Reagan Signs $9-Billion Toxic Waste Measure

President Reagan, facing overwhelming pressure from Congress, swallowed his distaste for new tax hikes and signed into law Friday a $9-billion package reauthorizing the nation’s Superfund toxic waste cleanup program.

“The danger of toxic wastes is perhaps the most pressing environmental problem confronting our country,” Reagan told a GOP campaign rally in North Dakota after signing the bill.

Faced Possible Override

Several White House advisers had urged Reagan to veto the legislation because it creates a new broad-based tax on corporations and increases levies on the oil industry. But Reagan, facing an almost certain veto override, said his concerns about “the health and safety of our citizens” overcame his hesitation about the financing.

However, as members of Congress and environmentalists rejoiced over the Superfund success, another major environmental bill appeared to be in trouble.

A landmark measure that would force new studies on the health effects of pesticides in food returned to the Senate Friday with a House provision that would restrict states from removing potentially unsafe food products from grocery shelves. The Senate has opposed such restrictions, and time for an agreement was running out as Congress attempted to adjourn.

Sixfold Increase in Funds

The new Superfund law provides for a nearly sixfold increase in money to clean up dumps over the next five years, puts the Environmental Protection Agency on a new cleanup schedule, sets tough new cleanup standards and requires businesses to make public the kinds of hazardous wastes they store.

Despite repeated veto warnings from the White House, the legislation passed by overwhelming majorities. Reagan said he overcame his misgivings about the financing of the bill after being assured that small business would be spared the broad-based tax and that Senate leaders would fight any future attempt to extend the taxing provisions to other programs.

Sen. Robert T. Stafford (R-Vt.), a key architect of the new law, joined other congressmen Friday in expressing relief at Reagan’s signature. “I was chewing my nails about that for the last 10 days,” he said at a news conference.

The law that created the program expired a year ago, and virtually no cleanups have been accomplished since. EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas had threatened to terminate Superfund contractors at the end of this month unless a cleanup program was in place.

“The White House recognized that it would be political suicide for the Republicans to defend a presidential veto,” said Leslie Dach of the Audubon Society.

Meanwhile, differences between both houses on the makeup of a landmark pesticide revision bill clouded its future. The Senate earlier this month stripped the bill of a House provision restricting states from setting tougher standards on the amount of pesticide allowed on food. But instead of establishing a congressional conference committee to iron out differences, sponsors of the bill sent it back to the House for another vote.

States’ Power Restricted

The House late Thursday softened its language on the issue, saying that states could set stricter limits until the EPA completes health studies required under the new law. But the House added new language restricting states’ ability to pull food containing potentially unsafe levels of pesticides from grocery shelves. States would have to show that the pesticide levels represent an “unreasonable risk” to public health before removing food products.

“That’s a very tough legal standard,” complained the Audubon Society’s Dach.

States have taken such action in the past, most recently to strip grocery shelves of products containing the pesticide ethylene dibromide, commonly known as EDB, which was found to cause cancer 10 years before it was banned by the EPA.

The states issue is only one of a handful that threaten to impede final passage. The bill has been supported by environmentalists and pesticide makers, who formed an unusual coalition two years ago to prevent each other from killing legislation that each had sought.

Now the environmentalists, upset by the House action, want a provision that would curtail restrictions on states, clarify manufacturers’ responsibility for cleaning up sites contaminated by pesticides and strengthen protection of drinking water supplies. The Agricultural Chemical Assn. says it cannot support the bill if an expected attempt in the Senate to restrict patent terms for pesticides succeeds.

If approved, the legislation would force the EPA to meet deadlines for completing health studies on the pesticides, which would be used to set limits on the amount of residue allowed on food. Farmers would be protected from liability for pesticide-caused pollution if the farmers applied the chemicals according to the manufacturers’ directions. Under current law, farmers could be held responsible for the cost of the cleanup.