In a not-quite-new but little noticed battle on climate change (November), the Government Accountability Office took on the EPA regarding serious threats to superfund sites from major weather events that are being magnified by climate change:
“EPA Should Take Additional Actions to Manage Risks from Climate Change.”
www.gao.gov/…
A one page PDF summary is here:
www.gao.gov/...
Climate change may increase the frequency and intensity of certain natural disasters, which could damage Superfund sites—the nation’s most contaminated hazardous waste sites.
Federal data suggests about 60 percent of Superfund sites overseen by EPA are in areas that may be impacted by wildfires and different types of flooding—natural hazards that may be exacerbated by climate change.
We found that EPA has taken some actions to manage risks at these sites. However, we recommend it provide direction on integrating climate information into site-level decision making to ensure long-term protection of human health and the environment.
This is very serious stuff, as seen in the first picture in the report link above. As the report summary notes:
Administered by EPA, Superfund is the principal federal program for addressing sites containing hazardous substances. EPA lists some of the most seriously contaminated sites—most of which are nonfederal—on the NPL and has recorded over 500 contaminants,including arsenic and lead, at those sites. Climate change may make some natural disasters more frequent or more intense, which may damage NPL sites and potentially release contaminants,according to the Fourth National Climate Assessment.GAO was asked to review issues related to the impact of climate change on nonfederal NPL sites. This report examines, among other objectives, (1)what available federal data suggest about the number of nonfederal NPLsites that are located in areas that maybe impacted by selected climate change effects and (2) the extent to which EPA has managed risks to human health and the environment from the potential impacts of climate change effects at such sites. GAO analyzed available federal data; reviewed laws, regulations,and documents; interviewed federal officials and stakeholders; visited three nonfederal NPL sites that experienced natural disasters; and compared EPA actions to manage risk to GAO’s six essential elements of enterprise risk management.What GAO Recommends GAO is making four recommendations to EPA, including that it clarify how its actions to manage risks at nonfederal NPL sites from potential impacts of climate change align with current goals and objectives. EPA agreed with one recommendation and disagreed with the other three. GAO continues to believe that all four are warranted
In other words, the GAO is recognizing that major climate-related events—ocean storms, floods, fires—are going to have a dramatic impact on superfund sites, which contain massive amounts of hundreds of toxic chemicals. The EPA, by contrast, is essentially saying that nothing has changed, and is telling the GAO to pound sand.
There are both policy and political implications here, of course. The EPA is telling the country—especially its poor and rural areas where superfund sites are frequent—that it just doesn’t need to do anything to protect them from an upcoming outpouring of toxins. Way to go get ‘em, Twitler and Wheeler. What is different at the GAO? Comptroller General Dodaro, who runs it, has a 15 year term, and can give the EPA back the sand.