this is no way to save the earth
1. for decades, toxic substances were discarded carelessly in industrial dump sites, hidden waste lagoons and even ordinary garbage dumps across america.
2. congress responded in 1980 by passing the comprehensive environmental response, compensation and liability act (cercla), promising to protect public health by cleaning up toxic-waste sites quickly and affordably. cercla established a $1.6-billion trust, the "superfund", as seed money.
3. today superfund is one of the nation's biggest, costliest and most controversial environment programs. and the job of cleaning up america's hazardous waste is now projected to cost up to a trillion dollars over the next 30 years.
4. but progress has slowed to a crawl. it takes almost eight years of study and planning before actual cleanup work begins at a typical superfund site. meanwhile, thousands of parties who are innocent of any wrong doing are being paralyzed by legal proceeding.
5. what went wrong? experts point to these major flaws:
6. midstream rule changes. there were dramatic discoveries in superfund's early years--valleys filled with chemical drums, unfenced dump sites littered with explosives, fissures where toxins oozed out of the earth. epa teams sealed off or removed toxic chemicals from hundreds of these dangerous sites, defusing the immediate health menace.
7. nevertheless, under pressure from environmentalgroups, congress amended the law in 1986, ordering the epa to restore superfund sites to nearly pristine condition--a virtually impossible task. in many large landfills, tons and tons of municipal wastes have been mixed over the years with small amounts of industrial chemicals. rain can leach out these chemicals and contaminate ground water beyond the landfill boundaries.
8. punishing the innocent. all towns, companies and even individuals with a past connection--however remote--to a polluted site can be roped in to pay for the cleanup, even if their actions were perfectly legal at the time. and superfund liability is "joint and several." that means anyone who can be shown to be responsible for even a fraction of the harm can be made to pay for all of it.
9. irrational rule-making. the epa's rules about what constitutes hazardous waste are backfiring against the nationwide recycling effort. iowa, for example, mandates that the lead and acid from used automobile batteries be recycled. but two of that state's largest scrap dealers have announced they will no longer deal with batteries because of the liability exposure.
10. questionable science. test wells drilled at the old sharkey landfill in parsippany, n.j., showed no evidence that wastes were leaking into the water table. nevertheless, the township has been named by the epa in a lawsuit for what could be at least a $15-million cleanup.
11. the need for change is now clear. and this spring congress has been conducting hearings on superfund. these are the reforms experts say it should follow:
12. drain the legal swamp. those who illegally dump hazardous substances should be held accountable. but superfund's draconian liability rules offend any common-sense notion of justice. "strict, retroactive, and joint and several liability isn't fair," says superfund's former chief administrator don clay.
13. bills have been introduced to limit the liability of municipalities and banks for superfund cleanups. however, according to an expert of the center for individual rights in washington, d.c., these exemptions will only increase the burden on others. "citizens should demand that their representatives stop wasteful lawsuits against innocent parties and individuals," says the researcher.
14. mike public safety the top priority. it's been years since any hazardous-waste site as dramatic as love canal has been discovered. more important, if new ones are discovered, we know how to deal' with them quickly and at a reasonable cost.
15. that should be enough. "i was thrilled with the law originally," lehr says, "but i didn't see it attempting totally irrational cleanups. it doesn't make sense to pour billions down a rat hole without making the slightest improvement in public health."
16. superfund has eliminated the threat to public health in many instances, and for this we should be grateful. but the program has spun out of control. as president clinton told a joint session of congress, "it's time we use superfund to clean up pollution for a change and not just pay lawyers."
参考译文：拯救地球，此法不通
1．几十年来，有毒有害物质在美国各地的工业垃圾堆放场、隐蔽的废弃 环礁湖、甚至一般垃圾堆放场随意丢弃。
2．1980年，国会作出反应，通过了《环境破坏、补偿及责任综合法案》， 承诺迅速清理有害物质场所，并提供足够的资金。该法案设立了16亿美元的 信托资金，称作“超巨额基金”，作为启动资金。
3．如今，这一基金成了全国资金占有量最大，代价最高，并最有争议的 环保项目之一。而且，在今后30年中，清理全国有害物质的规划，资金投入 高达一万亿美元。
4．但该计划进展缓慢。在清理超巨额基金所指的典型场所的工作真正开 始之前，研究和计划就要花去8年时间。同时，数以千计的无辜团体被这个 法律挫伤。
5．出了什么问题呢?专家们指出了以下缺陷：
6．中途政策改变：在超巨额基金设立头几年，人们的发现触目惊心—— 山谷中堆满了装化学品的圆桶，没有隔离的垃圾堆放场扔满了易爆物品，垃 圾掩埋场所出现的裂缝中，有毒物质渗出地面。环保组织派出的队伍对数以 百计的这些危险场所中的有毒物质进行封闭和转移，并进行了无害化处理。
7．但是，在一些环境组织的压力下，国会于1986年修改了上述法案。要 求环保组织将超巨额基金所涉及的场所差不多恢复到原来的状态——这几乎 是不可能的事情。在许多垃圾填埋场，成千上万吨的生活垃圾随着时间推移· 同为数不多的工业化学品混成一体，一旦下雨，这些化学品即可滤出，从而 污染垃圾填埋场地界以外的地下水。
8．惩罚无辜：所有城镇、公司、甚至个人，只要过去——无论多早—— 曾经同所污染的场所有联系，即可受到牵连，须为污染场所的清理出钱，哪 怕他们当时的行为是完全合法的。超巨额基金所称的责任是“连带的和多方 面的”。这就意味着任何人，只要证明是他造成哪怕是一小部分危害，他就得 承担这种危害的全部责任。
9．法规制订随意：环保署关于有害物质的法规同全国资源回收的工作正 好唱反调。例如爱俄华州规定，废旧汽车电池中的铅和酸必须回收利用。但 该州两家最大的废金属经营商却宣布，他们不再经营电池回收利用以免涉嫌 连带责任。
10．科学性值得怀疑：纽约老沙基填埋场的钻井测试表明，没有证据能够 证明有害物质污染了地下水。然而环保署却将该镇列入一个诉讼案件中，要， 求其支付1500万美元的有害物质清理费。
11．目前，显然需要进行一些改变。今年春，国会专门为超巨额基金召开 了听证会。专家们认为应进行以下改革：
12．整顿法规：非法倾倒有害物质者应该承担责任。但超巨额基金所规定 的严厉措施是同尽人皆知的公正观念相违背的。“从严处理、秋后算帐、追究 连带责任和多方责任的做法是不公平的。”超巨额基金原负责人董·克雷说。
13．一些法案已经制订出来，减轻了城镇和超巨额基金银行的责任。但是， 华盛顿个人权利研究中心的一位专家指出，对他们减轻责任只会增加别人的 责任。他说：“公民们应该要求自己的代言人停止那些对无辜团体和个人不利 的诉讼，这些诉讼纯属浪费。”
14．百姓健康优先：自love运河中发现触目惊心的危险废料堆放场所以 来，已过去多年。更为重要的是，如果发现此类新场所，我们知道如何进行 迅速处理，而且成本合理。
15．这就够了。“开始，我为这个法律兴奋不已，”有专家说，“但我没有 意识到该法律在清理有害物质场所中的做法是完全缺乏理性的。将亿万元巨 额资金扔进耗子洞而于增进百姓健康没有任何益处，显得毫无意义。”
16．超巨额基金项目在许多情况下结束了对百姓健康的威胁，从这一点上 说，我们应该庆幸。但是，这一项目已经失去控制。正如克林顿总统所说，“我 们应该运用超巨额基金来清除污染，以求改善环境，而不能只是让这些资金 全由律师拿走。”