Superfund was meant to be a short-term program to clean up dangerous hazardous waste sites such as Love Canal and to be paid for mainly by those who caused the pollution. After 15 years, cleanup is proceeding slowly, at an enormous cost, and litigation plagues the program.

• At the end of 1995, 91 sites had been cleaned up, but 1,374 sites remained.

• Since 1980, the EPA has spent $14.9 billion, and private companies are now spending an additional $1.3 billion to $1.4 billion per year on Superfund cleanups.

• In 1992, the EPA reported that its overhead costs alone in 1988 averaged more than $328 per hour of work by each employee of site-cleanup contractors ($410 in 1994 dollars).

• A Rand Corporation study found legal and other transaction costs accounted for 32 percent of total expenditures.

Even those the program is supposed to help are harmed, since designation as a Superfund site causes property values to fall and dries up financing for redeveloping sites.

Critics suggest the program's failure is due to its design. For example, determining the risks posed by waste sites, the extent of the cleanup needed and the technology to be used are up to the EPA, not an objective party. Also, since EPA Superfund activities are financed by special business taxes, its spending isn't limited to congressional appropriations. And under federal law, agency cleanup decisions can be challenged in court only if they are arbitrary or capricious, not if they are unreasonable or unnecessary.

Superfund's critics recommend a completely different approach: a return to common law principles that would require more definitive standards for actual or potential harm, allow flexibility in cleanup and claims settlement and protect the legal rights of accused parties.

Source: Richard L. Stroup, "Superfund: The Shortcut That Failed," PERC Policy Series Issue No. PS-5, May 1996, Political Economy Research Center, 502 South 19th Avenue, Suite 211, Bozeman, MT 59715, (406) 587-9591.