«K . /"' ,....-——... l N f‘-Mt, ff; ,1‘ “L _: 1 LJ .A N O L 0 G E a 5 ' Iu“m¢z. -, 3. Ir ‘:1: u E 5 t 7“."""‘§.47’ E r I ..ov I it E ‘; ye % ‘ *3’ «:+f::t:é.:*: : J‘ ' saga g _ " ' 5‘) «I « - , . . - ~;_\ . - . \ ' #- ,.p-.3_ .. -- xv’ ,1 ,_ .- .‘_ ; , .‘ . -. x‘ ~,‘ A-arm 0. 3,19: 1' "1 ‘ >.- .—‘ \ , -.3 ' Q . A I ' '. ’ vx. “C xi. 3 ~ 3.5 In 3 1" 1 SC _;.»a.V-. -' *-~ Issue Brief CONGRESSIONAL Universit" M' souri Coiu % nmumm mu W I giiiiizi a mum L'3“ARY°F 010 03861 5 CONGRESS HAZARDOUS WASTES ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB79088 AUTHOR: Reisch, Hark Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED Qgggggzg DATE UPDATED glgggggg FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 1124 CRS-= 1 IB79088 UPDATE-11/20/80 .I.§§El§..2§1.3.l- 1,229.2‘. Hazardous wastes pose a threat to public health and the environment. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established a system for managing hazardous wastes, but recent events have drawn attention to several problems which existing law does not address. Among the issues before Congress are: how to deal with the costs of cleanup of abandoned and inactive waste sites; compensation to victims for health-related injuries; assured use of best existing technology for future disposal of hazardous wastes; and designation of new sites for use as hazardous waste management facilities. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) broad new authority to regulate the disposal of hazardous wastes generated in the future. A manifest system; will track hazardous wastes from their point of generation, through the transport phase, to the place of ultimate treatment, storage, or disposal. EPA regulations set standards for generators, transporters, and owners and operators of treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Facilities are also required to obtain operating permits.‘ States are encouraged and financially assisted to take over the regulatory program. EPA is currently drafting the RCRA regulations and they are expected to go into effect some time in 1980. To be ssured of complying with the Federal Guidelines, many States are holding back development of their own programs until the RCRA regulations are completed and issued. ghgt_a;g hazardoug wagtes? EPA defines hazardous wastes as those that are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, or chemically reactive. Ten to 15 percent of all industrial wastes (or about 30 - #0 million metric tons, annually) are hazardous. These figures are estimated to increase by 3% annually. Hazardous wastes are generated and disposed of in virtually every State in the nation. R EPA estimates that 90% of these wastes are being managed in ways that will not meet the new Federal standards. The types of hazardous wastes being disposed of include pesticides, highly toxic organic chemicals, other organic chemicals of unknown toxicity, inorganics, radioactive substances, explosives and flammables. Some wastes are not biodegradable and persist in the environment indefinitely. In addition, the mixing of certain chemical wastes may produce constituents that are more persistent and dangerous. Hazardous wastes are composed of many constituents which vary in type, toxicity, and effect. Various constituents can pollute the air, contaminate ground and surface water (including public water supplies), accumulate in the food chain, produce fires and explosion, an cause poisoning, cancer, genetic deformation, birth defects, and miscarriages. In addition, social damages ”uch as property loss or devaluation and loss of economic livelihood are _Jtential consequences of improper hazardous waste disposal. In the past, a lack of Federal and State legislation, the relative surplus of land and water, and the competitive nature of the free market economy, CBS- 2 IB79088 UPDATE-11/20/80 allowed generators of hazardous wastes to dispose of their residues in the least costly manner. These methods include disposal into unregulated landfills, many of them poorly designed; in on-site pits, ponds, or lagoons often without proper sealing; and unmonitored and uncontrolled incineration. At present there are approximately 18,500 municipal solid waste disposal sites, 23,000 sites for disposal of sewage sludge, and over 100,000 industrial waste sites. Adding to the problem are an untold number of sites where hazardous wastes have been illegally disposed of. As a result of improper disposal methods, the environment and public health have been threatened and in many cases damaged. L<.>!.e_.§9...el The most highly publicized contamination incident by toxic chemicals occurred at the Love Canal industrial waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Chemical wastes were disposed of at the site for approximately 25 years, until about 1953. Only of late have problems at the site become known to the public. Eighty-two chemicals, 11 of which are suspected or known carcinogens, were found on the surface and leaking into the basements of homes that were constructed in the area. Two hundred thirty-nine families in the immediate area were evacuated, and their homes were purchased by the state government at a cost of $10 million; in February 1979, 110 more families -- those with pregnant women or children under two years of age living within a 20 square block area around the canal —~ were also urged to relocate temporarily. The report of the New York State Health Commissioner, which appeared in August of 1978, cited "growing evidence of ... subacute and chronic health hazards as well as spontaneous abortions and congenital malformations." A subsequent State Health Department study, released i February 1979, showed a higher than expected frequency of miscarriages, birth defects, and low birth weights. Between $3 and a billion in lawsuits have been filed by victims seeking compensation for health and property damages. In addition, the U.S. EPA filed suit against the Hooker Chemical COCPM in December 1979 seeking $117.7 million to clean up Love Canal and three other dump sites in the Niagara Falls area; an additional $7 million to reimburse the government for its emergency assistance was also sought. And, in April 1980, the New York State government went to court asking $635 million from Hooker in connection with Love Canal. The site was declared a Federal disaster area on Aug. 7, 1978, making this the first time that Federal disaster relief funds were made available for a man-made disaster. Construction work to contain, collect, and treat contaminated leachate is expected to be completed in 1980. Love Canal again made national headlines on May 17, 1980, when controversial test results were announced indicating that some residents had suffered chromosome damage. President Carter again declared a Federal emergency on May 21, paving the way for 710 families, about 2000 people, to be evacuated and housed until it is determined if it is safe for them to return. That could take 3-6 months and will cost the government $3—5 million. The chromosoae damage study was later considered by many experts to have little scientific significance. [See KOLATA article in "REFERENCES" section, below.) The U.S. EPA estimates that, had the Love Canal wastes been disposed o properly, the cost would have been $uo per ton; in contrast, the $36 million spent by mid-1980 represents $1800 per ton. CRS- 31 IB79088 UPDATE-11/20/80 ”:2hlea-§a9nit9é-_ --_-- .. While Love Canal has been the most publicized incident of chemical waste contamination, a number of others have been documented around the country. The total number and degree of hazard is still unknown, however. EPA's ten regional offices came up with a "very rough" estimate in the fall of 1978, of over 32,000 sites containing hazardous wastes, of which 838 were identified as posing potentially imminent hazards to public health. An EPA-contracted study undertaken in early 1979 used much of the same data, and put the total number of sites in the 30,000 - 50,000 range, of which 1,200 - 2,000 could present significant problems. In early June 1980, EPA said that of 605 sites surveyed, over 100 present a serious threat to some 600,000 people. Similarly, projections of the costs to clean up these sites are still on an order-of-magnitude basis. In June 1979 EPA Assistant Administrator Thomas Jorling testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: "Excluding cases for radioactive wastes and cases judged to have no costs, the range of costs for immediate remedy nationwide is estimated at $3.6 - $6.1 billion. For permanent remedies, the nationwide range is estimated at $26.2 - $04.1 billion. These estimates do not include compensation for property damage, direct or consequential economic losses, or personal injury costs. while these are the best estimates available at this time, they are very rough estimates. We believe, however, that they provide a reasonable order—of—magnitude estimate of the minimum cost that the nation faces in correcting past mismanagement of wastes." ,i§29§al_se2ha9l29x Existing technology offers a number of alternative methods to dispose of hazardous wastes. Wastes can be -- (A) Recycled: Many useful materials can be recycled from hazardous wastes, reducing the amount of waste to be disposed of. EPA estimates that recycling could reduce the total volume of hazardous wastes by as much as 20 percent. (B) Injected into deep wells: Liquid wastes can be drained or pumped into underground cavities that are well below the earth's surface, at a relatively low cost, but unless injection wells are located in geologically stable areas well below usable groundwater supplies, there is an inherent danger of ground water contamination and possibly of earthquakes. (C) Naturally degraded: Organic compounds that are not persistent can be plowed into land farms where they will break down and become harmless. (D) Chemically fixated: some wastes can be mixed together with other chemicals to form a chemically-fixated, cement-like material that will not leach and therefore can be disposed into an unsecure landfill. The costs to solidify wastes are relatively high at present. (E) Incinerated: Though energy intensive and expensive ($75 to $300 per ton), high temperature incineration is one of the best ways to dispose of many organic wastes, particularly such highly persistent toxic wastes as polychlorinated biphenyls. (F) Disposed into a secure landfill: Secure landfills must have an impervious bottom in order to prevent leaching of hazardous wastes to groundwaters, and an impervious cap to exclude rain and surface water from leaching through wastes. Most wastes will eventually end up in secure landfills either because the wastes are infeasible or ‘ueconomical to recycle, degrade, inject into deepwells, chemically fixate, r incinerate. RCRA requires that landfills be secure; that they be monitored for 20 years in order to minimize the chance of hazardous wastes escaping into the environment; and that operators of landfills show financial responsibility for as much as $10 million per year in damages for any CBS- 4 IB79088 UPDATE-11/20/80 incident resulting from site operation. éiting At present there is a shortage of suitable disposal facilities that are capable of receiving hazardous wastes. This shortage is expected to worsen as additional wastes are found to be hazardous, as wastes now disposed of require proper disposal, and as wastes currently stored on company property are relocated to off-site disposal facilities. A major constraint to increasing disposal capacity is public opposition. The public generally agrees that hazardous wastes need to be safely disposed of but not “in their own backyard." Although continued opposition to siting disposal facilities may encourage disposers to dump wastes illegally, the problem has not been resolved. RCRA does not establish a system for designating how and where new disposal facilities will be located. BPA's siting regulations are limited to such subjects as suitable types of terrain and promoting public education. Although neither Federal, State, nor local levels of government wants the responsibility of final decision-making for siting, there appears to be a trend toward. States taking over the role.ii Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Maryland have passed legislation establishing hazardous waste siting boards, and several other States are considering doing the same. The U.S. EPA has created an in-house committee to provide assistance on the siting process and to develop an agency policy on siting. Assistance is to include the development of information materials, the provision of some forms of technical assistance, and the investigation of innovative approache toward siting. The agency policy will include analysis of a wide range of alternative roles for the Federal and State governments and an examination of such topics as capacity shortfall estimates, State activities, the role of compensation and other incentives, and the use of Federal lands. The committee's workplan anticipates completion of these activities by March "1981. . gilsonville A recent example of the difficulties presented by public opposition to the siting of hazardous waste facilities occured at wilsonville, Illinois, where Earthline Corporation, a division of SCA Services Incorporated, constructed a model secure landfill lined with near impermeable 30 foot-thick clay walls. Earthline obtained all of the required State permits and began operating the site in late 1976. In April 1977, residents learned that wastes containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) from a cleanup operation in Missouri were disposed at the Earthline site. Fearing environmental and health damages and voicing opposition to their community becoming a dumping ground for other people's wastes, residents filed suit in an attempt to force Earthline to close the site and to “restore and reclaim the area so it is safe and not an eyesore." EPA along with 27 technical experts testified as friends of the court in favor of Earthline's facility. Despite these efforts, the State circui* court ordered the facility closed on August 1a, 1978 and directed the company to remove all hazardous wastes and any contaminated soils, and to reclaim the site. The court order was based not on the hazard presented by the facility but on grounds that it was a public nuisance. On Sept. 21, 1979, the Fourth CRS— 5 IB79088 UPDATE-11/20/80 Illinois District Court of Appeals upheld »the decision saying that the potential "long-term catastrophic consequences" were sufficient reason to ind that the site was a nuisance and to shut it down. In May 1980, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear the case after having rejected SCA's appeal in April. Regardless of the outcome, an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is considered likely since the case is precedentrsetting. The State high court will hear arguments in the fall of 1980. Leaieletien 0: the 96th,QQ2QE§§- A number of comprehensive bills, varying in method and scope, have been introduced in the 96th Congress to establish mechanisms to deal with cleanup of abandoned and inactive waste sites, compensation for health related injuries, and designation of new sites for use as hazardous waste management facilities. [See "LEGISLATION" section below] The Carter administration's bill (H.R. H571/S. 1341) would create a $1.625 billion "Superfund" over the next four years. Though not reported by any committee, the proposal provided the basis for subsequent bills. Two bills have been passed on the House side. H.R. 7020 provides for the cleanup of the most dangerous disposal sites in the country. H.R. 85 deals with oil and chemicals spilled into navigable waterways. The legislative history of the two bills has been tortuous. The House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee reported H.R2 7020 on May 13, 1980 (H.Rept. 96-1016, Part I), and called for a $600 million cleanup fund raised equally by the Federal ~4overnment and industry over M years (earlier drafts had industry paying 80% f a $1.3 billion fund). H.R. 85 was passed by the Committee on Merchant 6 Marine and Fisheries on Hay 15, 1979 (H.Rept. 96-172, Part I), as an oil-spill-only bill. The House Public Works Committee, which had joint jurisdiction over the subject matter, reported H.R. 85 on May 8, 1980 (H.Rept. 96-172, Part II), with an additional measure that provided for the cleanup of chemical spills in water in addition to the oil spill provisions. H.R. 7020 and the two versions of H.R. 85 were then referred to the Ways and Means Committee, which claimed jurisdiction since they were revenue-raising measures. Ways and Means increased the H.R. 7020 hazardous waste cleanup fund's size to $1.18 billion (raised over 5 years), of which $880 million would come from oil, petrochemical feedstocks, and inorganic substances, and $300 million from appropriations (H.Rept. 96-1016, Part II). In H.R. 85 the committee voted a per unit tax expected to raise $150 million annually for 5 years, half for the oil spill fund and half for the hazardous substances spill fund (H.Rept. 96-172, Part III). In addition to financing cleanup and removal costs, both of the H.R. 85 funds could reimburse for property damages, loss of income by fishermen, and destruction of natural resources. As reported by the House Commerce Committee, H.R. 7020 would raise $600 million over 4 years, with industry's share-tied to the amount appropriated by Congress; administrative and personnel costs of EPA must be paid from general revenues and not from the fund. A $2 million study is called for to find a way to base the industry fee on the amounts of wastes generated or ‘isposed; another $35 million is authorized for EPA to prepare a priority list of the 100 most dangerous hazardous waste sites. Monitoring of inactive sites that threaten health and the environment is required, and EPA is authorized to take emergency action at leaking hazardous waste sites if the responsible party cannot be identified or is unable to pay. EPA is also CRS- 6 IB79088 UPDATEé11/20/80 given authority (1) to contract for cleanup in non-emergency situations; and (2) to enter into cooperative agreements with States if they can afford cleanup operations. States are required to contribute at least 10% of EPA‘ cleanup cost, to provide for long-term maintenance of sites, and to provide for adequate alternate disposal sites. EPA may sue a responsible company for cleanup costs, but only to the extent that that company's wastes contributed to the problem; defenses to liability are’ non-negligence and third-party action. EPA is also directed to study the problem of finding new waste disposal sites. H.R. 7020 was debated in the House on Sept. 19, 1980, and passed the House on Sept. 23 by 351-23, with the Ways and Means funding mechanism incorporated. Several amendments were adopted. A John Dingell amendment allows EPA to consider two or more non-contiguous dumps as a single site for the purposes of a national inventory, if the sites are geographically related or pose the same type of threat. A James Cleveland amendment requires that, of the 100 top-priority dump sites to be cleaned up, at least one should be located in each State, to the extent practicable. Two Albert Gore amendments deal with the liability provisions of H.R. 7020: the first prohibits a company from claiming it is not liable for damages because a chemical release was caused by another person's negligence, if that person was an employee or under contract to the company; the second leaves to a court's discretion whether to apportion damages among liable parties -- the original version made court apportionment mandatory. A Bob Eckhardt amendment provides $10 million for a study of diseases caused by hazardous wastes. A second Edkhardt amendment requires owners and operators of dump sites operating under interim status to report the sites’ existence. Finally, an Al Ullman amendment excludes a petrochemical feedstock from the tax when it is used as a fuel. Several other amendments were rejected. " To simplify the consideration of H.R. 85, inasmuch as three different versions were reported, a compromise amendment in the nature of a substitute was worked out and printed in the Congressional Record of Aug. 27, 1980, by John Breaux; a key provision limited company liability. As passed by the House, H.R. 85 creates two $375 million trust funds, established over 5 years. one is for cleaning up oil spilled into navigable waters and to compensate victims of such spills for certain damages; the other is for cleaning up hazardous wastes released into navigable waters and to compensate those victims for certain damages. The hazardous waste fund is financed by an excise tax of $1.18 per ton on primary petrochemicals, and a tax of 31 cents per ton on certain inorganic substances; State funds are preempted. Damages to property and natural resources, and for loss of income due to destruction of property or natural resources are compensable from the funds; however, payment for such purposes may not lower the fund below $30 million, which is to be held for cleanup purposes. The funds may borrow up to $75 million from the Treasury in the first year of operation. Limits of liability for vessel and facility owners and operators are established; the owners and operators are required to maintain specified amounts of financial responsibility; they are exempt from liability in cases of pollution caused by war or exceptional, inevitable, and irresistable natural phenomena, by the negligence of the claimant, or by actions of a third party. Regulations issued by EPA under the Act are subject to a one-house congressional veto; EPA's administrative costs may not be paid from the funds. The Act does not authorize Federal control of groundwaters. H.B. 85 was debated on Sept. 1’ and 19, 1980, and passed on Sept. 19 by 288-11. 5. 1480 was reported from the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on June 27, 1980. It creates a fund which will reach $1.685 CRS- 7 IB79088 UPDATE-11/20/80 billion in the firstn 3 years, composed of $210 million in Federal appropriations and the rest from industry fees. For the next 3 years, annual gpropriations of $100 million and the collection of $700 million from industry fees are authorized. Two—thirds of the fund can be used to cover costs of cleanup, remedial activities,w and administrative expenses; and one-third is available for third-party damages. The bill contains a broad definition of hazardous substances covering all releases into the environment, including spills and leaching from abandoned or inactive dumpsites. Funds could be used to cover costs of both short- and long-term responses to dumpsite and spill pollution situations. Short-term responses would include such steps as evacuation of nearby residents and emergency containment of the chemicals involved. Long-term responses would include relocation of residents and permanent chemical containment or removal. The fund would also be used to cover medical costs, property losses and other losses of persons injured from hazardous waste incidents. The bill holds the owner of abandoned or inactive waste sites and those responsible for spills liable for cleanup and compensation costs. The bill also provides a mechanism for ensuring that cleanup and compensation occurs in the fastest, most efficient way. Where no liable party can be identified, the fund would cover costs. If responsible parties lack adequate funds, the government could pay for cleanup and compensation, and require the responsible parties to reimburse the funds. On Oct. 1, S. 1fl8O was referred to the Senate Finance Committee for consideration of its fee provisions; Finance was expected to replace the fees with a tax scheme. on Nov. 19, however, the committee reported the $4.2 illion bill without change or comment. Meanwhile, Senators Randolph and Stafford brought out a $2.7 billion substitute version, which incorporated many features of the two House-passed bills and S. 1480 and eliminated the most controversial provisions of the Senate bill. References to joint and several liability and to proportionate liability were replaced by an express strict liability regime or left to other existing law. Also, a third-party defense was added, and a third-party cause of action was dropped. Eearinge.hel§_§n£i29_:he-2§:h-§9.9_e§§ Generators and disposers of hazardous wastes, as well as concerned environmental organizations agree that hazardous wastes need to be disposed of safely and that problems resulting from past disposal practices need remedy. However, they have voiced objections to existing law and current proposals which deal with past, present, and future hazardous waste disposal practices. A number of contrasting views were presented in separate testimony on behalf of the Chemical manufacturers Association (CMA) and 12 environmental organizations before the Subcommittees on Environmental Pollution and Resource Protection of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. CHA testified against associating chemical spills with oil spills on the grounds they are not as dangerous, differ in transportation patterns, and are moren complex and variable. The environmental organizations strongly supported inclusion of oil in superfund legislation, noting that there is no program that adequately compensates those who have been victimized, or CRS- 8 IB79088 UPDATE-11/20/80 natural resources that have been damaged or destroyed by oil spills. CHA presented testimony against forcing the chemical industry to pay fc past disposal practices that have damaged the environment because those practices were within the limits of the law when they took place. They did not feel the chemical industry shouldi be required to bear the financial burden alone since all of society benefited by their products. Instead, they testified in favor of using Federal and State monies to cleanup abandoned or inactive waste sites and to compensate victims for personal injury or property loss. The environmental organizations supported 3. 1480's decision not to support the fund with Federal or State tax dollars: "The producers of hazardous substances and not the taxpayers directly, should bear the burden of the damages such substances cause. Given the budget restraints of the Federal government, a Federal appropriation for the fund would be inappropriate." They testified in favor of the Carter administration proposal which requires collecting fees. from only oil refineries and feedstock producers stating that the burden of administering a large collection system on all generators of hazardous waste would be expensive, difficult to administer, and difficult for small businesses to afford. They also contested the argument that it is unfair to charge today's producers for yesterdays sins, as abandoned sites covered by proposed legislation, includes sites that are now operating and sites that will become abandoned during the lifetime of the fund. In their testimony, CMA stated that enactment of a superfund covering chemicals would "overlap existing laws, section 311 of the Clean Water Act, arbitrarily supplant existing legal.remedies, section 50H of the Clean Wate. Act, and be based on an acute shortage of reliable data." Again the environmental organizations disagreed, testifying that either 5. 13u1 or S. 1480 would retain the basic framework of the Clean Water Act, with experience under section 311 providing a basis of experience from which to strengthen and improve future efforts. A CMA also stated that EPA's definition of hazardous waste is too broad, that it overlooks the fact that some wastes are clearly more hazardous than others, and that the RCRA regulations could potentially cost industry billions of dollars annually. The environmental organizations preferred to broaden EPA's definition of hazardous waste to include all hazardous substances that effect the environment or public health, regardless of their source or pathway into the environment. They also stated that the costs which industry would now incur as a result of RCRA would be minimal in comparison to the longterm environmental and health costs if the regulations were not implemented. Representing disposers of hazardous wastes, the National Solid iwaste nanagement Association (NSHHA) commented on topics of a different nature in testimony before the same committees. NSWHA viewed EPA's proposal that disposal site operators be liable for $5 million in damages for each incident that occurs while the site is operating as too much of a financial burden for some independent operators, particularly smaller firms, since no D.S. firms were offering liability insurance to disposal facility operators. Citing public opposition to siting facilities, NSHMA also noted that present disposal facilities would be hard pressed to accomodate the increased volume of wastes that must be safely disposed of when RCRA goes into effect. To remedy these problems, the Association testified in favor of S. 1325, CBS— 9 IB79088 UPDATE-11/20/80 contending that it would ease the liability burdens of disposal facility nperators and offer assurance to the public that funds would be readily vailable to prevent a facility from damaging the environment both during operation and after the site had been closed. NSWHA stated that these mechanisms would aid in increasing the number of disposal facility sites by reducing public opposition. §2rre2:-e££9£:§ On July 11, 1979, EPA Deptuy Administrator Barbara Blum named the cleanup of hazardous waste dumpsites threatening public health the "highest agency priority." EPA has established an agency-wide Hazardous Waste Enforcement and Emergency Response system and a task force to respond to hazardous waste emergencies. Currently, EPA has about 100 personnel, primarily in its regional offices, working on hazardous waste site investigations and enforcement. The agency is presently evaluating 111 sites across the country known to contain potentially dangerous quantities of hazardous wastes. These evaluations may result in legal actions or emergency Federal actions to contain the spread of contaminants where there is an imminent hazard and existing local authority and funding is insufficient. The Carter administration has requested supplemental appropriations to give EPA an additional $22 million and 70 new positions for the hazardous waste investigation and enforcement program, but this increase provides only about one-third of the resources which EPA originally sought. Enforcement of the BCRA regulations will begin in mid-1980. Until then, "1 States are seeking interim authority to conduct their own hazardous waste _rograms. EPA and the States will have only limited funds, staff and expertise to implement the regulations oncerthey go into effect. Thus, it is difficult to determine how successful RCBA will be in protecting the environment and public from the dangers of hazardous wastes. It has been suggested that an appropriate first step, which EPA is capable of undertaking, is to locate and assess all hazardous waste sites throughout the country in order to derive accurate cost estimates for temporary remedial measures, permanent cleanup and victim compensation, and of most importance, to inform the public of any potential or existing dangers. However, objections have been raised to the effort of identifying sites in the absence of an assured source of cleanup and compensation funds, for fear of only scaring the public in affected areas and reducing property values. Lfifiléléllgfl H.R. 3797 (Lafalce)/S. 10fl6 (Hoynihan) Legislation that would amend the Solid waste Disposal Act (as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1979) to provide for establishment of a program for the identification and reclamation of hazardous waste sites; establishment of a fund to be used for reclamation of hazardous waste sites and for the compensation of persons injured by hazardous waste; and a Federal cause. of action for damages caused by azardous waste. The bills were introduced on Apr. 30, 1979 and were referred to the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 3798 (LaFa1ce) CRS-10 IB79088 UPDATE-11/20/80 Similar legislation, except that it covers the broader topic of toxic pollutants, and not just hazardous waste. The bill would amend the Soli Waste Disposal Act (as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) to provide for establishment of a program for the identification and reclamation of abandoned hazardous waste sites; establishment of a fund to be used for the reclamation of hazardous waste sites and for the compensation of victims injured by toxic pollutants; and a Federal cause of action for damages caused by toxic pollutants. The bill was introduced on Apr. 30, 1979 and was referred to the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. H.R. H571 (staggers)/S. 1341 (Culver) The Carter Administration bill. It would create a $1.625 billion "superfund” raised over the next four years. Eighty percent would come from fees assessed against producers of oil, inorganic chemicals, and petrochemical feedstocks for organic chemicals. The remaining 20% would come from congressional appropriations. when the parties responsible lack adequate capital, the fund would pay for cleanup of oil and toxic chemical spills, and abandoned or inactive chemical dumps as presently defined by sections 311 and 50H of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. For spills, the bill would provide for removal, cleanup, mitigation, and crestoration of natural resources; and for abandoned disposal sites, it would provide $300,000 for emergency assistance. When containment is the least-cost means of abating hazards, it would provide the first $200,000 anf 90% of the cost above $200,000 (for State» or municipal—owned sites the Federal share is 50%). In containment situations, States must first agree to share costs up to 19 years and to provide off-site disposal as necessary. Priorities for response would be derived from statutory criteria on protecting public health, safety, and significant environmental resources. respectively, and were referred jointly to the House Committees on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, merchant Marine and Fisheries, and Public Works and Transportation, and to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public works. H.R. 6931 (Eckhardt) Provides for an inventory of active and inactive hazardous waste sites, after which States will set priorities for cleaning up those presenting a substantial threat to health or the environment. EPA would then designate 100 as top priority sites. Clean-up of problem sites is to be performed by site owners; in their absence States would clean up, with the Federal government paying 95% of the cost. The clean-up fund would be maintained from appropriations. Strict liability would be imposed on generators of hazardous waste for wastes produced after Jan. 1, 1980. Introduced Mar. 26, 1980; referred to Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. H.B. 7020 (Florio) Establishes a hazardous waste response program including State and Federal inventories, priorities, and monitoring of inactive sites. Authorizes EPA to take emergency response actions to releases or threatened releases o; hazardous wastes. Establishes a hazardous waste response fund. See text for additional details. Introduced’ Apr. 2, 1980; referred to Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. CRS—11 IB79088 UPDATE-11/20/80 S. 1480 (Culver) Legislation that would amend the Clean Water Act and create a fund to provide for liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous substances released into the environment, and the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites. See text for additional details. The bill was introduced on July 11, 1979 and was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public works. 5. 1325 (Randolph) Establishes a $100—200 million fund, to be raised from fees assessed against operators of permitted treatment and disposal facilities under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. No Federal monies would be involved. The fund would serve as a risk pool mechanism to substitute for the lack of commercially available insurance. Duplicative state funds would be preempted, as the fund would compensate all injured parties and pay all remedial expenses for cleanup. During operation of a properly permitted facility, the operator would be liable for the first $5 million in damages; after proper closure, the fund would pay all damages. Introduced June 12, 1979; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works. 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Oversight of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session. Oct. 30, 1978. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. nan p. "Serial no. 95-183" 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Hazardous waste disposal, Parts 1 and 2. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. Mar. 21 - June 19, 1979. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 1930 p. "Serial nos. 96-08 and 96-Q9" 0.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce. Administrations proposed Oil, Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Waste Response, Liability and Compensation Act, "Superfund". Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. June 19, 1979. (Not yet printed). 0.5. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution / Subcommittee on Resource Protection. Hazardous and toxic waste disposal. Joint hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. Part 1, Har. 28 and 29, 1979. Part 2, Field hearings: Bay 18, 1979, Niagara Falls, N.Y.; June 28, 1979, San Francisco, Calif. Part 3, Field hearing: June 22, 1979, Charles City, Iowa. Part 4, on S. 13fl1, and S. 1u80, June 20-Sept. 7, 1979. Hashington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. "Serial no. 96-H9" cns—12 1379033 UPDATE-11/20/80 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Subcommittee on Resource Protection. Reauthorization of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. Mar. 22 - 23, 1979. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 413 p. "Serial no. 96-H6" U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. Oversight of hazardous waste management and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. July 19, 1979 and Aug. 1, 1979. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 622 p. B.§.BQ§I§.-A!2-§.Q;!§.§§.5.§I°Nél- D0§‘.3.1.5fl.I§ U.S. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Hazardous waste disposal; report together with additional and separate views. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., September 1979. 82 p. At head of title: 96th Congress, 1st session. Committee print. 96-IFC 31 ----- Waste disposal site survey, report.together with additional and separate views. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., October 1979. 487 p. At head of title: 96th Congress, 1st session. Committee print. 96-IFC 33 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Subcommittee on Investigations and Review. Water Contamination by Toxic Pollutants: An Assessment of Regulation. September 1977. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 81 p. (95th Congress, 1st session. House Report no. 96-602 0) U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Compensation For Victims of Water Pollution. may 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 372 p. At head of title: 96th Congress, 1st session. Committee Print. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. Report on hazardous waste ranagement and the implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., March 1980. 61 p. U.S. General Accounting Office. How to Dispose of Hazardous Waste - A Serious Question That Needs to be Resolved. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Dec. 19, 1978. 28 p. (Report no. CED-79-13) ----- Hazardous Waste Management Programs Will Not Be Effective: Greater Efforts Are Needed. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., Jan. 23, 1979. 29 p. (Report no. CED-79-14) U.S. Library of Congress. Division. and atmospheric contamination: cns-13 IB79088 UPDATE‘11/20/80 Environment and Natural Resources Policy Resource losses from surface water, groundwater, A catalog. Report prepared for the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate. 96th Congress, 2d session. March 1980. "Serial no. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2u6,p. 96-9” 07/11/79 -- Environmental Protection Agency releases names of 60 06/13/79 12/18/78 11/20/78 08/07/73 10/21/76 07/00/75 04/00/70 newly-discovered sites containing hazardous wastes which may be public health and environmental hazards. Establishes a Hazardous Waste Enforcement and Emergency Responson System to respond to hazardos waste emergencies. Carter administration introduces “superfund" legislation to address shortcomings in existing hazardous waste regulations. Environmental Protection Agency issues RCRA's proposed guidelines covering criteria.for identifying and listing hazardous waste, standards applicable to to generators of such waste, and performance standards for hazardous waste management facilities. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 32,254 waste storage and disposal sites throughout the U.S. may contain hazardous wastes in any quantity which now pose, or have the potential to pose, a threat to public health or the environment. The agency estimates that 638 of these may contain significant quantities of hazardous wastes which could.cause significant imminent hazards to public health. Love Canal, in Niagara Falls, New York is declared a disaster area by the Carter administration making disaster assistance available. Centered widespread media coverage onto the potential dangers and scope of the hazardous waste problem. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, P.L. 90-580, is signed into law authorizing the development of state waste management plans, research and development for the recovery of energy and other resources from discarded materials, and the regulation of management of hazardous waste. Contamination of the James River from kepone pollution at Hopewell, Virginia is discovered. Several workers became ill. Cost of cleaning up the James River estimated at over $1 billion. PBB contamination identified as the cause of livestock illness in Michigan; subsequently 30,000 cattle, thousands cns-14 1 113790 88 UPDATE-11/2 0/80 of other farm animals, and 1.5 million chickens were quarantined and destroyed. Several thousand families uere exposed. 10/26/70 -- Resource Recovery Act, P.L. 91-512, is signed into law Alto provide financial assistance for the construction nof solid waste disposal facilities and to improve existing research programs. 10/20/65 -— Solid Waste Dispoal Act, P.L. 89-272, is signed into ‘ law to initiate a national research and development program to improve methods of solid waste disposal and to provide assistance to State and local governments in the development of solid waste disposal programs., éP.P.2£2lQ§‘..A.l--B§.E§l3.§§§E-§QQ¥.9§§ Barnhart, Benjamin J. Disposal of hazardous wastes. Environmental Science and Technology, October 1978: 1132-1136. Congressional Quarterly. Cleaning up chemical dumps posing dilemma for Congress. mar. 22, 1980: 795. Glaubinger, Robert 5. Guide to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Chemical Engineering, Jan. 29, 1979: 79-81. Hazardous wastes:‘ Your community may be in trouble. American City 5 County, November 1978: 37-01. Holden, Constance. Love Canal residents under stress. Science, June 13, 1980: 1292-1240. Ko1-ta, Gina Bari. Love Canal: false alarm caused by botched ' study. Science, June 13, 1980: 1239-1242. Martin, Douglas. iFight over PCBs shows how hard it is to destroy chemicals and satisfy people. Wall Street Journal, Aug. 9, 1979:; 42. uaugh, Thomas H. II. Toxic waste disposal a growing problem. [a four-part series on disposal technology] Science, may 25, 1979: 819-823. June 1, 1979: 930*933. June 15, 1979: 1188-1190. June 22, 1979: 1295-1298. Mitchell, Greg. The deadly silence. Feature, March 1979: 56-60. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 - The newest environmental sleeper. Business Lawyer, July 1978: 2555-2585. Sobel, Richard. How industry can prepare for RCRA. Chemical Engineering, Jan. 29, 1979: 82-85. Toxic materials: Industry tries to clean up its act. Business Week, Jan. 29, 1979: QHL-HHT. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Preliminary assessment of lnmgleanup costs for national hazardous waste problems. Washington, 5 tsmiaiifiv-p7 1—u7 . 0 F WA8H:;w3*g-QM 8 umzvseassry LQ‘U!3 -— img n._______________T_‘__:% 5 -xx-3