|
|
Superfund quickens cleanups, but the list keeps growing
|
Published in the Asbury Park Press
By DEBORAH KALB
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- In the early 1980s, when the federal Superfund program began, 65 toxic waste sites in New Jersey soon made their way onto the program's National Priority List.
And it may seem as if New Jersey is headed down the wrong track, having added 58 sites over the years while getting only 16 removed from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's list of most critical sites.
But while New Jersey has 107 sites today, with another two proposed, the state's Department of Environmental Protection -- which, along with the EPA, implements the cleanup -- thinks things are moving in a positive direction.
"It's not like in the past, where all of a sudden you woke up and there were 20 more sites from New Jersey on the list," said Anthony Farro, the DEP's director of publicly funded site remediation.
These days, about three or four sites a year are added in New Jersey, the DEP says.
Of the 16 sites taken off the priority list, nine have been removed since the start of 1995.
And among the 107 remaining sites, 21 have long-term remedies constructed and operating, the EPA says.
"We're cleaning at a quicker and quicker pace (but) we're adding (more) on," said Rich Cahill, a spokesman for EPA's Region 2, which includes New Jersey. "The region has been really aggressive in identifying sites and putting them on the (list)."
The remaining New Jersey Superfund sites include 67 that either are under construction or have a remedy being designed, and 21 that are under study or have been proposed for the National Priority List, the EPA says.
Still, progress has imposed a price: $1.65 billion from federal and state coffers in the last decade for cleanup, which doesn't include legal battles or private costs.
And few people involved in the clean-up process envision a day coming soon when New Jersey has no sites on the list.
The Superfund program, designed to clean up the country's most-polluted toxic waste sites and return them to productive use, is saddled with a reputation of being inefficient and laden with litigious delays.
Densely populated New Jersey, with its industrial history, boasts the unpleasant distinction of having the most Superfund sites of any state.
"These are what we call the nation's worst," said Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., who has introduced two Superfund-related bills in the House. "It's not a list you'd seek to be on."
Many Republicans take a harsh view, believing the national Superfund program needs a major overhaul. They include Rep. Michael Oxley, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.
"Despite several rounds of administrative reforms, the Superfund statute itself remains fundamentally flawed," Oxley said at a March hearing where he criticized the continuing fights over who is responsible for cleanup and EPA's selection process.
But Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., while believing the program can be improved, called it "very effective" in New Jersey and nationally.
As of March, 89 percent of the sites on the national list have a cleanup under way or completed, Lautenberg said in a statement, and in 1997 and 1998, 175 sites were completely cleaned up -- more than in the program's first 12 years.
Some in the environmental community also see improvements in the program. Grant Cope, an environmental advocate for U.S. PIRG (Public Interest Research Group), noted that the average time to clean up a Superfund site has shrunk from 10 years to eight years.
Besides the Superfund sites, New Jersey is working on thousands of other cleanups around the state, the DEP's Farro said.
A recent study by the U.S. General Accounting Office said about 1,800 sites around the country appear potentially eligible for Superfund.
But EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Timothy Fields Jr. testified at a House hearing in March that the EPA expected to add no more than 40 sites nationally this year.
Between 1988 and 1998, the federal government gave New Jersey more than $1.5 billion for Superfund cleanups, while the state chipped in $150 million. In addition, the EPA won enforcement settlements against polluters totaling about $800 million through 1998.
Opinions differ on how cost-effective the program has been, with many saying that question must be determined on a site-by-site basis: some cleanups are more quickly resolved, while others fester in lawsuits over who should pay.
Farro said New Jersey has been able to cut costs by allowing some sites -- such as those likely to be used for industrial purposes -- to be cleaned to less than a strict residential standard.
In those circumstances, the property must have a "deed restriction" placed on it, warning potential buyers of the site's history, Farro said, adding that in the past year the EPA has been more willing to accept that approach.
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, efforts to reform Superfund have failed for several years.
The GOP-controlled Congress and the Clinton administration have disagreed on various problems, including how to assign responsibility for cleaning up sites among the companies or others that dumped the waste.
The administration, backed by many Democrats and some environmentalists, does not favor a sweeping overhaul, preferring instead to make smaller changes and focus on reforms already implemented.
At a recent House Commerce subcommittee hearing, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., defended the direction Superfund is going.
"Substantial changes would only cause more unnecessary delays in cleaning up our nation's Superfund sites," he said.
The EPA's Fields told the subcommittee much the same thing.
"Comprehensive legislation could actually delay clean-ups, create uncertainty and litigation, and undermine the current progress of cleaning up Superfund sites," Fields testified.
Moderate Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of New York has introduced an overall reform bill that would provide small businesses, recyclers and municipalities with immediate Superfund relief, and encourage redevelopment of "brownfields," or abandoned industrial sites.
Other legislation introduced this year, like Frelinghuysen's, would take a more targeted approach.
One of Frelinghuysen's bills would exempt local school boards from liability for cleaning up Superfund sites; the other would shift part of the cleanup responsibility from the EPA to the Army Corps of Engineers. Both have been introduced before but stalled.
Michael Greenberg, a professor at Rutgers' Bloustein School for Planning and Public Policy, said Congress would be more likely to deal with the related problem of "brownfields" than Superfund itself.
Lautenberg has re-introduced legislation designed to speed cleanup of "brownfields." His bill would direct EPA to establish a grant program for state and local governments to assess their brownfields.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Web site provides specific information on New Jersey's Superfund sites, at this address: www.epa.gov/region02/superfnd/site_sum/njcount.htm
© copyright 1999 Gannett News Service
Source: Asbury Park Press
Published: April 11, 1999
|
 BACK
||
CONTENTS
||
NEXT
|
|
|
