| OCR Text |
Show Hingkley Journal of Politics 2006 Was the primary system for determining placement on the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL identifies the sites that are national priorities for receiving federal investigation and long-term cleanup (Probst, 2003). In order to create a program that would accomplish these goals, a wide variety of resources were needed. EPA needed to construct a framework to be able to carry out the mandate °f Congress. This task was difficult to accomplish for two reasons: the lack of knowledge regarding the health effects of chemicals; as well as technologies necessary to create a safe system of waste disposal (Probst, 2003). There was insufficient data collected on specific sites to know exactly what deeded to be done. Much time was spent on obtaining information on waste migration to explain the history of certain sites, and to be able to train personnel on how to carry out cleanups (EPA, 2004). Over the last 24 years, the EPA has gradually acquired the technology and skills to design an effective program to Protect the environment from the dangers of hazardous waste. One recent example occurred in Utah. Located in Midvale, 130 acres of contaminated soil from old smelters was designated a Superfund site in 1991. Just recently the cleaned-up site was sold to a California-based developer to build a mixed-Use project containing residential houses and retail buildings. The developer, Larry Wallenstien, expects the project "to become the flagship for the Superfund concept, which takes land that otherwise wouldn't work and make it usable" (McKitrick, 2006). While the Midvale smelter site is just 1 °f 14 designated sites in Utah, it is a great example of the significant environmental and economic problems the Superfund continues to solve for local communities across the country. Crossroads for Funding two decades of cleanup efforts, the Superfund program itself addressing new problems. These problems are no longer concerns of liability or cleanup standards. The corporate taxes that helped finance the Trust Fund expired in 1995, Congress continues to appropriate the same amount of every year to keep the program running through genial revenues (Stevens, 2004). Now, with the trust fund j~mpty, the question is: does the cleanup program still need ^1-4 billion a year, or is it time to start cutting the budget as tae list of sites is completed? Will the depleted Trust Fund leave the program crippled from a lack of funding? One thing ls for sure, there is no evidence from this administration or Congress suggesting that the corporate taxes will be reinstat-ed> or that funding will increase by some other means. The question arises whether reinstating the chemical eedstock taxes is necessary. The answer is not a simple yes or n If Congress continues to give an adequate amount of to the EPA to successfully implement the Superfund Pr°gram, then as far as the EPA is concerned, the taxes don't matter. But the Trust Fund revenues seemed to act as a type of insurance for the EPA. Congress never funded the program directly through Trust Fund dollars. The Trust Fund money accounted for a large portion of what was appropriated annually to run the program. But the fact that there was money in the Trust Fund meant that Congress was likely to give EPA the money it needed, or at least maintain traditional funding levels. Those taxes were collected for the sole purpose of funding the Superfund program. The fact that the Trust Fund is depleted creates an uncertainty regarding the future of the program (Dietz, 2004). While there are many questions to be answered regarding the future of the Superfund, it is certain that there will be a need for a federal cleanup program for years to come. The idea that the nation is coming close to finishing the process of cleaning up all contaminated sites is not valid. New sites are continually being discovered and added to the NPL (Loehr, 2004). Almost 80 percent of all sites were added to the NPL in the first 10 years, between 1980 and 1990. In the 15 years since then, EPA has listed an average of 22 sites a year. Since the first round of sites was listed in 1983, 1,547 sites have been added to the NPL" (Probst, 2005, p. 20). Many of these sites will be more expensive and technically complicated than past completed sites. This is due to the fact that cleanup with many of the more complex and costly identified sites did not commence until recently. Clean up actions taken by industry and state Superfund Programs seldom address NPL-status sites because of their lack of funds and adequate programs. Only the federal government has the financial capability and resources to successfully clean up the most complex and costly jobs (Loehr, 2004). Randy Dietz, (2004) the Superfund Program Liaison Manager at the EPA states that there are two distinct points of view to evaluate the value of the Superfund and to determine its future. Both positions have credible but contradicting evidence to support their opinions. One position, taken by many environmentalists and EPA personnel, embraces the idea that the Superfund is still growing and evolving to meet the needs of new sites added to the NPL every year. Supporters argue that the program is needed now more than ever because there is a large list of remaining sites that are not close to cleanup completion. The other position, commonly held by conservative congressional Republicans, believes that the EPA is currently completing and adding to the NPL half the number sites as in years past. This statistic suggests that the Superfund program has completed the majority of the work it set out to do. This position suggests that as the Trust Fund becomes depleted, the program should reevaluate its effectiveness (Dietz, 2004). Is it time to ramp down and place the focus elsewhere? Could the $1.4 billion appropriated be better spent? These opposing views raise five assumptions worth examining. 45 |
