Superfund Sites and the Case of Breslube-Penn Research Paper

Superfund Sites and the Case of Breslube-Penn
A case study of the influence of a local superfund on its surrounding community.
# 129228 | 7,805 words | 28 sources | APA | 2003 | US

$89.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now


This paper focuses on the influence of a local superfund site on its surrounding community, employing a case study method that includes a pre-interview survey, one-on-one interviews, and content analysis of newspaper and relevant EPA documents to develop an understanding of why certain individuals were more affected by and concerned with the presence of the site than others. The paper explains that this study explores how these individuals were affected by the Breslube-Penn superfund site in terms of their health, their jobs, their involvement in lawsuits or alternative dispute resolutions, and their participation in the clean-up process and subsequent land re-development. Furthermore, the paper illustrates the study's use of eco-critical theory to understand both how participants developed their attitudes toward superfund sites, as well as the EPA's involvement in the superfund site and the decisions it made throughout the superfund process.

Literature review
History and development of superfund
Criticisms of superfund
Theoretical framework
The case of Breslube-Penn
The case study approach
Data sources and collection methods
Dimensions to explore
Human subject protection issues
Plan of analysis

From the Paper:

"Within three to four years of its passage, the ineffectiveness of CERCLA became clear. Little progress had been made cleaning up the sites, and the legislation was criticized as being bureaucratic, too expensive, too litigious, and "a morale-sapping management scandal" (Lipeles, 1997: 278). In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). SARA made a number of substantial changes to the initial CERCLA legislation, including increasing the size of the superfund from $1.5 to $8.5 billion, establishing a series of milestones to be met prior to a site being placed on the NPL, establishing clean-up standards consistent with other federal and state environmental legislation, empowering the EPA to enter into agreements with PRPs to expedite clean-up and expand the number of sites being cleaned up, and providing for public participation in the selection of a remedy and the approval of any settlement agreements between the EPA and PRPs (Lipeles, 1997)."

Sample of Sources Used:

  • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 42 U.S.C. 9601.
  • U.S. v. Olin Corp. 107 F.3d 1506 (11th Cir. 1997)
  • Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
  • Arquette, M., Cole, M., Cook, K., LaFrance, B., Peters, M., Ransom, J., Sargent, E., Smoke, V., Stairs, A. (2002). Holistic Risk-based environmental decision-making: a Native perspective. Environmental Health Perspectives Supplements, vol. 110, no. 2.
  • Barnett, H.C. (1994). Toxic debts and the superfund dilemma. UNC Press: North Carolina.

Cite this Research Paper:

APA Format

Superfund Sites and the Case of Breslube-Penn (2010, September 22) Retrieved July 26, 2017, from

MLA Format

"Superfund Sites and the Case of Breslube-Penn" 22 September 2010. Web. 26 July. 2017. <>