You are here: home   Blogs   The GOAT Blog   Superfund sludges on
The GOAT Blog

Superfund sludges on

Document Actions
Tip Jar Donation

Your donation supports independent non-profit journalism from High Country News.

Enter amount:

$
Stephanie Paige Ogburn | Mar 10, 2011 12:00 AM

Superfund. The word, at least for me, conjures up images an empty warehouse filled with metal drums leaking toxic sludge, dirt barely covering a hazardous waste sites, maybe some illegal dumping.

This Tuesday, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency added 10 sites to its "Superfund" priority cleanup list, and proposed 15 more for consideration. One of the newly-listed leaky drumsites is a rather infamous mine site (the Anaconda Copper Mining Co. Smelter and Refinery) near Great Falls, Mont.; a number of the proposed sites are at other Western mines.

This notches the Superfund site total up to 1,290. It's a daunting number, especially since the fund only has a 21 percent clean-up rate.

Here's a bit of background. The law that created Superfund -- the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (acronym CERCLA, pronounced cir-kla) -- was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. Congress's action to get companies to pay for the waste disasters they caused was spurred in part by the 1978 disaster of Love Canal, an upstate New York town built on top of a toxic waste dump whose residents and children started getting sick. (Aside -- the story was doggedly reported by investigative reporter Michael Brown, who conducted surveys of sick town members; the increased awareness helped garner support for the Superfund law.)

The law works in a pretty straightforward way -- sites have to be evaluated to estimate their contamination, and then put on a list for cleanup. That list is called the National Priorities List; that's what EPA just added 10 more sites to on Tuesday. Once a site is on the priorities list, the EPA can assign responsibility for cleanup to the individuals or corporations who caused the mess. But this can take a while.

The point of the law is to get whoever created the toxic site to pay for its cleanup. But sometimes, responsible parties can't be found, have gone out of business or bankrupt, or can't afford to pay to detox the site they polluted. This is where the Superfund part of the law comes in. The "super" fund was a special trust fund created by a tax on petroleum products. It's supposed to be used to do cleanups when the EPA can't get the companies to do the job.

But the Superfund stopped getting funded in 1995. President Clinton unsuccessfully tried to reinstate the tax on polluters that originally filled the fund's coffers, and the fund actually ran out of money in 2003. Since then the program has relied on appropriations whose amount and consistency shift according to the prevailing congressional winds.

The Center for Public Integrity critically investigated the Superfund program in 2007; one of their findings was that the EPA was unable to undertake cleanups because of their lack of funding.

In 2009, the agency drafted a rule that addresses this in part -- they want mining companies to provide evidence that they'll be able to stay in business not just when they're making money off a mine, but years after the fact, when a messy, expensive cleanup -- like the one in Libby, Mont. -- might be needed.

This new rule was spurred by a Sierra Club lawsuit alleging that the 63 hardrock mining sites on the National Priorities List have estimated cleanup costs of $7.8 billion, and $2.4 billion of those costs were going be footed by taxpayers.  Meanwhile, many more Western mining sites are being considered for Superfund listing, and the costs of cleaning up each site keep getting higher.

Notable opponents to the 2009 EPA rule include Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, a mining fan, and -- shocker -- the National Mining Association. (Read Murkowki's letter to the EPA [PDF])

Bottom line: Superfund is struggling. This flurry of site additions makes it seem as though the EPA is trying to get the program back on track. But without better mechanisms to ensure that companies stay solvent enough to clean up their messes, or consistent funding for cleanups the EPA must pay for, progress on those 1,290 contaminated sites will continue to be as slow as a leaky toxic drip.

One in four Americans lives within three miles of a contaminated site posing serious health and environmental risks, according to the EPA. Find Superfund sites near you with the agency's many mapping tools.

Stephanie Paige Ogburn is HCN's online editor.

Image of drum from Superfund site courtesy Flickr user G.A. Carafelli.

Email Newsletter

The West in your Inbox

Follow Us

Follow us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Follow our RSS feeds!
  1. Hard choices for an uncertain future | After seeing a talk by climate activist Tim DeChri...
  2. Two blocks from the Mexican border | The author watches migrants run across the border ...
  3. New Mexico on fire | From wildfire to starving wildlife, the effects of...
  4. The power grid may determine whether we can kick our carbon habit | How the huge and fragile network of wires intertwi...
  5. Wild, free and out of control | Calling out an NBC-TV program for romanticizing wi...
  1. The power grid may determine whether we can kick our carbon habit | How the huge and fragile network of wires intertwi...
  2. The latest: Channel Island foxes rebound | A massive restoration effort has helped the tiny f...
  3. The latest: A worrying amphibian decline | A new study finds frogs and toads are disappearing...
  4. Is the Violence Against Women Act a chance for tribes to reinforce their sovereignty? | A new provision lets tribes prosecute non-tribal m...
  5. Two blocks from the Mexican border | The author watches migrants run across the border ...
More from Climate & Pollution
What's eating the snowpack? Researchers untangle the causes of unusual snowpack declines throughout the Rockies
Arctic ship logs help scientists reconstruct climatic history Sailors' journals detailing the weather of voyages past could improve the accuracy of climate models' projections of the future.
Hard choices for an uncertain future After seeing a talk by climate activist Tim DeChristopher, the author wonders: which energy source is the lesser of many evils?
All Climate & Pollution

Most recent from the blogs

 
© 2013 High Country News, all rights reserved. | privacy policy | terms of use | powered by Plone | site by Groundwire | design by Ryan Foster

HCN Logo High Country News in your inbox!


Sign up now to receive our weekly email newsletter!

• The best weekly collection of Western environmental news

• An at-a-glance look at our latest news and analysis


This box was designed to only appear once. It uses a "cookie" (a small file stored on your computer) to remember that it has shown the box to you.

If you are seeing this box appear multiple times, then something is not allowing the cookie to be stored properly. Browsers can be set to not allow cookies, and some people choose to disallow cookies for security reasons. If your browser is setup this way, please consider adding "www.hcn.org" as an exception to your no-cookies rule. For information about how to do this, just search the Web for "browser cookie exceptions."

If you're sure this isn't the problem, then it could be related to how your browser has stored information from our site in previous visits. Browsers often "cache" images, text and other website content in order to make them appear faster if you ever go back. Sometimes the browser's cache can be corrupted or become outdated. The simplest fix for this is to try reloading the page. If that doesn't fix the problem, it may be necessary to clear your temporary items from your browser. Again, a web search will provide you with lots of options and instructions.

Either way, we're sorry to hear that this box is getting in the way of your enjoyment of the HCN website. If you continue to have trouble, please contact our Subscriber Services team.