Critics Urge Changes in Superfund Operations

In its review of the Superfund program last year, the Environmental Protection Agency noted that the cleanup effort is at a critical juncture--running out of money and up for congressional renewal in 1991.

The EPA wants to avoid a protracted debate in Congress, fearing that significant changes could further delay the cleanup campaign. Some environmental groups and others critical of the program say the time for reforms is now. Among their proposals:

Curtail polluters’ responsibilities: The basic philosophy of Superfund is that the polluter pays, but many say the Bush Administration has extended that idea too far by allowing polluters also to perform the risk assessments that determine how badly contaminated a site is and how it should be cleaned up.

“If we ask the fox to prepare a report on how to guard the chicken coop, we must be suspicious of the results,” said “Tracking Superfund,” a report released in February by five environmental groups and a treatment industry association.

The report recommended that the companies responsible for pollution be prohibited from conducting such risk assessments.

Make Superfund permanent: Cleanups are not being finished as quickly as expected, although Superfund is temporary and subject to congressional approval every five years.

“Making Superfund a permanent program would be a logical first step, because achieving complete, rapid and permanent cleanups everywhere in a decade or two is impossible,” the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment said in a 1989 report.

A permanent Superfund program could help the EPA retain key employees and develop a consistent strategy and new technologies.

Have the EPA do EPA work: This concept is contained in legislation that would give the agency Cabinet status, and which almost certainly will be vetoed if the measure is passed by Congress. It is related to turning Superfund into a permanent program; both changes would reduce reliance on outside contractors.

Even if the legislation were to be passed, the EPA could not wean itself from outside contractors. Critics in the agency and outside say that too many important government decisions are made by non-government employees. Some argue also that the EPA may be unaware of contractors’ conflicts of interest.

“I think EPA, or any agency, needs to know who else the company works for, and if there are conflicts,” said Sen. David H. Pryor (D-Ark.). “We need some sunshine in the program.”

The legislation would also allow the EPA to order federal facilities, such as military bases and nuclear complexes, cleaned up. The White House opposes this, although President Bush said before his election that “government should live within the laws it imposes on others.”

Establish uniform cleanup standards: Cleanup criteria can vary from state to state.

“Why do leaks of benzene in Texas get cleaned up to a certain level, and to another level in New Jersey?” asked Linda E. Greer, a toxicologist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It doesn’t make sense.”

The “Tracking Superfund” report proposed a “national cookbook” for Superfund sites, giving rules as to how many samples are needed to evaluate a site, depths for sampling, methods to be used to correct each type of contamination and standards of cleanliness regarding specific pollutants.