REPORT ADDRESSES THE NEED TO REFORM SUPERFUND PROGRAM

Environmental protection has a nice ring to it. No one finds fault with protecting the surroundings -- air, land and water -- in which we live. The measures by which we achieve this high aspiration, however, provide fuel for considerable disagreement. It has been our belief, and remains so, that the federal government, in enforcing environmental laws, goes to extremes that are detrimental to the American economy. A recent report bears out that belief.

People of the Cape Girardeau area are familiar with the United States Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act. Thankfully, it carries a more manageable name: Superfund. Passed into law during the Carter administration, the Superfund was intended as a short-term project to address the risks associated with hazardous waste disposal sites. As it has developed over the last 13 years, it has turned into a cash cow for attorneys and a job-perpetuation mechanism for bureaucrats. By the end of Fiscal Year 1992, the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the Superfund, had obligated $11.4 billion, though remediation had been completed at only 12 percent of the targeted sites.

There are two Superfund sites in Cape Girardeau and one just across the river. In all cases, the approach to remediation -- in these locales where public danger has been isolated -- has been casual and costly. The paradox, cited here before, is that if the sites are so hazardous, why does it take years to remedy the situations? Further, if the sites are safe enough to remain in place for years, during which all manners of bureaucratic action are played out, why is the process for remediation so expensive? (The average cost per site is about $30 million.)

Now comes a report from The Business Roundtable, an association of more than 200 major corporations, saying that the American economy could be brought onto a more level playing field with other nations by reform of the Superfund program. The reforms would enable the government to clean up more hazardous waste at less cost, put more responsibility on the parties causing hazardous situations and more clearly prioritize site cleanups.

One suggested reform that makes sense is moving the Superfund to more pragmatic expectations for the affected land; the American system supposes all sites it deals with will ultimately be residential, while in other countries, future land use (probably industrial, in most cases) is taken into consideration. Inefficiencies are built into the basic American premise.

In addition, other nations don't cast a broad net of liability over companies that possibly contaminated a site, a Superfund practice that expounds the time it takes for cleanup and, inevitably, raises the likelihood (and costs) of legal proceedings. (In the majority of Superfund cases, parties held liable for contaminating a site were acting in accordance with the law at the time they did so.)

The hazardous waste cleanups in other countries handle settlements much earlier in the process, meaning more resources can be concentrated on remediation efforts and less on litigation, a major component of the Superfund program.

At this time, there are 1,200 Superfund sites. Potentially, thousands of others exist. A University of Tennessee study estimates that by 2020, the Superfund program, kept on its present course, will cost $750 billion. All this Business Roundtable report suggests is that the mistakes, excesses and inefficiencies of the Superfund program be examined. Reforms can be made in this heavily bureaucratic system without endangering the health of any American; at the same time, positive changes can enhance the competitiveness of U.S. businesses. We believe this is a report that should be taken seriously.