In order to begin and expedite the cleanup progress, we propose an appeal to name Chemical Valley as a Superfund site. Superfunds were created by the federal government “to clean up the nation’s uncontrolled hazardous waste sites,” and are overseen by the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (EPA; EPA). Superfunds were established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response and the Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 in the wake of discovering severe environmental degradation as a result of toxic waste dumps such as Love Canal and Times Beach (EPA). The steps to get a site classified as a superfund are arduous and complex, as it involves assessing the sites, placing them on the National Priorities List, and then both establishing and implementing appropriate cleanup plans. The Kanawha River falls into region 3 of the 10 regions designated to respond to hazardous substance releases.
Arguably, Chemical Valley has had numerous hazardous substance releases, drawing national attention for numerous accidents and not just the most recent fiasco with MCHM. Most assuredly, this region should be assessed for inclusion into the Superfund program, as it would provide funding for cleanup efforts and hold corporations accountable for their actions that led to the release of hazardous materials into the region’s drinking water supply.
With the implementation of the program, Chemical Valley will be properly assessed and cleaned accordingly. With the assessment, appropriate measures can be taken for cleanup. In some cases upon completion of site assessment, the agency determines potentially responsible parties (PRPs) as responsible for cleanup, assuming they are still present in the community and have the funds to clean up. This creates strong relationships with PRPs, allowing for an atmosphere of cooperation and mutual respect. Furthermore, this brings the PRPs to the table and encourages cleanup of sites not listed on the national priorities list. It also encourages those who handle hazardous substances to be more careful as to avoid future liabilities (Probst, 1995). This will allow for safe and effective cleanup of the Valley and would not impose heavy costs of cleanup on society.
Despite the benefits of the Superfund proposal, weaknesses and threats exist as well. Critics, for instance, argue that “the liability scheme is unfair, slows cleanup, and results in unnecessary transaction costs” (Probst, 1995). Just because cleanup may be instituted does not mean that the liable parties are doing it effectively or efficiently. Furthermore, applying for the superfund is an extensive process in itself, and could be very hard to appeal for all of Chemical Valley.