Cleaning Up the Cleanup

Congress has less than a month to clean up the complex issues that stand in the way of a proper cleanup of toxic dumps whose chemicals threaten the nation’s health and water supplies.

The federal Superfund law, which will expire Sept. 30, sorely needs tougher standards and deadlines and far more money for a job far bigger than it looked five years ago when the fund was created.

But legislation now before Congress is not the answer, partly because it would give too much discretion to the Environmental Protection Agency to decide when cleanups should begin, how soon they would have to be completed, and how clean is clean.

And it may well be that the country would be better off in the long run if Congress gave itself more time to write a strong bill instead of rushing to get a weak bill into law.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has approved a bill co-sponsored by its chairman, Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), and Rep. James T. Broyhill (R-N.C.). The bill is not as bad as environmentalists portray it, but neither is it as tough as one sponsored by Rep. James J. Florio (D-N.J.). Florio’s bill is far more precise about what the EPA would have to do, and when. The House Public Works Committee, which shares jurisdiction on the issue, could help get the better legislation back on the track by approving Florio’s bill.

Even if the questions of deadlines and standards are resolved, two would remain: How much will the cleanup cost, and who will pay?

At present the Superfund is financed partly out of general revenues, but largely from a tax on chemicals. The chemical industry raises the legitimate point that it has not created all the toxic waste by itself, and that industrial users of chemicals should share the costs by paying a tax of their own.

The Senate Finance Committee version of the Superfund bill relies heavily on an excise tax on manufacturing--an approach opposed by the White House. The House is considering a variety of approaches--the manufacturing tax, an increased contribution from the general fund and a waste-end tax on toxic products brought to a dump. The waste-end tax has the advantage of encouraging a search for better, safer ways than landfills to dispose of toxic wastes. In one sense the tax would conflict with itself. It might prevent future problems, but it would mean less money for correcting mistakes of the past. That conflict could be cured with a mix of revenue sources. The federal government could also do a far better job of recovering cleanup costs from corporations that have contributed to the dumping.

No one dreamed when the present $1.6-billion Superfund was created in 1980 that it would have to cover 22,000 dumps. The Senate measure calls for spending $7.5 billion over the next five years; the House figure is $10.1 billion. The Environmental Protection Agency says that it could not spend more than $5 billion even if Congress appropriated more. Florio says that it could if Congress ordered it to.

The most serious problem for the Superfund now is time. In a matter of days the measure must go through three House committees, the full House and the full Senate. That is hardly enough time to clear up such side questions as how many sites have been cleaned up, let alone the more pressing question of tighter deadlines under which the EPA would be required to clean up the thousands of sites that still have not been touched.

Haste, in this case, can leave a lot of waste. It would be far more prudent for Congress to extend the existing Superfund for one year and take the time that it should have taken this year to concentrate on passing the toughest possible bill. The fact that next year will be a congressional election year should help raise its environmental consciousness.