leftover funding, according to a Davis aide. EPA officials "wanted to maximize the impact on the environment," and thus shut down the cleanups, said Chip Highsmith, Davis' legislative director. EPA decried the charges. "There are general contracting rules for the entire government," an EPA spokesperson said; these rules are applied to the Superfund contractors. In most cases, it would be illegal to require agencypaid personnel to remain at work when government pay was suspended, the official added. The budget belt-tightening is bound to encourage EPA and other government entities to retool their programs, industry observers said, and in some cases the trend may turn out positively. In the case of Superfund, the current climate might push forward liability reform so that less money is put into settling lawsuits and more into cleanups. "I would prefer an increase in funding, but the fact is that a drop in funding is a reality," said Dobbins. "We've got to take the lemons and make lemonade."
Already, companies that have worked on Superfund sites are looking at cleanups supported by government-industry partnerships, such as returning abandoned urban industrial sites to useable property.
"The shutdown was a tremendous wake-up call to contractors that the road wasn't paved with gold." — David Freeman, contractor spokesperson Some industry analysts worry that the drop in federal remediation money will harm the country's ability to protect human health and the environment. Dobbins said cuts in environmental programs across the board are having an impact on contracting firms in many areas, including those that construct drinking-water facilities and solid waste facilities or manufacture
industrial pollution control equipment. "Some of these folks are going to go out of business," he said. "With that, you are going to lose the expertise in the private sector." Firms that concentrate on offering innovative remediation technologies will be hurt because they will be forced to scale back, primarily because cleanups of the future are likely to favor "triedand-true technologies," Berkowitz said. And community activists who monitor local cleanups are also worried that Congress's budget cutting will mean fewer cleanup actions, said Charlotte Brody, organizing director for Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste. Brody said meetings with EPA officials at local sites have been canceled; reports on alternative solutions have not been released; and 1996 construction dates have been pushed back. "I think we all fear that less money will translate into less cleanup and more reason for more delay," said Brody. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
Browner predicts damage to Superfund, environmental programs Stalled regulations, 40% fewer inspections, $63 million in uncollected fines, and a system of "environmental protection by triage" are the result of cuts to the EPA budget, said Administrator Carol Browner at a hearing held by House of Representatives Democrats on Feb. 26. Browner was particularly concerned about Superfund program cuts and testified that 68 major cleanup and recovery actions set to start this year will be halted because of budget cuts. An aide noted that another 20 cleanups were already stalled because of cuts made last summer by the rescission of unspent funds. "The longer cleanups are stalled," the aide said, "the more likely it is that cleanup plans must be redesigned. Meanwhile, the problems remain." The administrator discussed cuts to programs from drinking water to the air office, and she stressed how EPA reductions would influence aid to states. For instance, she said, cleanups at New Jersey's 81 Su-
perfund sites would be reduced by one-quarter; Massachusetts would lose $18 million in drinking-water and sewage treatment funds; and across the nation, communities would lose $712 million in water-related revolving funds. Overall, Browner said the agency staff was reduced by 10% (1500 employees) and the average age of departing staff was 34. In an interview following her testimony, Browner noted that 70% of cleanup activities are being paid for by private parties responsible for the pollution. But she warned that they were becoming increasingly cautious in their commitment. "They don't know what is going to happen. Their lawyers are telling them, 'Why should you be doing this right now when everything may be changing?' " She predicted a general slowdown in cleanup activities across the country and the creation of a backlog, which would require significant recovery time to get back on track. She compared today's confusion to
that of 1986 when Superfund reauthorization stalled in Congress. "It was an incredible era of uncertainty in which activities ground to a halt. It took the program two-and-one-half years to recover, and that is exactly what's about to happen again." Browner appeared with Bruce Babbitt, secretary of the interior, Lois Schiffer, assistant attorney general for environment and natural resources, Department of Justice, and community representatives who hammered the Republican-controlled Congress. The hearing was a Democratsonly affair and was held because the Republican majority refused to hold hearings on the budget cuts' impact, said Democratic staff. However, Republicans called the hearing a "mockery" and Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) called Browner "disingenuous" for saying she would work with Congress while taking part in "rhetorical grandstanding that has made compromise impossible." —JEFF JOHNSON
VOL. 30, NO. 4, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 5 3 A
