Sumrfund:
,
Public funds are often squandered in pursuit of noble goals. The Superfund law easily could become a case. in point. It operates in an atmosphere of fear and wholly inadequate information that pressures the government to act faster than it can think problems through to devise technically sound solutions. If ever there were a federal program that required a scientifically sound strategy, it is Superfund. Superfund’s reauthorization and its greatIy increassd level of funding make Americans who want faster and better protection of their health and environment happy. Consultants and engineers are extremely pleased. Employees of EPA and state agency workers who were faced with personal upheavals are happy. Members of Congress who tried hard to balance a host of divergent interests are relieved. But these positive feelings may give way to sober reality in the months and years to come. Although much of the Superfund debate was about dollars, there has been some very shortsighted thinking about costs. Band-aid techniques make sense for shortterm recontrol actions, not remedial cleanups. Superfund makes no economic or environmental sense if sites must be “permanently” cleaned up over and over again. The new Superfund emphasizes permanently effective cleanup technologies. In the past, remedial cleanups that were supposed to be permanent often did little more than move waste to a landfill that itself stood a good chance of becoming a problem. In many cases, cleanup relied on containment measures that used slurry walls or clay caps. For sound technical reasons engineers would not certify the long-term effectiveness of such techniques. But because they were familiar, they often were selected anyway. High costs of transportation and growing public concerns about the leaching of hazardous materials favor on-site cleanup of waste and contaminated soil. h d there are promising biological and physical treatments for on-site aquifer restoration. Furthermore, “high tech” cleanups won’t automatically mean enormously higher cleanup costs. A technological innovation or advancement also can lower costs. For example, one new mobile infrared destruction technology cuts the cost of incineration by about twethirds. A new chemical fixation technique elimi-
nates large-volume increases of wastes and prevents leaching of toxic metals more effectively than older methods did, and it costs relatively little. A vacuum extraction technique to remove volatile organic chemicals from the ground is cheap and quick. Citizen groups are becoming increasingly sophisticated and expert about new cleanup technologies. The new Superfund law provides money to communities for technical assistance that could promote more effective cleanups, and its technology demonstration program and financial support for training and R&D will eventually prove very useful. But there are immediate needs. An efficient and effective Superfund program requires large amounts of technical data, many well-trained and skilled technicians, a complex, well-managed national organization, and, most important, an explicit strategy to set priorities and make critical trade-offs. None of these exist now, and all of them will.become even more important as we spend more money. And there is money-lots of it-and many people ready to take it. Inefficiency and poor work in the initial five-year, $lS-billion phase could be tolerated as a learning experience, but this will be unacceptable in the $8.5-billion, five-year phase. that will follow. There is still time to rethink what we need to know and exactly how we will spend Superfund money. 0therwise, the emotions that created the law will pale in comparison with public frustration over a failed Superfund program.
This Mi& rot WW to US.cwqrlgM. publishsd 1987 American C h s m M sociny
8 ,I
Assessment, for which he has directed several s d i e s on haurrdous w t e . He was previously o professor of engineering (u the Universiry of Wisconsin, research director at o small monufomrina conpony. ondo mana&ent corjulront. The views cxpressed are those of rhe author and not nece.wonij rhosc of Om. ’-
Envim. Sei.Techrol..W. 21. No. 3.1987 210
