Industry coalition slams Superfund Superfund is high on the list of federal programs almost every interest group loves to hate. Judging from the reports that surface at regular intervals, about the only thing Superfund's critics agree on is that the program is flawed, fatally so to hear the moans emanating from academia, trade associations, environmental groups, and law firms. The latest group to weigh in is the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Project, a coalition of industry trade associations, including the Chemical Manufacturers Association and the National Agricultural Chemicals Association. By releasing three analyses of existing data and information, the project hopes to influence Superfund's reauthorization now under way in Congress. As John Quarles, partner in the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and counsel to the project, explains, 'The analyses . . . show quite convincingly that Superfund is not a sound environmental investment/' That basic theme runs through "Exaggerating Risk," "Technological Reality," and "Sticker Shock"—titles of the three analyses. Together the three studies argue that many of Superfund's resources are directed at theoretical risks, at risks that can be reduced at lower cost, or at nonexistent risks. Further, the studies contend that some Environmental Protection Agency-mandated cleanup standards cannot be met by using available ' technology "at any cost." Addressing the fulcrum of Superfund decision-making—remedy selection at contaminated sites—the studies argue that the process is "tilted toward over-control." This emphasis results in costly control measures that yield little benefit to public health or to the environment, the studies claim. Each of the three reports addresses a key element of the decision-making process: risk assessment, treatment technology, and cost. According to the project's analyses, instead of using actual data in its risk assessments, EPA uses highly conservative assumptions. By doing so, the risk report claims, the agency tends to exaggerate potential risks at any given site. Furthermore, by striving for permanent solutions, EPA tends to choose destruction and treatment technologies over methods such as engineering and
institutional controls that can substantially reduce or eliminate risks. The studies argue, however, that in many cases, no technology exists that can meet EPA's high cleanup standard, even if cost is of no consideration. The report "Technological Reality" cites the case of cleaning up contaminated groundwater, a frequent necessity at Superfund sites. EPA usually requires contractors to purify the groundwater by pumping out the water and removing the contaminants through physical treatment. But, the report points out, many contaminants adhere to soil or are trapped in bedrock. They do not rise to the surface as the groundwater is pumped, so no amount of subsequent treatment will achieve targeted purification—at any cost. "I don't understand the point of this technology report. There is growing concern that we don't have the technologies we want, and EPA agrees that there are limits to technology," comments Kate Probst, a fellow at Washington, D.C.-based Resources for the Future's (RFF) Center for Risk Management. And "Sticker Shock" asserts that EPA's quest for permanent remedies is one factor contributing to the runaway cost of cleanups. The average cleanup cost per site has more than tripled, from an early EPA estimate of $7 million per site to $25 million today. Along with escalating cleanup cost per site is a tripling of the number of abandoned sites needing to be cleaned up—from 418 sites originally listed by EPA to 1275 today. A December 1991 study by the University of Tennessee estimated that the cost of Superfund and related waste cleanup programs such as the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act could reach $752 billion over the next 30 years, if present policies are continued. If cleanup remedies included more institutional controls and waste isolation, this study estimated that $268 billion could be slashed from the $752 billion figure without compromising human health or the environment. But Probst says the University of Tennessee report offers "no analyses to support" its contention and nowhere in the report is level of protection defined. According to Quarles, the project's
report on risk assessment "is probably more useful than anything else in the field." The project is using it to educate policymakers "on how risk assessments are generated" by EPA, he explains. The report itself, "Exaggerating Risk," enumerates what are purported to be the many flaws in EPA's approach—an approach that overstates risk. The report maintains that "EPA uses unwarranted assumptions instead of relevant site-specific data." The agency also is cited for using theoretical "worst-case" values in each of its assumptions, and for using single values, instead of a group of values for each variable in the risk equation. Adam Finkel, a fellow at RFF's Center for Risk Management, agrees that single values should not be used. He notes that "EPA has a responsibility for informing people, saying, 'Here are the estimates, they could be higher or lower.' " But on the whole he pans the project's risk report as "an extreme affront to rationality, completely inaccurate." As Finkel explains, "There is nothing in it that has not been aired before and refuted by other people. Even if its factual conclusions are supportable— which they are not—then it becomes a value judgment about how conservative the risks should be." The Hazardous Waste Cleanup Project presented its three reports to EPA at a recent public forum of a committee of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy & Technology (NACEPT). This NACEPT panel was convened by EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner to recommend legislative options to the Clinton Administration by October. Congress is pressing the Administration to submit its Superfund reauthorization proposal by early fall. Even before Superfund is reauthorized, EPA is moving ahead with administrative changes to improve Superfund's implementation. As recently outlined by the agency, these improvements fall neatly into four main categories: enforcement fairness and transaction costs, cleanup effectiveness and consistency, public participation, and the role of the states. The studies are available for $10 each from Linda Eaton, c/o Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1800 M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Lois Ember AUGUST 2, 1993 C&EN
19
