Recently there was consternation when it was discovered that a program intended to help minorities and the underprivileged in Detroit might have to be canceled. The reason was that some of the land on which new buildings were built was thought to contain toxic chemicals and therefore fell under the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (or Superfund). This collision of two valuable programs illustrates how a program originally heralded to carry out a worthwhile goal can become flawed. Since 1980, when the Superfund Act was passed by an overwhelming majority in Congress, only 34 of 1,245 identified priority sites have been cleaned up while approximately 40% of the money has been spent in trial litigation and administrative oversight. Critics, many of them within the EPA, point out that if the chemical danger level had been scientifically determined, approximately 90% of the truly important sites could have been cleaned up by now and the money wisely spent. However, the program was designed so that Congress initially did not have to raise much money or raise taxes and instead could argue that the program would not cost the taxpayer anything because it soaked the corporations. What needsmore » to be done First, priority decisions should be taken out of the hands of nonscientists and lawyers and placed in those of scientists who are knowledgeable about toxic agents, who can identify effective targets objectively and who can establish workable priorities for removal of toxic waste. Second, a significant fraction of the money should be dedicated to research and to new programs that are more cost-effective. The purpose is to get chemical manufacturers thinking about reducing pollutants and the cost of cleanup when they plan to manufacture a chemical.« less