🚀 go-pugleaf

Included here are the foreword and executive summary for "Science-Based Risk Assessment: A
Piece of the Superfund Puzzle." This book is a comprehensive look at the health risks associated
with Superfund or hazardous waste sites and has been the subject of testimony before Congress.
The book may be downloaded by FTP or ordered by mail. FTP and ordering info is presented
at the end of this posting.

                 SCIENCE-BASED RISK ASSESSMENT:
                 A PIECE OF THE SUPERFUND PUZZLE

                               by

                        STEVEN J. MILLOY


FOREWORD

This report is a product of the National Environmental Policy Institute's project on Superfund,
a key component of the Institute's larger-scale approach to the issue of How Clean Is Clean
(And for What Purpose?). Superfund is the federal program intended to protect public health and
the environment from hazardous waste sites. For the second time since the enactment of the
Superfund law in 1980, Congress is considering major changes in the Superfund law. It is widely
recognized that major changes in the site cleanup process and other key aspects of Superfund,
such as the financing of site cleanups, are essential.  Without major changes in the Superfund
law, Superfund cleanups will likely continue to be slow and expensive, and produce few benefits
to public health and the environment.

The current debate over the amendment of Superfund commenced in the 103rd Congress and
advanced as far as a �compromise� bill (H.R. 4916) that was eventually withdrawn at the end
of the 103rd Congress. However, while there may have been some incremental improvements
hammered out with bipartisan cooperation between key stakeholders, H.R. 4916 would not have
effectively addressed the two overriding issues in Superfund: (1) What gets cleaned up? and (2)
Who pays for cleanup?

H.R. 4916 would have addressed the first issue primarily in terms of �national cleanup goals.�
Site cleanup would have been predicated on complying with generic, not site-specific, cleanup
goals. National cleanup goals would likely have prevented site cleanups from being based on
assessments of realistic risks that sites may pose to public health and the environment, offering
little, if any, improvement over the existing remedy selection process that has a 15-year track
record of failure.

With the prospect of a continued programmatic failure, this project was initiated to provide the
public with:

1. Insight into how Superfund site cleanup decisions are made, and 

2. Recommendations for improving the cleanup process to achieve an effective and
affordable Superfund program.

More important, however, remedy selection is only a partial solution for the flawed Superfund
program. The other overriding issue of who pays for cleanup must be addressed. Currently, the
Superfund law relies on the principle of �polluter pays� as implemented through the draconian
and Constitutionally questionable application of retroactive, strict, and joint-and-several liability
of parties associated with sites. Whether or not this principle is �fair,� it has not worked in the
context of Superfund.

The current Superfund program is devoid of any incentive for speedy and efficient cleanup. Too
often the site cleanup process boils down to an exercise in which the government decides almost
arbitrarily whether and how private parties should make amends for past and often legal waste
disposal activities that are now viewed as wrongful. Instead of incentive for speedy and efficient
cleanup, incentive has been created for litigation that is both costly and time-consuming.
Superfund has become a windfall for lawyers. If paying for cleanups continues to be a major
point of contention, even if future cleanup decisions are based on realistic assessments of risk,
cleanups will remain slow and adversarial in nature.

Despite characterizations by opponents and the mass media, risk assessment is not a device
relied on by �polluters� to elude regulations that protect public health and the environment. On
the contrary, risk assessment is a powerful tool to help regulators better protect public health and
the environment. Through risk assessment, regulators can better identify and prioritize real and
significant risks.  This permits scarce resources to be used more effectively in providing greater
protection to public health and the environment. That being said, all risk assessment techniques
are not equal.

Although the current risk assessment process dates from the 1970s, risk assessment has been
used by regulators since the 1940s. We have made great progress in science and technology
since the 1940s (and even the 1970s). Risk assessment as practiced by regulatory agencies,
however, has become a stagnant and even regressive process that relies only minimally on
science. Science has been replaced in the risk assessment process by assumptions and policy that
reflect fear and ignorance�hardly the hallmarks of our relatively advanced society. As recently
stated:

         One of the most pressing needs of present day risk assessment is consistent
         application of the scientific method... Ever since Ren� Descartes published the
         forerunner of what is now called the scientific method in his Discourse on the
         Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking the Truth in the Sciences
         in 1637, scientific work has profited enormously from a strict adherence to that
         method. Indeed, the successes of today's science and its applications in
         technology are largely due to that adherence. Whenever the method was not
         applied strictly, embarrassing situations occurred such as those following the
         highly subjective discovery of N-rays by Blondlot in 1903, and more recently, the
         circus in both media and scientific circles about Cold Fusion, and the deplorable
         regulatory decisions made about Alar and dioxins. [footnotes omitted]

Recent efforts to promote the use of risk assessment are intended to reinstate science as the basis
for risk assessment. More scientific risk assessment will lead to more, not less, environmental
protection. 

As I prepared this report, I examined more than 1,300 Superfund site cleanup decisions made
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 1982 through 1994. For each site
cleanup decision, a document called a �record of decision� (ROD) is prepared by EPA. Each
ROD contains a summary of site information, including location, relevant history, physical
characteristics, the nature and extent of contamination, potential risks posed to public health and
the environment, cleanup alternatives and their costs, and the selected remedy for the site. The
information presented in this report is drawn largely from those RODs.  I have also researched
and presented relevant scientific literature.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


The Superfund law was enacted in 1980 as the federal program to eliminate risks to public health
and the environment from hazardous waste sites. Since its enactment and implementation by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Superfund has been a controversial program with
more failures than successes. While some consider the removal (or emergency) action part of
Superfund to be somewhat of a success, problems with the remedial (or non-emergency) action
part of Superfund have tarnished the entire program. The average site remedial action cost is
estimated by EPA to be $25 million. Yet, according to many experts, little benefit to public
health and the environment may be derived from many of these cleanups.

In addition to other significant issues, high cleanup costs coupled with marginal benefits have
driven Congress to consider significant changes to the Superfund law for the second time since
its enactment. With the goal of achieving greater protection of public health and the environment
and improving the efficiency of the program, this project has examined the implications of
basing Superfund cleanup decisions on science-based risk assessment (vs. policy-based risk
assessment).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of a review and analysis of the over 1,300 records of decision (RODs) issued by
EPA from 1982 through 1994, the following conclusions have been reached:

1. The current Superfund remedy selection process does not work and needs to be
overhauled.

2. Superfund cleanup costs may be reduced by 60 percent if science-based risk assessment
is used in remedy selection.

3. Faster cleanup of more sites and greater protection of public health would result from       
the use of science-based risk assessment.

4. Other reforms in addition to remedy selection, particularly with respect to cleanup
financing, are needed if Superfund is to succeed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of these conclusions, the following recommendations are made:

1. In the remedy selection process, policy-based risk assessment should be replaced by
science-based risk assessment.

2. The remedy selection process should be based on the Risk Based Corrective Action
approach developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials.

3. Site cleanups should be prioritized on the basis of current risk and future risk as
determined by reasonably foreseeable land use.

4. At this time, ecological risk assessment should be a process based in observation and
common sense.

5. The remedy selection process should distinguish between ecological risk reduction and
aesthetic restoration.

HOW TO OBTAIN A COPY:

By FTP:

     1. FTP to cais.com
     2. Login: ftp
     3. Password: your e-mail address
     4. cd /pub/milloy
     5. Download "sbra"


Book ordering:

     1. Copies are available for $15 each (prepaid). Check or money order made payable to 
        the "Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc.", 1725 DeSales St., N.W., Suite 700, 
        Washington, D.C. 20036.
     2. Alternatively, contact Steve Milloy at (202) 739-0186 or by e-mail milloy@cais.com.