government
Superfund Reform In Critical Condition
I
n an attempt to breathe life into Superfund reform, lawmakers in the House and Senate have made extensive modifications to their bills to reauthorize the nation's hazardous waste cleanup law. And while saying that they, too, want comprehensive reform, so far most Democrats, environmental groups, and Clinton Administration officials aren't helping with the resuscitation effort. They say the Republican-proposed bills don't stick to the "polluter pays" principle of current law and are not adequately protective of human health and the environment. Last October, Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 2727—the Superfund Acceleration, Fairness & Efficiency Act—which met with Administration disapproval. Over several months, on the basis of information from hearings and from negotiations with interested parties, the bill was rewritten and sent up the flagpole again. Earlier this month, after a week of lengthy negotiations with Administration officials, including Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol M. Browner, that lasted into the wee hours of the morning, the bill was changed again. All of this was done in hopes of getting bipartisan agreement. At the end of the day, however, Browner would not support the bill, and she was forcefully backed up by Vice President Al Gore, who characterized Boehlert's bill as "extreme" and "advanced by a small army of special interest lobbyists." On March 11, when the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee's Subcommittee on Water Resources & Environment, which Boehlert chairs, passed the latest version, it did so by a vote of 18 to 12. Despite the efforts to come to consensus, the vote broke largely on party lines, with all Republicans and just two Democrats voting for the bill. "We were disappointed, to say the least, that [Browner] came out and essentially bashed what was a moderate proposal," says Paul Hirsch, director of regulatory programs at the Chemical Manufacturers Association. As it stands, the bill is ready for a vote in the full Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, but when that action will take place, if at all, is unclear. Com30 MARCH 30, 1998 C&EN
Chafee: introduced reform bill
mittee Chairman Bud Shuster (R-Pa.) says he won't have his committee vote on a bill that doesn't have bipartisan support. In other words, he won't move a bill that doesn't have a chance. In a similar situation is legislation introduced last year by Sens. Robert C. Smith (R-N.H.) and John H. Chafee (R-R.L). Their Superfund reform bill (S. 8)—the Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act—was introduced in January 1997. It has had very little Democratic support and also is opposed by Browner. After postponing several committee actions on their bill, Smith and Chafee have reportedly come up with a rewritten S. 8, and hoped to complete a markup in the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, which Chafee chairs, late last week. Copies of the Smith/Chafee substitute haven't been released, but it is believed that their new bill, like Boehlert's, drops the prior bills' liability exemption for landfills that received both municipal and industrial waste—so-called codisposal landfills. These liability carve-outs, which Republicans have fought for for years, would have gotten these sites out of the Superfund liability scheme. However, critics consider these exemptions no more than "letting polluters off the hook." Browner has made clear on a number of occasions that the Presi-
dent would oppose any legislation with site-specific exemptions to liability. An EPA official who did not want to be identified said Boehlert's bill seems to drop that liability carve-out, but, in reality, it doesn't. What the bill does is transfer the share of liability attributable to the transporters and generators of hazardous and municipal solid waste to the Superfund trust fund. "They get around the problem by saying 'This person is liable, but this person's share will be paid by the trust fund.' " Boehlert's bill and, reportedly, the Smith/Chafee bill still contain provisions that can force EPA to reopen long-standing cleanup settlements and reimburse responsible parties for some of their costs from the Superfund trust fund. "These pay-the-polluter provisions . . . will divert program resources from cleanup to allocations to . . . polluter paybacks," says Environmental Defense Fund Senior Attorney Karen Florini. A clarification that was added to the groundwater protection standard in Boehlert's bill provides that the standard does not preclude natural attenuation as a remedy. The bill retains the law's current flexibility to select such a remedy. Florini says this is unacceptable because it would allow "clean groundwater to get dirty under the guise of natural attenuation." Another major sticking point has to do with the role of states in Superfund cleanups. The original provisions of Boehlert's bill prevented EPA from taking remedial actions at a site if the authority to take this action is delegated to the state. The most recent version of the bill ensures "an orderly transfer of authorities" from EPA to the states and allows, in some limited instances, the federal government to intervene. The bill also does not provide criteria to ensure that states have the capability to run the program. EPA officials are concerned that this provision of the bill will "erode the federal safety net" and create pollution havens in states with less stringent cleanup standards. And even if Democratic and Republican members of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee can get on the same page, any bill has to go through the House Commerce Committee "and we're very far apart from where they are right now," says the EPA official. In fact, Rep. Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio), chairman of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Finance & Hazardous Materials, has introduced his own bill, H.R. 3000, which has less Administration support than Boehlert's bill. Linda Raber
