In his book Earth in the Balance, Al Gore takes credit for his role in establishing the Superfund program, administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). During the election campaign, he touted the success of the program to illustrate his commitment to a greener, cleaner world. If allowing lawyers, consultants and politically connected firms to “clean up” at taxpayers’ expense constitutes success, then yes, Superfund is indeed “greening” wallets across America.
Why are we mocking a national program put in place to clean up small sites contaminated by toxic chemicals? There wouldn’t be a need if Superfund had stuck to its original mandate and priorities. But it expanded into new realms — including the cleanup of large areas of relatively low toxicity, such as old mining camps — with disastrous consequences. These cleanups were badly bungled in most cases. In some cases, the cleanup caused more environmental problems than the ones it was supposed to remedy.
We’re not the only ones to describe Superfund’s foray into mining as an unmitigated disaster. Industry associations, and even some environmental groups, have criticized its programs, particularly those implemented at the Coeur d’Alene district of northern Idaho and at the Summitville mine site in Colorado.
Critics have long argued that Superfund is wasteful. American mining associations point out that of the billions spent by the EPA on Superfund efforts, only 12% goes to cleaning up the environment. Legal and consulting fees eat up the balance. This reflects the litigious nature of Superfund, which balks at all efforts to work co-operatively with state agencies, business interests and even industry associations on site-specific remedies.
A more serious allegation is technical and scientific incompetence. Take the case of Summitville, where the EPA spent US$130 million after taking over the mine site from a bankrupt Galactic Resources in late 1992. The agency then tried to recoup these costs solely from Robert Friedland, the former head of Galactic. At the end of the day, the request was reduced to US$41.7 million and seven additional companies were added to the list for cost recovery.
The Summitville “cleanup”, which was carried out by a firm contracted by the EPA, is a well-documented horror story (see T.N.M., April 3/00). What’s not widely known is that the company and its owners were recently indicted on 42 criminal counts, including racketeering, bank fraud, bribery, mail fraud and illegal money transfers. Court documents allege that as much as US$75 million spent at Summitville was “the result of outright fraud, bid-rigging, billing irregularities, overstatement and over-billing of costs, and manipulative contracting practices.” How this firm got the contract is a mystery, because a related company (owned by the same family) had been convicted of felony bribery of EPA officials at another site in 1995, and was forever debarred from government contracting. The family simply closed down that firm and started another . . . the one that won the Summitville contract.
It didn’t take the Colorado Mining Association long to see that the Summitville “cleanup” was anything but. Waste rock was moved from one site to another (at three times the going rate) and old adits were plugged, all of which served to exacerbate, not reduce, acid mine drainage. And to top things off, the EPA and the rogue firm were never able to meet the unrealistically high water-quality standards that the state had imposed on Galactic. They simply discharged it into local streams and rivers, but that’s another sad story.
Earlier this summer, industry associations fought back when the Superfund program in place at the Bunker Hill smelter site in northern Idaho wanted to “expand” to cover much of the Coeur d’Alene mining district. They also fought back when the EPA tried to recoup costs from the few mining companies active in the region.
Industry associations pointed out that it was unfair for the government to sue mining companies for cleanup costs associated with past mining and milling operations. During the war years (1941-47), much of the damage was done by the government, which controlled almost every aspect of the day-to-day operations, including mine tailings. The production of lead and zinc were essential to the war effort, and, during those highly charged times, mining took place around the clock, without much regard for the environment.
Furthermore, mining companies tried to assist in the cleanup efforts at both Summitville and the Coeur d’Alene camp. But their offers of technical and/or financial assistance were repeatedly rejected in favour of litigation. This may keep the EPA’s team of lawyers and consultants busy and rich, but it does next to nothing for the environment. And isn’t that what the EPA and Superfund are supposed to be all about?
Be the first to comment on "The 12% Superfund"