Superfund fate

Regarding “Dirty Politics” (Page A18, Wednesday), if there’s one thing the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has made clear, it’s that he believes Superfund is a vital function of the agency. The purpose of his Superfund Task Force was to make recommendations on how the agency could restructure the cleanup process.

While the Task Force’s recommendations lacked focus on public health and community involvement, I am certain Albert Kelly and Scott Pruitt are communicating with stakeholders across the country.

To critics’ surprise, the EPA’s $115 million record of decision for the cleanup of the San Jacinto waste pits goes against the pleas of big business. Budget cuts within the agency should not impact the cleanup of sites with viable responsible parties, which we have at the waste pits.

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (known as Superfund), potentially responsible parties foot the bill for the cleanup under EPA oversight.

The waste pits contain dioxin, a deadly carcinogen, submerged in a river that residents of Harris and surrounding counties use for recreation and commerce. The decision for removal came as no surprise to those familiar with how vulnerable the waste pits are and how unsuccessful the attempt to temporarily contain the pits has been.

The final clean-up plan for the San Jacinto River waste pits should be based on sound science. The EPA has done just that. Its decision to clean up this deadly dioxin by removing the waste in a controlled and engineered environment will prevent any future catastrophic and uncontrolled releases. Remember, an uncontrolled release is much harder to clean up than a series of pits in a controlled fashion.