Superfund

=see superfund 2see EJ, chem<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.75rem 0px; overflow-wrap: normal; font-size: 1.125rem; width: 720px; color: rgb(44, 44, 44); font-family: FreightText, Georgia, serif; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency said Sunday it has recovered 517 containers filled with unidentified, potentially hazardous material found floating in or washed up along Texas waterways after the devastating floods from Hurricane Harvey receded.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.75rem 0px; overflow-wrap: normal; font-size: 1.125rem; width: 720px; color: rgb(44, 44, 44); font-family: FreightText, Georgia, serif; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">The agency’s statement sought to clarify an earlier media release saying the containers were recovered from highly contaminated toxic waste sites. EPA said that statement issued Friday night by the Federal Emergency Management Agency created confusion by conflating two separate issues.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.75rem 0px; overflow-wrap: normal; font-size: 1.125rem; width: 720px; color: rgb(44, 44, 44); font-family: FreightText, Georgia, serif; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">The FEMA media release summarizing the federal response Harvey’s historic floods said EPA had “conducted assessments of 43 Superfund sites and recovered 517 containers of unidentified, potentially hazardous material.”<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.75rem 0px; overflow-wrap: normal; font-size: 1.125rem; width: 720px; color: rgb(44, 44, 44); font-family: FreightText, Georgia, serif; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">The Associated Press reported about the statement Saturday afternoon, after EPA’s press office did not responded to questions sent by email to top staffers the night before.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.75rem 0px; overflow-wrap: normal; font-size: 1.125rem; width: 720px; color: rgb(44, 44, 44); font-family: FreightText, Georgia, serif; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">“EPA and our response partners have been collecting containers orphaned after the hurricane,” David Gray, a spokesman for EPA’s regional headquarters in Texas, said in an email to AP on Sunday. “These are not related to Superfund clean ups.”<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.75rem 0px; overflow-wrap: normal; font-size: 1.125rem; width: 720px; color: rgb(44, 44, 44); font-family: FreightText, Georgia, serif; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">Gray did not respond to questions about why he and other EPA press staff had not sought to clarify the issue for more than 44 hours. Also left unanswered are questions about the results of EPA’s assessments at two highly contaminated Houston-area Superfund sites flooded by Harvey’s record shattering rains.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.75rem 0px; overflow-wrap: normal; font-size: 1.125rem; width: 720px; color: rgb(44, 44, 44); font-family: FreightText, Georgia, serif; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">EPA has not responded to more than a dozen calls and emails from AP over the last two weeks.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.75rem 0px; overflow-wrap: normal; font-size: 1.125rem; width: 720px; color: rgb(44, 44, 44); font-family: FreightText, Georgia, serif; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">AP reported Sept. 18 that a government hotline had received calls about three separate spills at the U.S. Oil Recovery Superfund site, a former petroleum waste processing plant outside Houston contaminated with a dangerous brew of cancer-causing chemicals.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.75rem 0px; overflow-wrap: normal; font-size: 1.125rem; width: 720px; color: rgb(44, 44, 44); font-family: FreightText, Georgia, serif; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">Records obtained by the AP showed workers at the site reported spills of unknown materials in unknown amounts affecting nearby Vince Bayou. Local pollution control officials photographed three large tanks that had been used to store potentially hazardous waste completely underwater on Aug. 29.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.75rem 0px; overflow-wrap: normal; font-size: 1.125rem; width: 720px; color: rgb(44, 44, 44); font-family: FreightText, Georgia, serif; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">EPA has still not disclosed the spills or what was in the tanks before they flooded. The agency says its staff visited the site the following week and saw no visual evidence of contaminants in the bayou.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.75rem 0px; overflow-wrap: normal; font-size: 1.125rem; width: 720px; color: rgb(44, 44, 44); font-family: FreightText, Georgia, serif; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">_<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.75rem 0px; overflow-wrap: normal; font-size: 1.125rem; width: 720px; color: rgb(44, 44, 44); font-family: FreightText, Georgia, serif; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">Associated Press reporter Frank Bajak contributed from Houston.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/scott-pruitt-lobbyist-house.html
thehill
Scott Pruitt
 once purchased a house from a top lobbyist in Oklahoma with the help of a shell company, The New York Times reported Saturday.
Two business associates involved in the 2003 purchase are now aides to Pruitt at the agency: Kenneth Wagner, a senior adviser at the EPA, and Albert Kelly, who runs the agency's effort to redesign the Superfund program.
According to the Times, the home, which was seen as a prime property because of its proximity to the state Capitol building, was purchased for $375,000 from a retiring telecommunications lobbyist.
But that price was $100,000 less than the lobbyist, Marsha Lindsey, had paid for it just a year before. The shortfall, according to the Times, which examined the records, was picked up by Lindsey's company, telecom giant SBC Oklahoma.The company, now a subsidiary of AT&T, lobbied on a number of matters including a deregulatory bill that would allow it to raise rates and an effort to reopen a decade-old bribery case. According to the Times, Pruitt sided with the company on both matters.
Pruitt, then a state senator, intended to use the residence as a place to stay while Oklahoma's legislature was in session. During this time he also rented out a room to another Republican state senator, Jim Dunlap.
Wagner, who was a partner at the private legal practice where Pruitt worked, was a co-investor in the shell company that purchased the residence.
Kelly wasn't involved in the shell company but ran the community bank which issued the mortgage for the residence. Kelly was later barred for life from the banking industry by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) because the agency had “reason to believe that [Kelly] violated a law or regulation, by entering into an agreement pertaining to a loan by the Bank without FDIC approval.”
The two now hold top positions at the EPA.
In 2005, the company owned by Wagner and Pruitt sold the residence for $95,000 more than it had paid just two years earlier.
Dunlap told the Times that he had no knowledge that Pruitt had purchased the residence from a lobbyist. He said he was under the impression that Pruitt had purchased it from a group of lawyers.
“This was a place where you slept and had dinner,” Dunlap told the Times. “It was all above board.”
The Oklahoma deal is only the latest in a series of stories raising ethics issues involving Pruitt.
Pruitt was reported earlier this month to have been living in 2017 in a Washington, D.C., condo partly owned by the wife of a top energy lobbyist at a rate of just $50 per night, which he and others have insisted was market value.
The EPA chief also came under fire after it was discovered that two top aides received raises after the White House declined to approve the pay hikes.
When asked about the Oklahoma house deal and Pruitt's business relationship with his top appointees, an EPA spokeswoman told the Times that the dealings "were ethical" and that Pruitt's stake in the company "was a simple real estate investment.”
“Mr. Wagner and Mr. Kelly left high-profile positions in law and banking in Oklahoma, to serve in the administration,” the spokeswoman said in an email to the Times.
“They are dedicated EPA employees who have earned the respect and admiration of EPA career employees across the country. They serve the country professionally, and transparently — and are committed to ensuring the programs they work on are successful.”
==

superfund regs led to frack water fail?

CF Correction: epa blew frack call b/c bound by superfund regs? nb desmog role

Back in 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a startling announcement, shaking up the battle over <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/energy-news/fracking-2/" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">fracking</a> in one of the nation’s highest-profile cases where drillers were suspected to have caused water contamination.

Water testing results were in for homeowners along Carter Road in <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=Dimock" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Dimock</a>, Pennsylvania, where for years, homeowners reported their water had turned brown, became flammable or started clogging their well with “black greasy feeling sediment” after Cabot Oil and Gas began drilling in the area. The EPA seemed to conclude the water wasn’t so bad after all.

“The sampling and an evaluation of the particular circumstances at each home did not indicate levels of contaminants that would give EPA reason to take further action,” EPA Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin said in a press release.

The drilling industry crowed. “The data released today once again confirms the EPA’s and DEP’s [Department of Environmental Protection] findings that levels of contaminants found do not possess a threat to human health and the environment,” Cabot said in a statement.

“It’s obviously very good news for the folks who actually live there and pretty squarely in line with what we’ve known up there for a while now,” Energy in Depth <a href="http://energyindepth.org/national/more-data-from-dimock-epa-confirms-water-is-safe-again/" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">told</a> POLITICOPro. “It’s not very good news for the out-of-state folks who have sought to use Dimock as a talking point in their efforts to prevent development elsewhere, but I’m sure they’ll be working hard over the weekend to spin it differently, notwithstanding the pretty clear statement made by EPA today.”

Now, a <a href="http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/DimockGroundwaterSite/Dimock_Groundwater_Site_HC_05-24-2016_508.pdf" target="blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">newly published report</a> by the <a href="http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/" target="blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry</a>(ATSDR), part of the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Centers for Disease Control</a> (CDC), puts EPA’s testing results into an entirely new light.

The water was not safe to drink after all, the ATSDR concluded, after a lengthy review of the same water testing results that EPA used back in 2012.

“ATSDR found some of the chemicals in the private water wells at this site at levels high enough to affect health (27 private water wells), pose a physical hazard (17 private water wells) or affect general water quality so that it may be unsuitable for drinking,” the ATSDR’s <a href="http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/DimockGroundwaterSite/Dimock_Groundwater_Site_HC_05-24-2016_508.pdf" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">health consultation</a>—launched in 2011 and published May 24—concludes.

The new report lists 10 contaminants, including arsenic, lithium and 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether, that are “chemicals of health concern,” at the levels found in Carter Road wells, found that five homes were at “immediate risk of fire or explosion” because of <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=methane" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">methane</a> in their water and another dozen showed lower, but still worrisome, levels of methane and found that the water was laced with elevated levels of metals, salts and total dissolved solids.

The underlying data isn’t new to the residents of Carter Road. The EPA provided it to them individually back in 2012, which is why the EPA’s announcement that the water was safe was so baffling at the time.

“I’m sitting here looking at the values I have on my sheet—I’m over the thresholds—and yet they are telling me my water is drinkable,” Nolan Scott Ely, one of the Carter Road homeowners, <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/so-is-dimocks-water-really-safe-to-drink" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">told ProPublica</a> when EPA made its announcement. “I’m confused about the whole thing … I’m flabbergasted.”

Opposite Conclusions?

So how could two different agencies look at the exact same data and come to opposite conclusions?

“Although the same data set was used, the EPA as a regulatory agency specifically looked at whether or not it was required to take action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, more commonly known as Superfund, which governs responses to environmental emergencies,” StateImpact, a National Public Radio project, <a href="https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2016/05/25/federal-public-health-report-highlights-contaminants-in-dimocks-water/" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">explained</a>. “The ‘health consultation’ looked at the entire data set from a public health standpoint, assessing whether or not it was safe to drink the water.”

In other words, EPA’s findings, which seemed to show that the water was “safe” and which were promoted by drillers as proof that nothing was wrong in Dimock, instead represented a very carefully parsed legal finding that the water did not reach Superfund levels of contamination for the specific substances EPA focused on.

And the EPA’s 2012 findings had left out some of the very contaminants that had caused locals the most concern—including the natural gas or methane, itself. “EPA’s investigation does not include an evaluation of the risk posed by elevated levels of methane—which continue to exist in some homes in Dimock—and which, at extreme levels and if unaddressed, can lead to explosions,” Natural Resources Defense Council Senior Attorney Kate Sinding <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kate-sinding/epas-water-testing-results-dimock-do-not-let-gas-industry-hook" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">wrote</a> in a blog post at the time.

The EPA’s strained official interpretation of the data perhaps shows why EPA staff remained concerned even after the agency dropped its Dimock investigation in July 2012, just months after its testing results had been announced in March and April.

In 2013, a Los Angeles Times <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/29/obama-epa-censored-fracking-water-contamination-study-dimock-pennsylvania" target="blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">investigation</a> revealed that EPA’s own staff had disagreed with the agency’s public statements that the water shouldn’t be considered hazardous. An internal EPA Powerpoint <a href="http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Dimock%20Powerpoint.pdf" target="blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">presentation</a>, later obtained and <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/29/obama-epa-censored-fracking-water-contamination-study-dimock-pennsylvania" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">published</a> by DeSmog, showed that agency scientists had concluded that the drilling and fracking process “apparently cause significant damage to the water quality.”

The ATSDR’s new report very specifically notes that it does not look at whether the water hazards stem from drilling or pre-date Cabot’s arrival in the area. In part, that’s because of a lack of pre-drilling testing for gas and other common fracking-related chemicals in the water. “It is important to note that methane was not assessed in residential water wells prior to the initiation of natural gas drilling activities in the Dimock area,” the ATSDR wrote.

Cabot Oil and Gas emphasized their belief that methane in the water was “naturally occurring” and pre-dated their arrival in a statement provided to StateImpact. “This data is consistent with thousands of pages of water data collected by both Cabot and the Pennsylvania DEP and does not indicate that those contaminants detected have any relationship to oil and gas development in Dimock,” Cabot said.

The ATSDR report does often note when substances discovered in the Carter Road water are known to be associated with hydraulic fracturing or drilling industry activities, but does not reach any conclusions about whether the chemicals came from Cabot’s operations.

“It’s not their job to look at who caused whatever contamination there is,” Bryce Payne, a Pennsylvania environmental scientist, <a href="http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060037920" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">told</a> E&E News. “It’s their job to see if there are health implications. They did that and concluded there are health implications.”

The new report is also limited to data from four years ago—and conditions have changed, the ATSDR noted, in part because a state moratorium on fracking along Carter Road was briefly lifted after the EPA dropped its investigation and locals quickly reported more changes to their water, including higher levels of methane.

Cabot Oil Settles

In August 2012—right around the time that EPA abandoned its investigation—Cabot Oil and Gas <a href="http://www.law360.com/articles/370268/cabot-settles-fracking-pollution-claims-from-pa-residents" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">announced</a> it had settled the vast majority of lawsuits against it by Carter Road residents for an undisclosed amount of money and under terms that barred the plaintiffs from speaking negatively about their experiences with the company.

This March, a federal jury handed down a $4.24 million verdict to the remaining two Carter Road families, concluding that the water was in fact contaminated because of the negligence of the drilling company. Cabot has begun the process of appealing that verdict.

But while the legal filings and agency reports continue to stack up, the problem on Carter Road remains the same as it has for many years now.

While those who settled with Cabot had water treatment systems installed by the company, locals familiar with those systems say that even the treated water seems too contaminated to drink and the water treatment systems break down frequently.

The ATSDR’s report provides recommendations that water should have been treated to address dangerous contamination levels—but those recommendations are not binding and the agency noted that while the state government collected samples more recently, the ATSDR did not have access to the newer data.

Community organizers are still calling for the federal government to resume an active role, arguing that the groundwater remains undrinkable.

“We’re demanding that they reopen the investigation,” Craig Stevens, a local organizer, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/03/16/dimock-water-contamination-verdict-leads-renewed-calls-federal-action-fracking" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">told</a>DeSmog after the March verdict was announced, “and also get water to these people.”

<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/03/dimock-water-unsafe-fracking/">http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/03/dimock-water-unsafe-fracking/</a>

===

===

Bill Sponsorship: Superfund Common Sense Act

Source: H2997/S1729 

Congressional Summary:Amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to exclude manure from the definition of "hazardous substance" and "pollutant or contaminant" for purposes of such Act. Defines "manure" to mean:

<ol>

<li style=" text-align: left;">digestive emissions, feces, urine, urea and other excrement from livestock;</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">any associated bedding, compost, raw materials or other materials commingled with such excrement from livestock;</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">any process water associated with such items; and</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">any byproducts, constituents, or substances contained in, or originating from, such items or any emissions relating to such items.</li>

</ol>

Amends the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to exempt from notification requirements releases associated with manure.

Opponent's Comments (Jim Ruen on AgProfessional.com, Oct. 3, 2011): Since when can a fertilizer dealer operate without concern for environmental regulation and impact? Let's face it, we aren't talking about Ma and Pa Kettle with their six milk cows and three sows here spreading a load of manure on the back 40. We are talking about CAFO units with thousands of animals and tens of thousands or more tons/gallons of manure. While a few maybe spreading on their own land, most are selling it to area farmers. At a time when fertilizer dealers and companies have to be conspicuously careful with how they handle product, why shouldn't mega-livestock operators be equally regulated as they sell their "waste" product for its nutrient and soil building value. Since when do commercial N, P and K producers or handlers get a free ride from the EPA...or Congress?

<ul>

<li style=" text-align: left;">Topic: Environment</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">Headline: Sponsored ending considering manure as pollutant or hazardous</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">Headline 2: Stop considering manure as pollutant or hazardous

Participating counts on <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/AE_Quiz.htm" style=" color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">AmericansElect</a> question 8.</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">Headline: Sponsored ending considering manure as pollutant or hazardous (Answer: B)</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">Headline 2: Stop considering manure as pollutant or hazardous (Answer: B)</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">AmericansElect Quiz Question 8 on Environment: Which of the following statements comes closest to your personal view?

<ul>

<li style=" text-align: left;">A: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">B: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity, but should be somewhat protected</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">C: Natural resources should be mostly protected, but also exist for the benefit of humanity</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">D: Natural resources exist on their own and should be completely protected</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">E: Unsure</li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

<div style=" line-height: 15.9943px;">J. Steven Griles served as Deputy Secretary of the Interior from 2001 until resigning in 2004. In 2004, the DOI’s own inspector general called Griles a “train wreck waiting to happen.” Prior to joining the Bush administration, Griles was a coal industry lobbyist. Griles was the highest ranking member of the Bush administration to be sent to prison during the Abramoff scandal. He was sentenced to a ten months imprisonment after pleading guilty to obstruction of justice. Days after his guilty plea, he would marry his DOI subordinate Sue Ellen Wooldridge, who was part of an ethics scandal involving the purchase of a home with ConocoPhillips lobbyist. Prior to joining the Bush administration, Griles served in the Reagan administration’s DOI then became a coal industry lobbyist with National Environmental Strategies, Inc. Griles continued receiving payment of $284,000 a year from the coal lobbying firm as he served as DOI Deputy Secretary. While at the DOI, he arranged multiple meetings with former oil and gas industry clients and even awarded $2 million in federal contracts to a former client. Griles advised Jack Abramoff on using members of Congress to pressure the DOI and gave him information on internal decision making within the agency. Before his conviction, Griles left the White House to become a lobbyist for ConocoPhillips.</div>

</div>

</div>

<div style=" line-height: 15.9943px;">Sue Ellen Wooldridge</div>

<div style=" line-height: 15.9943px;">Deputy Chief of Staff for Sec. Gale Norton</div>

<div style=" line-height: 15.9943px;">• Purchased $980,000 home with J. Steven Griles and a ConocoPhillips lobbyist.</div>

<div style=" line-height: 15.9943px;">• Delayed $500 million pollution cleanup for ConocoPhillips.</div>

</div>

<div style=" line-height: 15.9943px;">Sue Ellen Wooldridge was the Deputy Chief of Staff for DOI Secretary Gale Norton. During her time at DOI where she provided the agency with ethics advice, Wooldridge became romantically involved with J. Steven Griles. Wooldridge went on to the Department of Justice as an attorney in charge of environmental and natural resources. Wooldridge and her romantic partner and once-superior Griles purchased a $980,000 home in March 2006 in South Carolina along with a third buyer: Don R. Duncan, a lobbyist for ConoPhillips. Less than a year after the three purchased the home, Wooldridge delayed $500 million pollution cleanup of a superfund site run by ConocoPhillips. Three days after Griles plead guilty, Wooldridge and he were married.</div>

</div>

<div style=" line-height: 15.9943px;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/report/interior-scandals-under-bush/">http://thinkprogress.org/report/interior-scandals-under-bush/</a></div>

==

==

RFK: Superfund has gone bankrupt. The Superfund itself, which was raised through a small tax on the chemical and oil industry, was used to clean up orphaned sites -- sites where the responsible party could not be found. But more importantly, it was used to leverage recalcitrant polluters to clean up their own sites, because Superfund includes a triple-damages provision. That gives the EPA power, when a polluter drags its feet, to say to the polluter, “Okay, we’re going to clean up the site ourselves, and then we’re going to charge you triple.” And 90 percent of the Superfund sites that have been cleaned up in America have been cleaned up as a result of that threat. Without that threat, Superfund just becomes a welfare program for corporate lawyers, who can argue forever and ever about who’s responsible and what kind of cleanup should result. So today, with Superfund bankrupt, you’re not going to see many Superfund sites really cleaned up. And if they are cleaned up, it’ll be with taxpayer money, which is absurdly unjust.

rfk2: B2 admin

took pwer from states to limit offshore drill,

b2 refused to support Superfund

(hid as reform) but 1:4 Us ppl live near one 112  10c bbl cheap b/c excluded from

liability under cost recovery 112 normally epa can clean site then charge 3x to

polluter, so big leverage ; w/o tax, no cleanup; oct 03 fund went bankrupt, so cost

shifted to public.

---

DC called himself a "pretty good environmentalist"

got rid of superfund (1 in 4 am live within bike ride from site that was blocked/orphaned?) 31, shift burden to us; cut value of human life by 1/3; cut protection of 1/10 by declaring not wetland and _

---

strat ignor:

B2 got rid of superfund (i in 4 am live within bike rid from site that was blocked/orphaned?) 31, shift burden to us; cut value of human life by 1/3; cut protection of 1/10 by declaring not wetland and _ strat ignor

DC once sorta ok on green, but only 1 of 16 ~ ESA; 1 of 26 suppoprt RR ~ Clean water act; ~ superfund, safe drink act; ~ cit suit ~ chem 50

Norton: lead co lobbyist (superfund); prop rights maybe homesteader get right to pollute and make noise; slavery got bad rap; colo AG

Sansonetti corp law in Wyo for extraction ~ superfund then coal lobbyist peabodt and arch etc; pal of DC; rep mining ind ~ Clean air act, promised to uphold in confim hearings but no 56

cafo killed billion fish 1991 in NCaro; aftr Hurr Floyd kiled 30k hods and spread sludge, epa cleaning up, than b2 granted immun from CWA, CAA and superfund in ret for small # to vol mon

SUPERFUND 2K LISTED, 840 CLEANED on track to be done in 15 yrs; 1993 broad consensus on streamline incl CoC, but gop filibuster scuttled b/c no wins before 94 election; then let funding src run out from co. so taxpayers had to pick up.

40-50's Hooker chem dumped 352 mill pounds of haz waste into Love canal [nb gmu guy referred to as mythical?]

DC as sen voted against cit right to sue chemical; haliburton Supefund in MIssouri

partially treated sewage cd be blended and put in rivers; then untreated radioactive waste; 2003 1st time since CWA pollut worse 205

by 1980 mil and dept energy biggest polluters some of

CEI lost on arsenic but won on superfund 227

18B waste in farm bill cd be used to help sm farmers and clean up

req US co in Mex to use US green std  strategic irnorance

---

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_the_United_States">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_the_United_States</a>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_Michigan

<h3>What is Superfund?</h3>

Superfund is the name given to the environmental program established to address abandoned hazardous waste sites. It is also the name of the fund established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (<a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=42USCC103">CERCLA statute</a>, <a href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm">CERCLA overview</a>). This law was enacted in the wake of the discovery of toxic waste dumps such as <a href="http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/index.htm">Love Canal</a> and <a href="http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/times/index.htm">Times Beach</a> in the 1970s. It allows the EPA to clean up such sites and to compel responsible parties to perform cleanups or reimburse the government for EPA-lead cleanups.

<h3>How Superfund Works</h3>

The <a href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/index.htm">Superfund cleanup process</a> is complex. It involves the steps taken to assess sites, place them on the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/index.htm">National Priorities List</a>, and establish and implement appropriate cleanup plans. This is the long-term cleanup process. In addition, the Agency has the authority

<ul>

<li>to conduct <a href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/er/hazsubs/timecrit.htm">removal actions</a> where immediate action needs to be taken;</li>

<li>to <a href="http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/index.html">enforce</a> against potentially responsible parties;</li>

<li>to ensure <a href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/community/index.htm">community involvement</a>;</li>

<li>involve <a href="http://www.epa.gov/epahome/state.htm">states</a>;</li>

<li>and <a href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/index.htm">ensure long-term protectiveness</a>.</li>

</ul>

The blueprint for these activities is the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/ncp/index.htm">National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)</a>, a regulation applicable to all federal agencies involved in responding to hazardous substance releases.

Over the past 20+ years, we've located and analyzed tens of thousands of hazardous waste sites, protected people and the environment from contamination at the worst sites, and involved others in cleanup.

<h3>Who Implements Superfund</h3>

EPA's <a href="http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/">Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)</a> in Washington, D.C. oversees the Superfund program. The <a href="http://www.epa.gov/OEM/">Office of Emergency Management</a> within OSWER is responsible for short term responses conducted under the authority of Superfund. The <a href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/partners/osrti/index.htm">Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation</a>, and the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/">Federal Facilities Response and Reuse Office</a>, also within OSWER, have the lead for managing the long-term Superfund response program, the latter for responses involving Federal Facilities. In addition, OSWER manages the federal <a href="http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/">Brownfields</a> program.

<a href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/">http://www.epa.gov/superfund/</a>

==

wiki

Superfund is the common name for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" title="United States">United States</a> federal law designed to clean up sites contaminated with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazardous_substances" title="Hazardous substances" class="mw-redirect">hazardous substances</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-0">[1]</a> Superfund created the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_for_Toxic_Substances_and_Disease_Registry" title="Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry">Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry</a> (ATSDR), and it provides broad <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States" title="Federal government of the United States">federal</a> authority to clean up releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health" title="Public health">public health</a> or the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment" title="Natural environment">environment</a>. The law authorized the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency" title="United States Environmental Protection Agency">Environmental Protection Agency</a> (EPA) to identify parties responsible for contamination of sites and compel the parties to clean up the sites. Where responsible parties cannot be found, the Agency is authorized to clean up sites itself, using a special trust fund.

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>]</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#History">1 History</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#Provisions">2 Provisions</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#Procedures">3 Procedures</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#Implementation">4 Implementation</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#Accessing_Superfund_data">5 Accessing Superfund data</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#References">7 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-8"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#External_links">8 External links</a></li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superfund&action=edit&section=1" title="Edit section: History">edit</a>] History</h2>

CERCLA was enacted by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress" title="United States Congress">Congress</a> in 1980 in response to the threat of hazardous waste sites, typified by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal" title="Love Canal">Love Canal</a> disaster in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York" title="New York">New York</a>, and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_Drums" title="Valley of the Drums">Valley of the Drums</a> in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky" title="Kentucky">Kentucky</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-1">[2]</a>

The EPA published the first <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_Ranking_System" title="Hazard Ranking System">Hazard Ranking System</a> (HRS) in 1981, and the first <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Priorities_List" title="National Priorities List">National Priorities List</a> (NPL) in 1982.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-2">[3]</a> The implementation during early years has been criticized as being ineffective due to the Reagan administration's laissez-faire policies. During his two terms, 16 of the 799 Superfund sites were cleaned up, and $40 million of $700 million in recoverable funds from responsible parties were collected.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-3">[4]</a>

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), made several important changes and additions to CERCLA including increasing the funding of Superfund to $8.5 billion and providing for studies and the use of new technologies.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-4">[5]</a>

In 1994, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_administration" title="Clinton administration" class="mw-redirect">Clinton administration</a> proposed a new Superfund reform bill, which was seen as an improvement to existing legislation by some environmentalists and industry lobbyists. However, the effort was unable to gain bipartisan support.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-5">[6]</a> Until the mid-1990s, most of the funding came from a tax on the petroleum and chemical industries, reflecting the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polluter_pays_principle" title="Polluter pays principle">polluter pays principle</a>, and Congress yielded to corporate pressure.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-6">[7]</a>

<h2>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superfund&action=edit&section=2" title="Edit section: Provisions">edit</a>] Provisions</h2>

CERCLA authorizes two kinds of response actions:

<ol>

<li>Removal actions. These are typically short-term response actions, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response. Removal actions are classified as: (1) emergency; (2) time-critical; and (3) non-time critical. Removal responses are generally used to address localized risks such as abandoned drums containing hazardous substances, and contaminated surface soils posing acute risks to human health or the environment.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-7">[8]</a></li>

<li>Remedial actions. These are usually long-term response actions. Remedial actions seek to permanently and significantly reduce the risks associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances which are serious, but lack the time-criticality of removal actions, and include such measures as preventing the migration of pollutants and neutralizing toxic substances. These actions can be conducted only at sites listed on the EPA <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Priorities_List" title="National Priorities List">National Priorities List</a> (NPL) in the United States and the territories.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-8">[9]</a></li>

</ol>

A potentially responsible party (PRP) is a possible polluter who may eventually be held <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_liability" title="Legal liability">liable</a> under CERCLA for the contamination or misuse of a particular property or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_resource" title="Natural resource">resource</a>. Four classes of PRPs may be liable for contamination at a Superfund site:

<ol>

<li>the current owner or operator of the site;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-9">[10]</a></li>

<li>the owner or operator of a site at the time that disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant occurred;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-10">[11]</a></li>

<li>a person who arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant at a site;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-11">[12]</a> and</li>

<li>a person who transported a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant to a site, who also has selected that site for the disposal of the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-12">[13]</a></li>

</ol>

The CERCLA also enabled the revision of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oil_and_Hazardous_Substances_Pollution_Contingency_Plan" title="National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan">National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan</a> (NCP).<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-13">[14]</a> The NCP provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also established the NPL. The NPL, which appears as Appendix B to the NCP, primarily serves as an information and management tool for the EPA, and helps the EPA prioritize sites for cleanup. The NPL is updated periodically.

The identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in:

<ul>

<li>determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the risks to the human health and environment;</li>

<li>identifying what CERCLA-financed remedial actions may be appropriate;</li>

<li>notifying the public of sites which EPA believes warrant further investigation; and</li>

<li>notifying PRPs that EPA may initiate CERCLA-financed remedial action.</li>

</ul>

Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not itself require PRPs to initiate action to clean up the site, nor does it assign liability to any person. The NPL serves primarily informational purposes, notifying the government and the public of those sites or releases that appear to warrant remedial actions.

Despite the name, the Superfund trust fund lacks sufficient funds to clean up even a small number of the sites on the NPL. As a result, the government will typically order PRPs to clean up the site themselves.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-14">[15]</a> If a party fails to comply with such an order, it may be fined up to $25,000 for each day that non-compliance continues. A party that spends money to clean up a site may sue certain other PRPs under the CERCLA.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-15">[16]</a> A related provision allows a party that has reimbursed another party's response costs to seek contribution from other PRPs, during or after the original lawsuit. An "orphan share" is the share of waste at a Superfund site that cannot be collected because the PRP is either unidentifiable or insolvent.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-fact_book-16">[17]</a>

<h2>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superfund&action=edit&section=3" title="Edit section: Procedures">edit</a>] Procedures</h2>

Map of Superfund sites in the contiguous United States. Red indicates currently on final National Priority List, yellow is proposed, green is deleted (usually meaning having been cleaned up). This map is as of March 2010.</div>

</div>

Upon notification of a potentially hazardous waste site, the EPA conducts a Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI) which involves records reviews, interviews, visual inspections, and limited field sampling.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-17">[18]</a> Information from the PA/SI is used by the EPA to develop a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score to determine the CERCLA status of the site.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-18">[19]</a> Sites that score high enough to qualify for the full program then proceed to a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The RI includes an extensive sampling program and risk assessment in order to define the extent of the site contamination and risks. The FS is used to develop and evaluate various remediation alternatives. The preferred alternative is presented in a Proposed Plan for public review and comment. The selected alternative is approved in a Record of Decision (ROD). The site then enters into a Remedial Design phase and then the Remedial Action phase. Many sites include Long-Term Monitoring and 5-year reviews once the Remedial Action has been completed.

...

As of November 29, 2010, there are currently 1,280 sites listed on the National Priority List, an additional 347 have been delisted, and 62 new sites have been proposed.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-22">[23]</a>

Approximately 70 percent of Superfund cleanup activities historically have been paid for by parties responsible (PRPs) for the cleanup of contamination. The only time cleanup costs are not borne by the responsible party is when that party either cannot be found or is unable to pay for the cleanup. For those sites, the Superfund law originally paid for toxic waste cleanups through a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax" title="Tax">tax</a> on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum" title="Petroleum">petroleum</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_industry" title="Chemical industry">chemical industries</a>. The chemical and petroleum fees were intended to provide incentives to use less toxic substances. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected, and the tax went to a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_%28property%29" title="Trust (property)" class="mw-redirect">trust fund</a> for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The last full fiscal year in which the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury" title="United States Department of the Treasury">Department of the Treasury</a> collected the tax was FY1995. At the end of FY1996, the invested trust fund balance was $6.0 billion. This fund was exhausted by the end of FY2003; since that time funding for these orphan shares has been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Appropriations" title="United States Senate Committee on Appropriations">appropriated by Congress</a> out of general revenues.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#cite_note-23">[24]</a>

----

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_Minnesota">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_Minnesota</a>

koch, fmc

===

sci corrupt

<table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>Love Canal at Niagra Falls</th></tr><tr><td>1977 Nov: This was an unfinished canal had become an industrial waste site which leaked chemicals whenever it rained. It had been given to the New York Education Department, which had then sold various parts of it as housing estates.

    After 30 years of indiscriminate dumping and regular reports of seepages and odours, a local reporter began an investigation of possible links between the contamination and resident illnesses. In 1976 toxicology consultants (Calspan Corp. — an ex-Defence-related general lab group associated with Cornell University) reported serious contamination by dioxins, and this fired up local Congressman LaFalce, who turned up at the site with the Environmenal Protection Agency in tow. 

    The EPA tested air in basements, and the New York State Health and Environmental personnel sampled sump pumps and storm sewers. Love Canal citizens organised themselves into three large resident's organisations, and began to lobby for remedial action or relocation. [833 families were eventually relocated] 

    In March 1978 the New York health authorities ordered human testing of blood, and a committee of physicians recommended drastic measures. The Governor declaring a State health emergency, closed the school, etc. Over the next years the EPA and New York health authorities expanded their area of concern to 36 residential blocks, and the Congress became involved in Joint Hearings when chromasomal damage was reported. 

This landmark case led, in the last days of the Carter Administration (1980), to passage of the Superfund (CERCLA) laws. These laws required polluting industries to jointly pay to clean up their own mess and they also set aside government funds for sites where it was impossible to identify the culprits. However it took five years of lax Reagan-Repubican administration before the ATSDR (the agency charged with enforcing these rules) to be funded.

[Love Canal land was later remediated as a new suburb with a new name] </td></tr></tbody></table>

1980: The Superfund Compromise is being floated, This was (initially) a proposal to limit the number of hazardous waste sites that would be cleaned up, but it was amended out of recognition because of public hostility. A Bill extending the Compromise was only passed in Aug 1986 after five years of long and bitter inactivity during (Reagan's First term) See legal outline <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zln28d00" target="tobdoc"><img src="/9b26bada-4bc9-5fce-8490-b34572b49664.jpg"/></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zln28d00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="/400fd081-6f73-5a88-a4d9-60be1a9a870c.jpg"/></a>

    Only six dumps were cleaned up during the first five years of Superfund, and it went into limbo after September 30 1985 when its revenue sources dried up, The new compromise became a Bill for Renewal, which would require the Environmental Protection Agency to identify for future action 1,600 of the nation's worst sites by 1988. [The agency's national priority list was about half that size.] 

The compromise bill also gave citizens living near toxic sites the right to sue polluters to force a cleanup if EPA is not acting against a dump and to require chemical companies to inform communities about emissions of ''acute hazards'' from their plants.]

See US News & World Report article from the 1980s. <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/smk15b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="/f66f2e4c-bc3b-5e41-b970-fad2242bd97e.jpg"/></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/smk15b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="/4f27d9ca-e351-58d8-8ee1-aa40a764de7c.jpg"/></a>

...

==

1980 Nov: Ronald Reagan is President Elect.

President Carter's "Superfund" clean up legislation [ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)] was enacted during the Reagan transition period. It provided for an initial $1.6 billion Superfund.

However the Reagan Administration during 1981 and 1983 tried to load more of these costs back on the industries that had caused the problems in order to balance the Federal Budget. The Administration also delayed the funding of the regulatory agency (ATSDR) which would have Superfund oversight.

CERCLA gave EPA primary responsibility for identifying, investigating, and cleaning up hazardous waste sites, but the Act also authorized the establishment of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Register (ATSDR) under the Department of Public Health...

<blockquote class="Q" style=" font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 34, 34);">to assess the presence and nature of health hazards to communities living near Superfund sites, to help prevent or reduce harmful exposures, and to expand the knowledge base about the health effects that result from exposure to hazardous substances.</blockquote>

However deregulating zealots now controlled all of the political positions in the Reagan White House, and at the main agencies. So nothing happened in real terms until a crisis developed in mid 1983.

...

One of Carlo's puff pieces says about this period:

<blockquote class="Q" style=" font-style: italic; color: rgb(102, 34, 34); background-color: rgb(238, 238, 221);">He was integral in writing the enabling legislation that established theAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) within the Department of Health and Human Services, a primary group addressing the effects of environmental contaminants.</blockquote>

These ATSDR laws passed in 1980, but were suppressed during most of the first Reagan term between 1981 and 1983 — so nothing much happened at this time.

Only in the approach to Reagan's second term — after the Secretary of the Interior James Watt had been fired, and the EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch (Burford) and twenty of her top staff had been forced to resign over non-enforcement scandals — did the Reagan administration take this problem seriously.

[ As an Assistant Professor in Arkansas, Carlo does not register in the dioxin literature from this period, so his claim to have written the ATSDR legislation is dubious... to say the least]

CDC on Toxic Exposure Prevention   <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/Features/PreventExposure/" target="_blank"><img src="/84266b2b-abed-53bf-a6b0-9b74cfcd32c3.jpg"/></a> ATSDR on dioxins

==

<center>The scandals of a do-nothing Reagan EPA culminated in the weeks 9-to-25 March 1983 with the resignation of administrator Anne Gorsuch-Burford, John A Todhunter (over dioxins), John Hernandez (over lead), Rita Lavelle (Superfund cleanup), Robert M Perry (General Counsel), and 15 other high-ranking EPA officials; "Taking the axe for the Reagan Administration".</center>

1983 Mar 25: Following the March 25 1983 resignation of the EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford the EPA became paralysed by on-going scandals.

The first term of the Reagan Presidency was consumed by public rage at the lack of any reasonable regulatory activity by the Federal Government agencies, mostly because they were stimied by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which was part of the White House's Office of Managment & Budget (OMB).

    Over this five-to-six year period, a group of about 20 top EPA officials were forced to progressively resign... mostly because they sought to block measures to clean up toxic waste dumps under the Superfund laws, but some through obvious corporate bribery.

<div style=" margin-left: 2em;">[The OIRA was run by Jim Tozzi who excelled in blocking any meaningful regulatory activity by the main agencies. Tozzi later helped establish the lobby group MBS /Federal Focus Inc, and in the 1990s he joined forces with Thorne Auchter andGeorge Carlo in a number of ventures for Philip Morris and the cellphone industry. Tozzi's staff at the OIRA also left the White House at the end of the Reagan Presidency to set up the EOP Group, which lobbied for the tobacco and chemical industries withSteve Milloy and Bonner Cohen (both associates of Carlo also).]</div>

1983 April 19: While the 1980 CERCLA Act gave Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) primary responsibility for identifying, investigating, and cleaning up hazardous waste sites, it also authorized the establishment of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Register (ATSDR) to assess the presence and nature of health hazards to communities living near Superfund sites, to help prevent or reduce harmful exposures, and to expand the knowledge base about the health effects that result from exposure to hazardous substances.

    After two years of Reagan Administration stalling, the ATSDR was created as an agency under the Department of Health and Human Services on April 19, 1983 

</div>

<ul>

<li style=" padding-top: 0.1cm;">James G Watt the Secretary of the Interior (resigned Nov 1983)</li>

<li style=" padding-top: 0.1cm;">Anne Gorsuch Burford the head of the EPA (resigned Mar 1983)</li>

<li style=" padding-top: 0.1cm;">Thorne Auchter the Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), — later both Tozzi and Carlo's partner (resigned Mar 1984)</li>

<li style=" padding-top: 0.1cm;">Jim Tozzi the head of the Reagan White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OMB/OIRA), — both an Auchter and a Carlo partner — (resigned May 1983)</li>

<li style=" padding-top: 0.1cm;">Rita Lavelle, EPA Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response (ie Superfund). She was jailed in 1984 for perjury during a Congress hearing into corruption in her agency division.</li>

<li style=" padding-top: 0.1cm;">John Todhunter, EPA Administrator and Head of Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (fired in 1983)</li>

<li style=" padding-top: 0.1cm;">Eighteen others were forced to, or chose to, resign.</li>

</ul>

Four young budget examiners working for Tozzi in the OMB.OIRA's environmental branch also chose to leave shortly after (during the Bush Administration).

The creation of the EOP Group lobbyfirm:

[In White House-speak EOP = Executive Office of the President]

Michael O'Bannon and Ernest Robson initially joined Tozzi's lobby shop (MBS), but they left in 1992. Later they joined with Joseph Hezir, David Gibbons and Assistant Secretary of Energy, Jan Mares, to open the EOP Group — the only lobby firm besides Tozzi's to specialize in lobbying the OMB.

<ul>

<li style=" padding-top: 0.1cm;">Michael O'Bannon - from Dept of Interior and OIRA (joined Tozzi in MBS, then left to manage the EOP Group)</li>

<li style=" padding-top: 0.1cm;">Ernest Robins - OIRA (joined Tozzi's MBS and then the EOP Group)</li>

<li style=" padding-top: 0.1cm;">Joseph Hezir - OMB/OIRA (joined EOP Group)</li>

<li style=" padding-top: 0.1cm;">David Gibbons - OIRA (joined EOP Group)</li>

<li style=" padding-top: 0.1cm;">Jan Mares - Assistant Secretary of Energy, - (brought in later to front the EOP Group)</li>

<li style=" padding-top: 0.1cm;">Jonathon Gledhill - OMB & OIRA (later joined EOP Group)</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

--