Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, July 16, 1995 TAG: 9507170027
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: C1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CATHRYN MCCUE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The cast includes the Environmental Protection Agency, the "Big Ten" national environmental organizations, and the American public.
And the surprise guest at the table - the bargaining table, that is - is none other than the chemical industry.
"We're worried about the program going away," said Mort Mullins, vice president for regulatory reform for the Chemical Manufacturers Association. "Somehow we have a sixth sense ... that somehow or another, we'd end up being the big time losers."
Mullins and his public relations man, Thomas J. Gilroy, swung through Roanoke last week, stumping for Superfund reform. With only six months left for Congress to fix and re-enact the law, Mullins and Gilroy are hitting most major daily newspapers and other media to get their views across.
The 15-year-old Superfund law targets the worst hazardous waste dumps in the country for cleanup. If it isn't reauthorized by Dec. 31 in some way, shape or form, cleanup at the 1,300 sites around the country will stop. That includes the Dixie Caverns landfill in Salem, the Saltville muck ponds in Smyth County, the Avtex Fibers site in Front Royal, and 21 other sites around Virginia.
You would think the chemical dumpers would want nothing more than for the program to dry up and blow away. But that's not the case, Mullins said, for several simple reasons.
One is that ending the program would cost the chemical companies millions of dollars in terms of canceled contracts, suspended construction and stabilizing open dumps that are in the midst of cleanup. When the program was shut down once before, in 1985, communities were left in limbo and industry paid heavily in dollars and reputation.
A second reason is that people living near Superfund sites, and the "broader community who sympathize with them" would raise holy heck if the cleanup crews up and pulled out of town, Mullins said.
"If industry lets that happen, we're going to be tarred with the same brush as the EPA and Congress," he said.
The third reason is that it would cost the industry money to resume cleanups when a new program were established, which Mullins feels would surely happen.
Which leads to reason four, why the chemical industry wants to reform and reauthorize this Superfund law. "The pendulum swings back, it always swings back," and next time, the law could be doubly onerous and expensive for industry, Mullins said.
In recent years, Superfund's glaring shortcomings have made it a favorite target for those who champion the GOP's anti-regulatory fervor. It's also been a favorite target of Democrats and environmental groups say the law is a gold mine for lawyers, but rarely benefits the people and neighborhoods it was meant to serve.
Only 74 sites have been removed from the Superfund list since the program began in 1980. On average, cleanups take 10 years or more, and cost $26 million.
A 1991 government report showed that only 30 percent of total Superfund expenditures go to actual cleanup work. Much of the money spent by companies identified by EPA as "responsible parties" go to lawyers and consultants.
And 35 cents of every tax dollar paid by companies specifically for Superfund is siphoned off for other government programs or to reduce the national debt, according to the Chemical Manufacturers Association.
Under the 103rd Congress last year, the chemical association sat down at the table with some unlikely partners to hammer out the kinks in the program - the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and scores of others.
Numerous proposals were offered and backed with bipartisan support, but a final bill never emerged from Congressional committees.
This Congress, the matter is more urgent, because the federal government will lose its taxing authority at the end of the year. The Chemical Manufacturers Association and others support several major changes in the bill.
Currently, cleanups usually mean returning a site to pristine conditions, which often leads to delay and spiraling costs.
Reformers want to see "site specific" remedies, based on the type of pollution involved, the extent of contamination, health risk posed to the public, and what the community determines will be the future use of the site. It could mean having to incinerate contaminated dirt, a costly, compled solution, putting a fence and No Trespassing signs at a site - cheap and easy - or anything in between, Mullins said.
A study commissioned by the association showed that site specific cleanups would mean a 35 percent savings in remediation costs - amounting to billions over the next several years.
Currently, any company associated with the site, present or past, are equally responsible. The EPA usually picks a few "deep pocket" companies and leaves it to them to sue third parties to recoup money, Mullins said.
Reformers want a "fair share" liability, meaning a company is held liable only for the amount and toxicity of its hazardous waste at the site. An arbitration panel and administrative judge would divvy up the blame and costs.
"All they've [the companies] been looking for is rough justice," Mullins said.
Other ideas for Superfund reform abound, including letting everyone off the hook and having the government go in and cleanup all the sites, Mullins said.
What, if anything, emerges at the end of the year remains to be seen.
by CNB