The following story appeared on InsideEPA.com on June 4, 2007:

WASHINGTON, June 4, 2007 —

A series of recent reports critical of EPA’s management of the Superfund program could bolster Democratic and environmentalist efforts in the 110th Congress to tackle what they say are problems with funding the cleanup program, House Democratic and activist sources say.

But while welcomed by some sources within the agency, the efforts are likely to meet staunch opposition from EPA and industry officials, who say the criticism amounts only to rehashed arguments aimed at stirring anti-industry sentiment while overlooking the program’s inner-workings.

At issue is an ongoing series of reports titled Wasting Away: Superfund’s Toxic Legacy, which The Center for Public Integrity launched April 26. The reports, generally critical of the slowing pace of Superfund cleanups and lack of money in the Superfund trust, have generated a significant amount of publicity, particularly in local media outlets that cover communities where Superfund sites are located.

The reports come as Democrats and environmentalists have highlighted similar issues in recent months. For example, the most recent report, released May 18, focused on the number of sites EPA currently designates as those where potential human exposure to contaminants is not yet under control. “More then 25 million people live within 10 miles of these sites” and “more than 100 schools are located within one mile” of the sites, the report says.

The issue of sites where potential human exposure is not yet under control has been the subject of a series of letters to EPA from key Democrats during the past year, including Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and John Thune (R-SD), and Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ). Lawmakers have focused on the issue in part because it underscores EPA’s funding problems, House Democratic sources have said.

A House Democratic source says there is “no question” the reports could provide Democrats with additional ammunition with which to criticize controversial EPA policies that key Democrats and environmentalists say are driven by the agency’s lack of cleanup funding.

“If we were having a Superfund hearing next week, I’d be poring over these very closely,” the House Democratic source says. An activist source says the reports do a “terrific job going after EPA” and provide “really good” descriptions of what critics say are the problems with the Superfund program.

An EPA source, meanwhile, says some career staffers at the agency are “dancing in the halls” as a result of the recent congressional attention because they are “happy someone is finally noticing” problems with the Superfund program. But the EPA source notes there is “definitely a schism” within the agency on the issue, primarily between career staffers and political appointees.

A second EPA source argues allegations contained in the Democratic inquiries and the reports are “sloppy.” The source says they “plow a lot of the same ground” that Democrats and environmentalists have asserted in recent years by trying to link the dwindling trust fund and the expired Superfund tax on industry, which fed the trust, to the slowing pace of Superfund cleanups.

The source argues the amount of money in the Superfund trust has no bearing on the program’s performance, as the agency only has access to the funds —whether from the trust or other sources—if they are appropriated by Congress.

And even a larger annual appropriation for the program would have a limited impact on the program’s performance, argues this source, who attributes the slowing cleanup pace primarily to the complexity and large size of the sites where cleanup work remains, as compared to those sites where work has been completed in recent years.

One of the reports EPA and industry sources are taking issue with shows the agency has diverted $709 million in cleanup money collected from responsible parties at toxic waste sites away from the general Superfund trust and into special, site-specific accounts. The center issued the report, “EPA Diverts Money From Shared Superfund Pool,” May 10.

According to the report, EPA in 2000 began depositing money recouped in settlements into site-specific accounts that can be used only for future cleanup work at the site at issue in the settlement. Prior to 2000, the agency deposited the money into the general Superfund trust, and therefore it was available for use at any site, the report says.

EPA released “limited” information about the site-specific accounts in response to the center’s April 26 report that showed a decline in the amount of money the agency has recovered annually for the Superfund trust since 2000, the report says.

The report says that “the growing use of the special accounts has left an unknown number of Superfund sites without a special account or a financially viable company associated with it.” These “‘orphan sites’ have had to compete for money left over from other cleanups, and these dwindling funds are distributed during closed deliberations by the agency to a fraction of the sites that need the money,” the report says.

But the second EPA source argues using site-specific accounts is more effective than depositing money into the general trust. While funds from the trust must be appropriated by Congress in order to be put toward cleanup, EPA officials can access the site-specific accounts directly, the EPA source argues.

Attempts to criticize the agency over its practice of directing money from Superfund settlements into site-specific accounts is also likely to meet staunch opposition from industry groups, which will argue the practice helps ensure companies do not pay more then their fair share of cleanup expenses at sites where they are liable, industry sources add.

An industry source contends that Congress — not companies already engaged in cleanups at sites where they are liable — should be responsible for funding cleanups at orphan sites. If EPA recoups funds from other responsible parties at a site where a company is engaged in a voluntary cleanup, that money should be reinvested in that particular site in order to offset the expenses of the company doing the cleanup, the industry source argues.

“We Fortune 500 companies are doing more than our share,” the source says.