Economic Report of the President 1994 - The American Presidency ...

eral, lays a foundation for broader, more formal policy initiativesin the future.SUPERFUND REAUTHORIZATION: THEADMINISTRATION POSITIONThe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act, better known as Superfund, was enacted in 1980and amended in 1986 in response to widespread concerns that improperlydisposed-of wastes threatened human health and valuablenatural resources, such as groundwater aquifers. The act has beenunsatisfactory in addressing this problem. Fewer than 20 percentof the 1,300 disposal sites on the priority list drawn up by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) have been fully "cleaned up,"although 3,500 separate actions have been taken to remove wastesposing an immediate threat to health.At the same time, the costs of the program have been substantial,running almost $7 billion per year. This figure includes directdraws on the Superfund trust fund collected from the oil and chemicalindustries to pay for EPA expenses (including $1.6 billion inspending on cleanups where no private parties can be assigned responsibility),$3.2 billion in spending by Federal agencies that ownor contributed to hazardous waste sites, and $2 billion in spendingby private parties, much of which goes to lawyers' fees and othertransactions costs in an effort to escape or reduce liability. Someestimates put the total cost of cleaning up the 3,000 sites projectedto be on the EPA's National Priority List (NPL) over the next 30to 40 years at $130 billion to $150 billion, with $200 billion to $300billion more needed for Federal facility cleanups.In response to the poor cost-effectiveness and slow pace of thisprogram, the Administration has proposed several significant reforms.The two most important involve the standards and processesgoverning the cleanup strategy chosen at a site, and the process forassigning and financing liability.Remedy SelectionUnder the current law, remedial measures at Superfund sites arechosen with a preference for treatment and permanent cleanup ofsoil and water. They are also selected to meet high standards ofcleanliness: land generally must become suitable for residentialuse, and water often must achieve drinking quality. Costs have littleweight in remedy selection; they come into play only to identifythe cheapest of the set of remedies meeting other criteria.The Administration's position establishes more-reasonable goalsand processes for cleanup decisions. It sets uniform national goalsfor health and environmental protection to guide remedy selection.It substitutes a concern for long-term reliability as a factor to considerin remedy selection, in place of the preference for treatment186