LOS ANGELES — For nearly a century, a battery smelting facility, Exide Technologies, contaminated the surrounding environment in southeast Los Angeles, affecting Patricia Flores and thousands of others in the area. This plant, situated just over a mile from Flores’ residence, released harmful pollutants, including lead and trichloroethylene (TCE), into the community, raising serious public health concerns. TCE is known to be a cancer-causing substance that also poses a threat to the region’s groundwater.
Following Exide’s bankruptcy declaration in 2020, California has allocated more than $770 million towards environmental remediation efforts. However, local residents express concern regarding the sufficiency of these measures and the impact of political changes on the ongoing cleanup process. Flores voiced her worries in Spanish, noting that the TCE in the groundwater is spreading and can potentially affect more people beyond just her community. “It is concerning that we won’t be prioritized for cleanup,” she said, highlighting a broader fear of ongoing contamination.
In light of these issues, community members, environmental advocates, and legislative representatives are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to designate the Exide site as a Superfund area. Such a designation would enable federal resources to facilitate extensive and lasting cleanup efforts. The EPA had previously determined that the Exide facility met the criteria for this classification due to the presence of TCE in the local groundwater, which has raised alarms regarding its potential to pollute local drinking water.
However, experts in toxic cleanup fear that the revamped administration under Donald Trump might complicate the process for designating hazardous sites as Superfund locations. They caution that it could create a backlog for cleanups, diminish funding for such initiatives, and relax the existing standards for contamination. The Superfund program, established over forty years ago, aims to address the most polluted sites in the United States, which often include lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color.
Once a site is placed on the National Priorities List, it undergoes an assessment for contamination, followed by the development and implementation of a cleanup strategy. Successful cleanups may ultimately result in the site’s removal from the list, allowing for redevelopment. As per EPA data, there are currently 1,341 Superfund locations tagged for cleanup efforts.
While the program has usually enjoyed bipartisan backing, its operations and financing are susceptible to changes in political leadership. An EPA spokesperson indicated that the agency is forming a leadership team of experts committed to protecting both human health and the environment, suggesting that the Biden administration’s focus on environmentally responsible policies will continue under Trump’s next term.
The potential implications of Trump’s forthcoming presidency on the Superfund program remain uncertain, yet many industry experts point to his prior term’s impact on federal environmental initiatives. During that period, a backlog of Superfund cleanups reportedly increased, despite Trump labeling the program as a priority while simultaneously attempting to minimize its budget and the EPA’s overall funding. The spokesperson mentioned that the Trump administration’s EPA made substantial strides in cleanup numbers, claiming a greater number of sites were fully or partially removed from the National Priorities List.
Concerns arise regarding the future of site cleanups, especially in states that may lack the financial resources to handle contaminated sites independently. Experts like Michael Blumenthal, co-chair of an environmental law group, emphasize the necessity for federal collaboration in addressing these pollution issues, particularly in states confronted with limited support.
In the past, “polluter pays” taxes were established to impose fees on companies responsible for pollution; however, these funds expired in 1995. Under the Biden administration, there were hopes that renewed financial support through recent legislation would improve cleanup progress. Nonetheless, uncertainty looms regarding potential rollbacks of this funding, compounded by actions taken by the Trump administration to disrupt EPA staffing and diminish scientific input.
Lawyer Granta Nakayama expressed that staffing challenges could drastically affect the EPA’s ability to administer the program efficiently. In cases where federal efforts lag, some states may need to confront additional pressures to manage their cleanup initiatives, with varying levels of political commitment influencing their strategies.
Trump’s initial term also saw a weakening of environmental protections, which may repeat during his second term. His administration had previously suggested a framework of deregulation that some anticipate could adversely affect the Superfund program’s effectiveness. According to Blumenthal, adjustments to the hazardous ranking system could further complicate the process of ranking and designating sites for federal cleanup actions.
Delays in the decision-making process have already caused issues for ongoing cleanup efforts. For instance, attorney Connie Westfall shared her frustrations regarding the waiting period at the U.S. Oil Recovery Superfund site in Texas, noting that these holdups are detrimental financially.
Aleja Cretcher, an environmental advocate, echoed these worries, underscoring the potential for losing crucial EPA support could represent a significant setback for years of coordination on projects, including Exide. “Decades of pollution without accountability shouldn’t continue,” she stated, adding that everyone deserves access to clean air, soil, and water.
