Five-fold increase in Superfund money.

Five-fold increase in Superfund money

House and Senate conferees agreed last week to spend $9 billion to continue cleaning up hazardous-waste sites during the next five years. This new Superfund program is designed to be stronger than the original $1.6 billion program-- which technically expired last fall--by requiring that:

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) begin at least 375 new cleanup projects through 1991

cleanups meet state and federal environmental and health standards

the statute of limitations be extended to allow people harmed by exposure to toxic wastes to sue many years after exposure, if they do not become aware of their injuries right away

$500 million be targeted for repairing leaking underground tanks containing motor fuel

federal agencies releasing toxic chemicals (mainly the defense and energy departments) now fall under the Superfund program

large chemical manufacturers report annually the substances they routinely release into the environment and store in underground tanks, and help their neighbors respond to any emergency leakage. Exempt from this provision are power companies, hazardous-waste facilities and, during the first year, chemical companies releasing less than 75,000 pounds of hazardous wastes. In the second year, chemical companies that release less than 50,000 pounds are exempt, and in the third, those that release less than 25,000 pounds are exempt.

Still unanswered is the question of where the $9 billion comes from. House conferees suggested raising more than $7 billion through taxes on chemical manufacturers, but senators have not yet responded.

The lack of a firm funding provision is a major flaw in the compromise, according to the environmental groups that have banded together to lobby for a tougher law. As long as there is a chance that a major share of the costs may have to be met by the taxpayers, there is a danger that Congress may not fully fund the program each of the five years, according to Rick Hind, an environmental lobbyist for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) in Washington, D.C. "This is a classic area where environmental laws break down,' Hind says. "You succeed in getting legislation but no money to implement it.'

The funding mechanism must be worked out before the House and Senate vote on the compromise bill. That vote is expected in the next two months.

Although environmentalists are pleased that the new program is to be somewhat tougher than the old one, they see many weaknesses. The biggest problem, Hind says, is that there are still no deadlines for finishing any cleanups. Of some 500 cleanups started since 1980, only 13 are finished. The original House bill would have required 600 cleanup starts and 540 completions.

Another problem is that the new law does not require the EPA to expand its list of toxic-waste sites. The current list includes 800 sites; the environmental groups--including U.S. PIRG, the National Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation--had asked that it be expanded to 1,600.