basin. The problem is that the estimated total cost of the cleanup is $2 billion.
Alleged Superfund Budget Woes Provoke Senate Democrats (by James Nash, Environment Health Safety Today)
Hecla to pay $263.4M in cleanup costs (by Alecia Warren, CDAPress.com)
EPA Chief Accused of Superfund Conflict of Interest
In January 2002 the ombudsman for the Environmental Protection Agency claimed he was punished by EPA Chief Christine Todd Whitman after he opposed an agreement to sharply limit the amount of Citigroup—a principal investor in Whitman’s husband’s venture capital firm—would have to pay in a controversial Superfund cleanup case. EPA ombudsman Robert J. Martin alleged that Whitman ordered his office reassigned within the EPA bureaucracy and stripped of its independence after he opposed a nuclear-waste cleanup settlement with Citigroup that would limit its liability to a fraction of the cleanup cost. Martin filed suit and sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the ombudsman’s duties and investigative files from being transferred to the EPA’s Office of Inspector General, an agency Martin had clashed with. Whitman denied Martin’s charges and was eventually vindicated as the federal inspectors rejected the charges. There was no evidence that indicated Whitman had influenced EPA policy toward Superfund cleanup sites.
EPA Chief Cleared of Wrongdoing in Cleanup Projects (by Robert McClure, Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
EPA Chief Denies Conflict-of-Interest Allegations (by Robert McClure, Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
Conflict of Interest for Christine Todd Whitman? (by Mark Hertsgaard, Salon)
Should Superfund Taxes be Reinstated?
The federal government for 15 years imposed taxes on oil and chemical companies and certain other corporations to pay for the clean up of toxic locations known as Superfund sites. At its peak, in 1996, the cleanup trust fund was $3.8 billion. But once the mandate for collecting the taxes expired in 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gradually used up all the monies in the fund. Since then, Congress has had to appropriate money for the remediation of Superfund sites.
In 2010, legislation was introduced that would reinstate the Superfund tax. The proposal would raise about $18.9 billion over 10 years by imposing excise taxes of 9.7 cents a barrel on crude oil and refined oil products, excise taxes of 22 cents to $4.87 a ton on certain chemicals, and an income tax of 0.12% on certain corporations’ modified alternative minimum taxable income above $2 million.
Obama, EPA To Push for Restoration of Superfund Tax on Oil, Chemical Companies (by Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post)
Pro:
Supporters of reinstating the tax include the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress. They argue bringing back the tax would ease the burden on taxpayers, who are currently funding the cleanup of “orphaned” sites, where no one has accepted responsibility for the contamination.
Proponents also point out that since the tax expired and the EPA has had to rely on congressional appropriations for cleanup operations, the rate of restoring Superfund sites has slowed. In 1999, 89 sites were remediated. In 2009, only 19 sites were cleaned up.
Without the Superfund taxes, the government is taking too long to clean up toxic areas, bill supporters say, resulting in prolonged exposure for millions of Americans. They say about 25% of the country lives within one mile of a Superfund site, compromising the health and economic livelihoods of these people.
Finally, proponents claim reinstating Superfund taxes could discourage the use of toxins and hazardous waste, making America a safer place to live.
Stimulating the Future of Superfund: Why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Calls for a Reinstatement of the Superfund Tax to Polluted Sites in Urban Environments (Braunson Virjee, Sustainable Development Law & Policy)
Reinstate Superfund Taxes (Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute and Brookings Institution)
Con:
Oil companies and chemical manufacturers are the main opponents of the tax. They argue bringing back the tax amounts to an unfair penalty on industry. Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, insisted Congress and the Obama administration cannot keep using refineries and petrochemical companies “as an ATM machine.” The more the government taxes these businesses, the more of a drain it will be on job growth, thus hurting the economic recovery.
Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council, pointed out that companies have already invested billions of dollars in cleaning up sites. “It is blatantly inequitable and unfair for the administration or Congress to reinstate a Superfund excise tax,” Dooley told The Washington Post.
Finally, opponents dispute the notion that bringing back the tax will increase the pace of cleanups. Between bureaucratic delays and the complexities of remediating sites, the fixing of toxic locations will always be a slow process.
Superfund Taxes (American Chemistry Council)
Obama Budget Could Chill Expansion – US Chemicals Sector (ICIS News)
Susan Bodine
Susan Parker Bodine worked as assistant administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) from December 17, 2005, until the end of the administration of President George W. Bush. In this capacity as head of OSWER, she oversaw the Superfund program. Bodine received her undergraduate degree from Princeton University in 1983 and her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1988.
Bodine spent six years in private practice as an environmental attorney with the Washington D.C. law firm of Covington & Burling. She then joined the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in 1995, where she served as staff director and senior counsel.
After Bush left office, Bodine became a partner in the law firm of Barnes & Thornburg, specializing in environmental law.
- Table of Contents
- Overview
- History
- What it Does
- Where Does the Money Go
- Controversies
- Suggested Reforms
- Comments
- Leave a comment
Comments