Hazardous waste clean-up “superf!bnd”bill in Congress
Sanford E. Gaines E RT, Concord, M A
The Love Canal crisis awakened the country to yet another problem of public health risk and environmental degradation arising from past.neglect: the contamination of water, soil, and air from improper disposal of hazardous wastes. The problem is enormous. To clean up Love Canal alone may take $50 million, and hundreds of other abandoned disposal sites have come to light. Unexpectedly, the federal government found itself without the authority or the resources to respond. To remedy that situation, the Carter administration, on June 13, 1979, submitted to Congress a bill to establish a “superfund” to finance clean-up of hazardous wastes and spills of oil and hazardous substances. The administration bill has a number of major objectives. The first, of course, is to establish and finance the fund. Second is to define the purposes for which the fund may be used. Third is to set forth conditions and limitations on disbursements from the fund. Finally, the bill requires responsible parties to notify the government of spills or hazardous disposal sites. The Superfund will contain $1.625 billion,, to be collected primarily through user charges over the next four years. The proposed charges reflect the sources and volumes of spills and hazardous wastes, allocated as follows: $325 million from refiners or owner-importers of crude oil $325 million from suppliers of hazardous inorganic chemicals and heavy metals 0013-936X/79/0913-0917$0 1.OO/O
@
$650 million from suppliers of petrochemical feedstocks, such as ethylene, toluene, and benzene. The government itself will contribute $325 million of general revenues, which industry hopes will act as an incentive for fair and efficient administration of the fund. According to administration calculations, the assessments translate to per unit charges of approximately 1.85 cents per barrel of crude oil, $6.20 per ton of petrochemical feedstocks, and $ l . 15 per ton of inorganic chemicals and heavy metals. Ceilings on the per unit charge will prevent excessive impacts on particular substances or users.
Goals The Superfund will have several purposes. It may pay for cleaning up spills of oil or hazardous substances; it may compensate persons who suffer property damage or lost income from marine harvesting because of spills; and it may pay to contain, remove, or destroy hazardous wastes in abandoned disposal sites. The administration proposal does not provide for compensation to victims of hazardous waste contamination. The fund is designed to finance immediate action to contain and clean up spills and hazardous waste, without the need for prior determinations of liability. However, the fund will be used only if the responsible party cannot be identified or denies liability, and collections from liable persons through subsequent judicial action will reimburse the fund. The bill places several conditions on the use of the fund for dealing with hazardous waste at abandoned disposal sites. The fund may be used only for the least cost remedy for the hazard unless the state agrees to pay the extra expense for an alternate remedy. Containment of the hazardous waste is presumed to be the least costly, but the fund will finance removal or destruction of the waste in appropriate cases. The bill also limits the amount to be used for a single site ($300 000) and requires the state to
1979 American Chemical Society
assume responsibility for long-term maintenance of the site. Effective use of the fund depends upon the government obtaining timely reports of dangeraus disposal sites and spills. Therefore, the bill contains explicit notification requirements. For oil and hazardous substance spills, such requirements are now part of the Clean Water Act and have been upheld by most courts as legitimate enforcement mechanisms. The Superfund bill will establish similar notification requirements for hazardous waste disposal sites, and extend the duty to report on abandoned sites to prior owners and lessees, and to generators and transporters of waste stored there. Failure to report will incur a substantial criminal penalty. The country needs a mechanism to finance cleanup of hazardous wastes. The question is what mechanism to employ and how to pay for it.
Questions to be answered Should the fund for clean-up of hazardous.waste sites be lumped together with the existing spill clean-up fund to create a “Superfund” as the administration proposes, or should the funds be kept separate? Should a fund to clean up old hazardous wastes be financed primarily by charges on current generators of such wastes, or should society at large contribute more heavily through use of general tax revenues? Should there be a limitation on the amount available for cleaning up a particular site, and if so, what is the appropriate amount? Should this fund, or some federal fund, provide compensation to people who suffer personal, property, or economic injury from hazardous wastes? Should the fund favor containment of waste, or should it promote permanent removal or destruction of the wastes? The decision rests with Congress. This Regulatory Alert was written by Sanford E. Gaines, Assistant Enoironmental Counsel at ERT. Michael Deland, ERT’s Enuironmental Counsel, the regular author of this colu’mn, is on vacation. He will return as author next month. Volume 13, Number 8, August 1979
917
