Locavore Dangers Lurk in Superfund Sites: Brooklyn Health Threatened

Superfund sites house some of the most toxic chemicals to date, and after over 20 years of remediation we still haven't mitigated all of the sites. The debate over long-term responsibility continues as government works to clean up the sites, and some companies continue to release harmful chemicals via wastewater, storm water, and combustion into neighborhoods. So who is at risk and who is at fault in this high stakes game of industry over sustainability?

Superfund Site Basics
A Superfund site according to the EPA is an:

Uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is
located, possibly affecting local ecosystems or people.

The most common sites are dilapidated factories that used hazardous chemicals during manufacturing and released their waste water and chemicals into waterways, the soil, and the air. The Superfund Program has addressed tens of thousands of sites for over 20 years, and although they have the system down, should they be responsible for dealing with corporate irresponsibility?

Health and Ecological Risks of Superfund Sites
Just today, the EPA identified a significant area of contamination from the Gowanus Canal right in Brooklyn, New York. The investigation found PCBs, PAHs, mercury, lead, and copper that have contaminated waterways, sediment, and the air. There is a direct threat to those who consume fish, crab, and other water species from the Canal. Superfund sites have been linked to an endless amount of human health issues including cancer, kidney and liver failure, and heart issues. Species found living in these areas tend to contain chemicals that threaten their health and reproduction. Yet these sites tend to go unnoticed and untouched for decades, with their hazardous waste slowly seeping into our food and water supply.

Responsibility Wars
So who exactly is at fault for over half a century of exposure to these life-threatening chemicals? It is a contentious debate between the companies who created and emitted the pollution and the government who failed to adequately regulate the chemicals at the time. When the majority of these sites first opened their doors, the severe ecological and health effects of the hazardous chemicals were unknown. Yet over time it became clear that there were serious consequences to these compounds. Government regulation and enforcement varied greatly by region, and it was not until the Cuyahoga River started on fire and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. publicly shamed the offenders of the Love Canal that the Nation started listening.

These days the disagreements are less heated and embarrassing for the companies and the government. The Superfund Program as well as the Brownfields Program are overseen by the EPA, with smaller agencies assisting with different portions of the process. They have secured Superfund clean ups as part of the National Priorities List. Yet the clean-ups aren't being paid for just with taxpayer dollars, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 compels responsible parties to either conduct the cleanups or reimburse the government for their work.

With years of exposure, the question remains whether the companies responsible for the pollution have done enough to address their role in this human and ecological health threat. Money for the clean-up does not help the individuals who suffer health consequences. The EPA's continued effort to make Superfund Sites known and their work transparent is commendable. But is their work and simple corporate monetary contribution enough to stop this type of widespread disregard for human and ecological health from repeating itself? Or has it already with nuclear waste?

Photo Credit: EPA Superfund.Com