| OCR Text |
Show The Future of the Superfund: Where is it Headed and How Will it Get There? Bryon Prince administration for refusing reauthorization until the Superfund is "reformed". He strongly disputes the administration's rationale, as the program has undergone more than 30 targeted reforms in the previous seven years (Cope, 2003). The Future of Superfund A central purpose of this essay has been to demonstrate there will be a need for a federal Superfund program for many generations to come. If the program is needed, annual appropriations will be required from Congress. Large, costly, and complex sites will continue to be found. These sites will have to be cleaned up eventually, and only the federal government could possibly provide the financial resources to do so. Seven new sites were added to the NPL in September 2005, several are large sites where the EPA expects to carry the financial burden of the cleanups (EPA, 2004). When Superfund was first enacted, most experts thought EPA would learn to clean up sites quickly and that would be the extent of the agency's mandate. Unfortunately, this has not proven to be the case. At many sites groundwater is contaminated and other contamination remains even after the agency declares the cleanup complete. To guarantee long-term protection requires years, and even decades, of cleanup operations, and monitoring levels of contamination at the location (Loehr, 2004). Making sure these actions take place should be a federal responsibility for all NPL sites. The program will continue to need annual appropriations from Congress. The chemical feedstock taxes should be reinstated to ensure the funding necessary to continue cleaning up contaminated sites. The current administration has made no effort to implement new policy to begin generating revenues for the depleted Trust Fund. Instead, the Federal Government is now financing the program with tax dollars, something that has never happened in the history of the Superfund. How long the program will continue in this state before Congress slowly cuts funding from the Superfund budget is unknown. Hundreds of contaminated sites have been remediated, but there is not enough money to complete all work on the sites already designated, never mind the new ones that are still being added to the NPL. The Superfund has not been a controversial issue in the public eye for years, but that could all change if the funding shortfalls continue at some of the more high profile cleanup sites. This would take the program right back to its origins. After all, neglecting hazardous waste sites is how Superfund got started. References Cope, G. (2003). From the polluter pays to the taxpayer pays. The Environmental Forum: The Policy Journal of the Environmental Law Institute, 8, 36-38. Dietz, R. (2004, August). Personal Interview, the Superfund Program Liaison at the Environmental Protection Agency, in Washington) D.C. Federal Register 54288. (2005). Rules and Regulations. (F.R. Publication Vol. 70, No. 177). Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. Lee, R.T. (1993). Comprehensive environmental response, compensa' tion, and liability act. In Government Institutes, Inc, Environmental Law Handbook. Rockville, Maryland: American Psychological Association, 267-320. Loehr, R. (2004). Final report. Superfund Subcommittee of the Nationd Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, 23, 69' 97. McKitrick, C. (2006, March 15). Rebirth nears for Midvale slag site. The Salt Lake Tribune, p. B4. Probst, K.N. (2004). Success for Superfund: A new approach for keep' ing score. Resources for the Future, 1-23. Probst, K.N. (2003). Superfund's future. The Environmental Forum: The Policy Journal of the Environmental Law Institute, 8, 32-41. Stavins, R.N. (2003). Environmental protection and economic well' being: How does (and should) government balance these two important values? Resources for the Future, 3-48. Stevens, J.B. (2004). Superfund program: Updating appropriation and expenditure data. United States General Accounting Office, 3-9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Superfund report-Electronic reference retrieved Aug. 5, 2004, from Http ://www.epa.gov/cgC'bin/epaprinlonly .cgc.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). National priority list sites in Utah: 2006. Electronic reference retrieved April. 15, 2006, from http: I I www. epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/ut .htm. 48 |
