Legislative outlook on environmental issues
i&
Richard M. Dowd
During the 99th Congress, budget and deficit reduction issues will no doubt upstage action on environmental legislation, although several environmental bills are likely to make their way through the legislative process in the first session. At the top of the list is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund), followed by the Clean Water Act (CWA), then perhaps the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is also likely to be reauthorized.
Superfund appropriations The main Superfund issues appear to be how much funding will be necessary for abandoned waste site cleanups over the next five years; who pays and how (should the special tax assessment base be expanded? should waste generators be included?); whether standards for cleanup should be specified in the legislation; and whether (and how) victims of hazardous waste dumping practices should be compensated. In most cases, the Superfund bills passed in each house, but not enacted during the last session, have been reintroduced and are expected to become the subject of further hearings in both bodies. Congress is expected to push for five-year funding of between $7.5 billion in the Senate and $10 billion in the House. The administration, however, is seeking five-year funding closer to $5 billion. Other budgetary
considerations, including enormous pressure to reduce the deficit, may well influence the final funding level. Sen. Robert Stafford (R-Vt.) has introduced S. 51, which would provide a $7.5-million funding level in six ways. The first of these is to increase the federal contribution to nearly $1 billion. Second, the bill proposes an increase in taxes on petrochemical feedstocks from the existing $1.3 billion to $2 billion. Next, the crude oil tax would be increased from $190 million to more than $1 billion, from under a penny a barrel to about 4.5 cents per barrel. Fourth, the bill would impose a new tax on large corporations to raise about $1 billion in revenues. Fifth, a $MX)-million toxics tax would be levied on manufacturers of those hazardous chemicals largely found at Superfund sites. Finally, additional funds would come from a broadened “hazardous substance releases” category, rather than from the tax based on the volume of wastes produced by manufacturers, which is favored by some senators. Sen. William Bradley (D.N.J.) is prepared to offer similar legislation in the Finance Committee. Clearly, these a p proaches to generating revenue will be subject to serious scrutiny and debate. Clean Water Act Reauthorization of CWA is being driven by the need to reauthorize construction grants funding for wastewater treatment systems. Many states and localities strongly favor continuing the program, presently authorized at $2.4 billion annually. A new House bill (H.R. 8) is essentially the same bill that passed last year, H.R. 405-11. It proposes $19 billion in construction grants over a four-year period. The corresponding Senate bill (S. 53) continues the present $2.4-billion level for the next five years. The federal budget request for fiscal 1986, however, would eliminate sewage treatment construction grants. The administration proposes to phase out the construction grant program entirely over the next four years, thus setting the
0013-936X/85/09140221$01.50/0 0 1985 American Chemical Society
stage for a major confrontation over the reauthorization of CWA.
Clean Air Act The debates on CAA have been energized by the Bhopal, India, incident. Because CAA reauthorization has already been held up for four years, many Capitol Hill staff question the likelihood of amendment or reauthorization in this Congress. Previously, coupling any acid rain control provisions to the act has made it impossible to create consensus on amendments that have already been introduced. On the House side, interest in strengthening Section 112 (on hazardous air pollutants) continues to increase. Chairman Henry Waxman @Calif.) of the House Energy and Commerce Commitee’s subcommittee on health and the environment has said that he may separate acid rain issues from other CAA amendments to obtain amendments on control of toxic air pollutants. In addition, Rep. James Florio (DN.J.) is introducing seven bills to regulate hazardous air pollutant releases. One bill would amend Section 112 to include the automatic listing of hazardous substances discussed in the preceding Congress. (See ES&T May 1984, p. 153A.) Members of the Senate Environment and Puhlic Works Committee have reintroduced what is essentially last year’s Senate bill, which still couples acid rain provisions with other CAA issues. Some general interest continues in amending TSCA, SDWA, and FIFRA. These statutes are unlikely to get much attention until the first flurry of congressional activity has subsided. Congressional interest in controlling environmental toxins and their effects on human health-throughout all environmental media as well as in prerelease stages-will continue to dominate the environmental legislative agenda. Richard M. Dowd, Ph.D., is a Washington. D. C., consultanr to Environmental Research and Technology, Inc. Environ. Sei. Technol., MI. 19, No. 3. 1985 221
I
