PRIVATIZING
SUPERFUND:
HOW TO CLEAN UP HAZARDOUS WASTE
(Cato
Institute Policy Analysis, December 1995)
by James V. DeLong
Executive
Summary
Superfund
is not a program devoted to the protection of public
health. It is an expensive mechanism for reclaiming
a limited amount of land for general use. The number
of parcels of real estate covered by the law or otherwise
needing remediation runs into the hundreds of thousands
(though the level of contamination of the vast majority
is probably minimal), yet federal policy is to clean
up the 1,238 sites on the National Priorities List to
operating-room standards and ignore the others.
The
effort to justify that policy results in exaggeration
of the risks to public health posed by Superfund sites.
Those risks are trivial and could be contained at low
cost. Furthermore, the effort to "make the polluter
pay" has enmeshed over 32,000 people in a regime
of injustice, waste, inefficiency, and bloated transactions
costs and is discouraging the redevelopment of properties.
The
policy of concentrating on NPL sites ignores the arbitrary
nature of the process by which sites are listed. There
is no convincing evidence that those sites are significantly
more threatening than are many non-NPL sites. The focus
on the NPL also ignores the growing burden of private
litigation, which is becoming an increasing drain on
national economic resources and represents a significant
reallocation of property rights.
The
present law should be repealed and site remediation
privatized so that decisions are made by market processes,
not bureaucratic ones. Existing federal sites and abandoned
sites should be auctioned off to private parties for
either a positive or a negative price. The buyers should
be obligated only to contain the contamination and prevent
harm to public health. Whether a site is cleaned up
for use or left idle should be determined by the market
for the property.
To
view this entire document please click here. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-247.html
(Document
size=253k)
TABLE
OF CONTENTS |
Page
Number |
Executive
Summary |
1 |
Introduction |
2 |
Genesis
of Superfund |
4 |
The
National Priorities List |
6 |
|
Creating
the NPL |
7 |
|
Unmasking
the NPL |
8 |
|
NPL-Centrism |
9 |
The
Superfund Sausage Grinder |
11 |
|
How
Clean Is Clean? |
12 |
|
Worst-First
Prioritization |
13 |
|
Costs
of Superfund Sites |
14 |
|
Enforcing
Superfund |
15 |
Superfund
in the Dock |
15 |
|
Making
the Polluter Pay? |
16 |
|
Superfund's
Superwaste |
22 |
|
|
Superfund's
'Operation Eden' |
23 |
|
|
Lawyers
in Love |
25 |
|
|
Cleanup
Hammers |
26 |
|
|
The
Taxman Cometh |
27 |
|
Snail
Express |
27 |
|
The
"Brownfields" Dilemma |
28 |
|
Worst
First |
29 |
The
Federal Waste Quagmire |
30 |
Setting
the Goalposts for Reform |
32 |
|
Objective
1: Reorder Superfund Priorities |
32 |
|
Objective
2: Tackle Retroactivity and Cleanup Standards |
33 |
|
Objective
3: Re-examine CERCLIS |
36 |
|
Objective
3: Fostering Efficiency |
37 |
The
Privatization Option |
37 |
|
Mechanics
of Superfund Option |
41 |
|
The
Invisible Dutch Hand |
43 |
|
The
"Winners Curse" |
44 |
|
Issues
and Answers |
47 |
|
Going
Dutch |
50 |
Conclusion |
51 |
APPENDIX:
The Universe of Contamination |
52 |
|
Superfund
(CERCLA) Sites |
52 |
|
CERCLIS
and the NPL |
55 |
|
RCRA
Corrective Action Sites |
57 |
|
Petroleum-Contaminated
Sites |
61 |
|
Mining
Waste |
63 |
|
Miscellaneous
Wastes |
64 |
NOTES |
65 |
|
|