An Early Summer Night's Superfund Dream

 

In April, 2005 a resolution was introduced requesting that EPA analyze nearly 5-years of monthly data to illustrate removal of pollutants from beneath the original part of the Superfund site at Lawrence and Eagle Roads, then to define water purity, draw conclusions and take mid-course corrective action before publishing a 5-year review of progress in August 2005. Each of Haverford’s commissioners were personally invited to ask questions before the 5-year review was published; the request was completely ignored.  The resolution has languished in limbo – neither debated nor tabled – since its introduction.  Similarly, EPA has made good use of the commissioners’ dithering by doing nothing to improve the Superfund remedy and, by the way, to reduce their costs of doing so in preparation to flipping the site to the State in 2013, if not before.  Rather than being in a “race to the top” to de-pollute the site, there is a “race to the bottom” to hand the site over to Pennsylvania where it could be peddled as a Brownfield with limited liability to the private successor at the site; the new owner could be immunized against legal action.  And the site would likely remain polluted because the costs of de-polluting the site would be prohibitive.  With this scenario in mind, the polluted site never “goes away” even though it is spread to both private and public land.  Now, who pays to clean up the expanded and chronic mess?   

More contamination was discovered downgradient from the original polluted site.  The entire Superfund site – I use the word really loosely, as EPA has affixed no boundaries because no one’s asking them to –  meaning it is spread out over private and public land in the township.  All signs point to EPA leaving it polluted or to paraphrase an adage of my favorite jurist, “If it is not necessary to do more . . . it is necessary not to do more.”   Haverford’s commissioners and eight (8) of their paper committees have done exactly that - nothing.  Voters’ elect their candidates with the expectation that they will take action, i.e., do something constructive.  The default is “inaction” or doing nothing useful required by their bound-in-duty.  It doesn’t take any effort, whatsoever, for an elected officeholder to be inert or to do nothing; it is also a good reason for being a disappointment or for that matter . . . not holding an elected office.

A food business wants to move in to a building over part of the polluted site.  It appears before the appropriate board, hat in hand, agreeing to do anything to get its use and occupancy permit approved.  Does anyone require continuous inside and outside monitoring of air quality?  Are various township committees and boards alerted to provide their written input for pollutant measurements?  Are restrictions put in place to prevent unearthing various pollutants beneath the site?  Which committee assesses the quality of the food to determine whether it, too, is healthful or just lots of empty calories?  Today, these are major environmental concerns.

It is necessary to improve the Superfund remedy while there is federal money to do so.  The alternative is to live with blight.  Who in their right mind would want that?