RE: Introduction

[David James <james.david@epa.gov>]

Hello, glad to see someone from RFF involved.

What can you tell us about the truth of this report, in yesterday's "Inside EPA's Superfund Report?"

INDUSTRY WORRIES SUPERFUND STUDY WILL BE USED TO 
RAMP UP PROGRAM

July 9, 2001 - 

Industry officials say they are becoming increasingly concerned that a soon-to-be released study on the future of the Superfund program will be used by EPA officials as justification for ramping up the decades-old program and to expand its scope to cover traditionally exempted sites.

Specifically, industry sources familiar with drafts of the Resources for the Future (RFF) study point out that RFF's conclusions on sites contaminated with pesticides and so-called mega-sites may be used by the agency to justify the continued existence of Superfund's large bureaucratic structure. "They're scraping the bottom of the barrel . . . because they know the number of sites is diminishing," one industry source says.

Congress requested in EPA's fiscal year 2001 budget that RFF conduct a systematic review of the future costs and size of the Superfund program. Although the study has been shrouded in secrecy, some details of the report have come to the surface in recent weeks.

For instance, EPA officials have said the report will likely find that the number of mega-sites -- large, expensive sites that require complicated and costly remediation, such as mine sites and asbestos sites -- will probably remain constant over the next several years. Although the agency only lists two to three of these sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) each year, they are extremely complicated cleanups that are resource intensive, sources say, and can take years to remediate.

Industry officials also say EPA officials have begun discussing the inclusion of pesticide sites into the Superfund program. Although these sites have always been covered by Superfund law,
EPA has generally avoided listing most of them on the NPL out of concern that "you'd have to list half the state of Iowa" if all pesticide-contaminated areas are covered, one former EPA
Superfund official says.

EPA is also considering bringing naturally occurring contamination under the rubric of Superfund in response to pressure from the inspector general (IG) to protect human health and the environment at these sites.

Industry officials say the findings included in RFF's draft study and the IG's concerns with naturally occurring contaminants appear to have given EPA officials enough ammunition to seek
either a stabilization of current Superfund spending or an increase in its funds. But over the last several years industry has grown increasingly convinced that the agency's Superfund office should be "ramped down" and spending slowly decreased as the number of sites in the Superfund universe dwindles.

But recent public statements by the agency, particularly on the need to address mega-sites, are beginning to worry industry. During a meeting earlier this year on contaminated sediments,
Superfund officials warned of the need to ensure that adequate resources exist to address the large sites in the future, based on RFF's draft projections. Similarly, agency staff has also begun looking at the possibility of needing increased funds to remediate pesticide sites and areas contaminated with natural substances in the coming years.

Also of concern to industry are some of the economic assumptions made by RFF in the study. One source argues that RFF's cost scenarios do not necessarily reflect all of the uncertainties related to the program, and that drafts of the report did not appear to fully account for cost savings that have resulted from Clinton-era administrative reforms to the program. Without a full accounting of the reforms' economic effects on the program and other uncertainties related to Superfund, industry is worried EPA may use RFF's study to press Congress to increase funding to the
program.

RFF sources could not be reached for comment at press time. The group will release the study to Congress July 9, and to the general public July 10.  # # #