The Price Is High--but Necessary

Superfund should not be confused with Superman. It cannot hurl toxic-waste dumps into eternity, vaporize harmful chemicals or instantly hold back pollutants from seeping into drinking water. What Superfund can and must do, however, is make a bigger, more efficient assault on cleaning up the nation’s toxic garbage. The task has proved far more difficult, more time-consuming and more expensive than anyone thought--factors that Congress must take into account as it moves to extend the Superfund legislation.

Superfund, officially known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, will expire at the end of September. It carried a five-year, $1.6-billion price tag. The job of cleaning up hazardous-waste sites is far from over, and more money is obviously needed. The Environmental Protection Agency says that operations are under way at more than 500 sites, with cleanups to be completed at about 20 by the end of the year. But the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment says that as many as 10,000 sites ultimately may be identified.

Congress must address three questions: (1) How much money should be spent? (2) What’s the best way to raise it? (3) And what’s the best way to use it?

The Senate Finance Committee has approved a reauthorization bill calling for $7.5 billion over five years. Rep. James J. Florio (D-N.J.), the leading sponsor on the House side, has introduced his legislation calling for $10.1 billion over the same period. The Administration says that it can spend only $5.3 billion. Its estimate may be correct if it continues business as usual, but the nation needs more action.

At present, Superfund is financed in part from general government revenues, but largely through fees imposed on petrochemical industries, which have lobbied hard against increasing those payments.

The Senate committee approved, 17 to 2, an excise tax of 0.08% on the gross receipts of manufacturers with more than $5 million a year in sales. The levy, which would not apply to exports or unprocessed farm commodities, could provide about $1.2 billion a year. But the Treasury Department opposes the move as a tax increase that it fears will harm economic recovery.

Regardless of the source, the Superfund money can be better spent, according to the Office of Technology Assessment. Its staff thinks that technology is not yet sophisticated enough to assure a total cleanup. Too often contaminated waste is simply moved to other sites that may then become candidates for Superfund cleanup themselves. It is, as one critic said, an elaborate shell game. The OTA staff thinks that it would be better to reduce the most dangerous pollution at more toxic dumps rather than try to achieve what may be the impossible task of total cleanup. That is good advice for action while the government increases its research on our cleanup technology.

The cost will be great, but not as great as the price of neglect.