burse money to veterans and their family members as their health claims are approved. Payments from the trust would be made over the next six years, during which period interest is expected to raise the total amount in the fund to some $250 million. Part of the money would be held in reserve for up to 25 years to cover future claims, particularly from yet-unborn offspring of the veterans. The companies did not disclose how they would divide the payments into the fund among themselves. Dow, for example, was the largest single supplier of agent orange to the government, but the company had argued last year that payments, if they had to be made, should be divided among the defendants according to the relative amounts of dioxin contamination in their product. Dow's product, for instance, contained less dioxin per pound than that of Monsanto or Diamond Shamrock. The tentative settlement does not include the federal government. Recently reinstated as a third-party defendant in the case by Judge Weinstein, the U.S. still can be sued by both the defendants and the families of the veterans. Service people are not allowed to sue the government for injuries suffered during service. The settlement leaves unanswered such issues as whether dioxin caused the health effects, whether the agent orange manufacturers concealed knowledge of the risk posed by the dioxin contamination, and whether the government knew enough of the dioxin risk to be held accountable itself. The final two points were the crux of the defendants' intended defense, which was to have been based on the premise that as government contractors, they were immune from liability. Groups representing Vietnam veterans voiced differing reactions to the agreement, ranging from approval to disappointment that the companies would not be forced to admit guilt, to uncertainty over the financial adequacy of the settlement. Dow and Diamond Shamrock stated that the agreement would have no significant impact on their financial condition. D
Policy on hazardous waste violators detailed The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a new policy statement detailing how it will deal with violators of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act. The new policy, according to the agency, will assure that civil penalties are assessed in a fair and consistent manner, penalties are appropriate for the gravity of the violation committed, and economic incentives for noncompliance are eliminated. The penalty calculation system is based on determining the gravity-based penalty for a particular violation; consideration, w h e r e appropriate, of the economic benefit of noncompliance; and adjustment of the penalty for special circumstances. The gravity-based penalty takes into account the likelihood of exposure to hazardous waste posed by the noncompliance and /or the adverse effect noncompliance has on implementing the RCRA program. In each case, the emphasis is placed on the potential harm posed by the violation rather than on whether harm actually occurred. EPA has set up a penalty matrix, under which a major violation of both factors calls for a penalty of $20,000 to $25,000. For a minor violation of both, the penalty ranges from $100 to $4000. Multiple penalties would be assessed for separate violations and multi-day penalties for continuing violations. An example of major potential for harm is failure to word a trust agreement establishing financial assurance for closure of a hazardous waste disposal facility exactly as called for in the regulations. This, EPA says, would have a substantial adverse effect on the regulatory scheme. An example of a minor harm potential is failure to submit a complete contingency plan, including a description of arrangements to coordinate emergency services, to all affected local entities. An "economic benefit component" would be calculated and added to the gravity-based penalty when appropriate. Economic bene-
fits include both delayed and avoided costs. Violations resulting in delayed costs include failure to install groundwater monitoring equipment and failure to develop a waste analysis plan. Avoided costs are expenditures nullified by the violator's failure to comply with requirements calling for such things as annual and semi-annual groundwater monitoring, sampling, and analysis. Interest would be added to the economic benefit in determining the total penalty. D
Aerosol production rebounded in 1983 The U.S. aerosol industry made a snappy comeback in 1983, according to the latest annual pressurized products survey made by the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association. At CSMA's midyear meeting in Chicago, survey committee chairman Pete Ori, product manager for Seaquist Valve, revealed that an estimated 2.28 billion container units were filled in 1983. That amount, he notes, represents an 8.9% increase from 1982. However, 1982 had been a very bad year for aerosols, with only 2.10 billion units filled. That amounted to a 4.5% decrease from 1981; in fact, it was 2.5% lower than the previous 10-year low of 2.15 billion units recorded in 1977. That decline
Last year's aerosol output was up 8.9% from 1982 Billions of units
3I
2H
1 H
ni I
I
I
1974 75 76
LJ
I
I
I
I
L-
77 78 79 80 81 82 83
Source: Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
May 14, 1984C&EN
7
