Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed in 2021, a total of $3.5 billion was allocated for Superfund cleanup work. The “first wave” of funding of approximately $1 billion aimed to fund, initiate cleanup, and clear the backlog of 49 previously unfunded Superfund sites including the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site in Massachusetts. Between 1940 and the late 1970s, at least two manufacturers in New Bedford used PCBs while producing electric devices and disposed of industrial wastes containing PCBs directly into the New Bedford Harbor and indirectly through the sewer system. PCBs which were later banned in 1979 due to their harm to the environment, wildlife, and human health are known to remain in the environment for long periods and to be able to be carried long distances once released. Signs warning the public of the presence of PCBs in the New Bedford Harbor have been placed since 1982 and the decades-long work to remove sediments contaminated by PCBs is finally close to completion because of the $72.7 million fund distributed by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. A “second wave” of funding of approximately $1 billion was allocated to initiate new cleanup projects at 22 Superfund sites nationally including three sites in Massachusetts.
The Creese and Cook Tannery site in Danvers MA — added to the Superfund Program’s National Priorities List (NPL) in May 2013 after the leather tanning operations — contaminated not only the surface and subsurface soils with tannery wastes such as arsenic but also the Crane River and sewers as liquid effluent of the operations were being improperly disposed. The Creese and Cook Tannery site was allocated $24.3 million and is currently requesting bids from EPA’s contractors to conduct the cleanup activities
The Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump site in Ashland MA was included in NPL in December 1982 as facilities that produced textile dyes generated immense amounts of industrial wastewater containing high levels of acids and numerous organic and inorganic chemicals, contaminating the soil and the groundwater. The Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump site received another round of federal funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and is currently waiting for a final groundwater remedy.
The Walton and Lonsbury. The Superfund site in Attleboro MA was designated as a superfund site in 2013. Between 1940 and 1970, Walton and Lonsbury Inc. had directly and improperly discharged chemical process wastes into wetlands located on the southern end of the site and had subsequently disposed of the contaminants through tank spills and air emissions. Having cost at least $15 million, the site was allocated funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to implement its final remedy this fall.
Although EPA was able to initiate 4 times as many cleanup projects as the previous years and take one step further in completing cleanup activities at many Superfund sites, there are many more Superfund sites that require immediate cleanup activities since most Superfund sites are located in economically distressed communities and are disproportionately affecting communities of color and immigrants, raising the question regarding how EPA decides which Superfund sites receive funding first. EPA dedicates most of the funding to cleanup projects at Superfund sites included in the National Priorities List. These reported sites will undergo Pre-CERCLA Screening and will be determined whether these sites will be added to the Superfund Active site inventory for further assessment. Subsequently, the site will be inspected and preliminary data will be collected to calculate a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score to determine whether the site should be placed on the NPL.
Professor John Hird at the School of Public Policy at UMass Amherst provides a detailed analysis of how the HRS score is determined in his paper “Superfund Expenditures and Cleanup Priorities: Distributive Politics or the Public Interest,” despite the HRS score being related to the health risks of the site, this relationship in between is “obscured by the complex coding system.” An HRS score for a site is calculated by evaluating the four pathways – groundwater migration, surface water migration, soil exposure, and air migration. It is noted that HRS favors sites with one dominant pathway. In other words, sites with high scores for one pathway and low scores for the other pathways will have high HRS scores in comparison to sites with midrange scores for all pathways. There have been some criticisms of the HRS system and the risk assessment process. One criticism points out that the HRS threshold value of 28.50 – which normally qualifies a site for placement on the NPL – is not based on scientific criteria related to the environmental risks of the site. Two other criticisms focus on the accuracy of the risk assessments, pointing out that risk assessments about human health tend to be based on the results of testing on animals and that one measure of risk does not apply to the whole population.
After being listed on the NPL, a Superfund site will undergo a remedial investigation or a feasibility study which will fully measure the risk to the environment and human health and will set up and evaluate alternative remedial actions. Cleanup remedies and technologies will then be designed and implemented. When allocating Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding, EPA considers primarily Superfund sites that have no other sources of funding available. In the meantime, EPA continues to find the parties responsible for contaminations at each Superfund site. Furthermore, the investments not only funded cleanup activities but also increased funding for EPA to prepare Superfund sites for cleanup activities and to ensure that communities are involved in the cleanup process. As EPA administrator Michael S. Regan put it, the work to clean up Superfund sites is not yet finished as EPA continues to “build on this momentum to ensure that communities living near many of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned releases of contamination finally get the investments and protections they deserve.”
It is clear that individuals and communities need to be alert to contamination incidents…. even rumors in 1989, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) placed Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina on the National Priorities List (NPL). Camp Lejeune was included on the list based on soil and groundwater contamination caused by historical disposal, storage, and handling of hazardous materials.
Any person or organization should report oil or chemical spills, hazardous waste activities, or other environmental violations to the EPA immediately. A frustrated resident in Danvers bemoaned to Sampan, “The system is slow but it’s all we got. It took us years to get the government to take action. Meanwhile people were getting cancer and dropping dead!”
