Printer Friendly

Funding a new life for Superfund.

Near the top of the list for action by Congress this year is reauthorization of the "Superfund" law, which provides for the cleaning up of abandoned toxic-waste dumps. The present law expires at the end of September. Last week, the Reagan administration submitted to Congress its proposal for modifying and, in some ways, expanding the current program.

The proposal calls for spending $5.3 billion over the next five years to clean up toxic-waste sites, compared with $1.6 billion spent since 1980, when the program started (SN: 2/9/85, p.86). One-third of the funds would come from a tax on crude oil, various petrochemicals and other raw materials used in the production of chemicals that contribute to the generation of toxic wastes. Two-thirdsd would come from a new "waste-end" tax collected on hazardous wastes received at treatment, storage or disposal facilities. Although this tax may, as the government suggests, encourage companies to produce lower levels of hazardous wastes, some critics fear that it may also encourage more illegal dumping.

Equally controversial is the administration's decision to ask for an increase from 10 to 20 percent in a state government's share of cleanup costs. However, states would now be allowed to initiate feedstock or waste-end taxes of their own to fund their activities.

The chief question among many congressmen and a variety of environmental groups is whether the federal goverment's proposal moves far enought fast enough. Last December, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) itself estimated that cleaning up the nation's worst abandoned hazardous-waste dumps could eventually cost $11.7 billion and possibly twice that much. A bill submitted to Congress earlier this year by Sen. Robert T. Stafford (R-Vt.) would raise $7.5 billion over five years. Last summer, the House passed a bill that authorized expenditures of more than $10 billion, but because the Senate didn't meets its deadline, no law was enacted before Congress adjourned.

But, says EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas, going faster would strain the agency's capacity to do its job carefully and effectively. He suggests that the present law already is too sweeping. The administration's proposal would prohibit the use of Superfund for cleaning up, for example, wastes from mining activities or asbestos in buildings, unless the President decides that a major threat to public health exists and no one else can respond soon enough. "In focusing our atten," says Thomas, "we establish a more concerted effort to clean up what we feel are the most dangerous sites in the nation.
COPYRIGHT 1985 Science Service, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1985, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Peterson, Ivars
Publication:Science News
Date:Mar 2, 1985
Previous Article:Drug plugs vessel in babies' hearts.
Next Article:Making babies bigger before birth.

Related Articles
Incumbent Hall, newcomer McCown capture LCC seats.
Lack of training hurts doctor-patient relationships.
Taking "The Movement" to MS Awareness Week March 5-11, 2007.
Activists unite at Long-Term Care Caucus.
Plan smart for the long term: Medicaid changes you should know.
Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue.
Learning futures: public libraries for the new generations.
Connecting young adults and libraries in the 21st century.
Johnson, Valerie Life after Fenwick: the rise, fall and future of library services for children in Australia.
High on conservation: this Washington state forest ecologist and professor shares her research, and her convictions, literally from the treetops.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters