SUPERFUND REMEDY: BILL OF RIGHTS

Haverford should request and receive answers to questions that have been transmitted to EPA on April 20, 2006 concerning the Superfund site at the corner of Lawrence and Eagle Road.  Questions are: 1) Is there a comparison of contaminant levels in 2005 with 2001 when treatment began?  2) What is the cost  per unit of contaminant removed from groundwater?  3), What uses have been made of permanently contaminated wood preserver sites?  In order, arguably, the answers are presaged as: 1) Don’t know (apparently none), 2) Very expensive (depending upon how it is calculated), 3) Probably none (or a heavily qualified response). 

Unconfirmed rumors have been circulating for several years that the Superfund site and gum factory have attracted imminent users and developers although none has materialized.  Because no one has come forward publicly it is highly unlikely for the Superfund site to be developed at all because it is – and will remain – contaminated with hazardous including carcinogenic substances.  These pollutants render new construction more than just doubtful and problematical.  Further, it is likely that old construction on nearby sites – such as the gum factory  – are contaminated.  New construction on the Superfund site proper probably won’t take place because the Superfund site would fail independent Environmental Audits that are required in loan guidelines and rules.  No one would safely invest in properties situated on pollution.

Use and occupancy permits require existing buildings on or near the site to be extensively tested and monitored to ensure health hazards do not exceed action levels at any time in comparison with structures away from the site.  Anything less would represent a danger to the public.   

Healthful private interests of taxpayers require environmental oversight and protection by government, whether or not taxing takes place. A special trust in government must be relied upon to ensure the public interest is served where contamination exists; that responsibility must be counted upon.

Haverford should expect to receive, review, comment upon in writing and obtain answers to questions about cumulative reports; those cumulative reviews should now be issued yearly.