WASHINGTON : Small Gas Stations May Get Help Coping With Tanks That Leak

Small gas station owners may get relief soon from regulations designed to protect underground water supplies from leaky storage tanks.

Under the new federal regulations, gas stations are required to test their underground storage tanks for leaks, replace any tanks that leak and install leak-detection systems. They are required also to buy at least $1 million in liability protection. And the station owner is responsible for cleaning up any soil that has been contaminated.

Costs for testing and the insurance alone average $40,000 to $50,000 per location--enough to threaten the existence of many mom-and-pop stations nationwide. Lenders have been reluctant to finance repairs because of the uncertainty over who pays for the cleanup if a station goes bankrupt. No lender wants to end up owning a station on a contaminated site.

Alarmed by both the environmental implications of the leaks and the fate of small-station owners in his largely rural state, Rep. Dan Glickman (D-Kan.) has introduced the Underground Storage Tank Pollution Prevention and Assistance Program (HR 4319).

Glickman has proposed expanding the use of an existing federal cleanup fund to provide market-rate loans to station owners complying with the anti-leak law. The legislation was designed to help rural gas station owners, but any business with 12 tanks or less in three locations or less would be eligible for aid under the program.

“In my home state of Kansas, 95% of all UST (underground storage tank) owners have 12 tanks or less,” Glickman said in introducing the measure. “There are 20,000 tanks in Kansas, 100 of which are under investigation as major sites of leakage. Leaking tanks present a real threat to our health and environment. We must act to assist tank owners in cleaning up existing contamination of soil and ground water and protect against new leaks.”

Phillip R. Chisholm, executive vice president of the Petroleum Marketers Assn. of America, likes the proposal. “Rep. Glickman’s legislation is definitely a move in the right direction, a good point of departure,” he said. “What we would like to see done is opening up the trust fund for other purposes as well--for example, to create a matching fund for stations so they will have enough money to do the cleanups.” The bill is pending before both the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees.

Competing Parental Leave Bills Near Vote

Just when they thought they had enough votes to pass a bill mandating parental leave, proponents fear that legislation introduced by Rep. Timothy J. Penny (D-Minn.) will undermine their efforts.

Penny plans to offer the Maternity Leave Act (HR 3445) as a substitute on the floor of the House of Representatives when the long-considered family-medical leave bill (HR 770) comes up for a vote within the next few weeks.

The original bill, sponsored by Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) and 150 co-sponsors, would provide up to 15 weeks of medical leave over a one-year period for serious illness or injury and up to 10 weeks of parental leave over two years for birth, adoption or serious illness of a child or dependent parent.

If it becomes law, the rules would apply immediately to businesses with 50 or more employees and in three years to employers with 35 or more workers. An employee would have to work a minimum of 20 hours a week to qualify for the benefits.

Schroeder’s bill has been opposed steadily over the years by most business trade groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business. President Bush has promised to veto it.

Penny views his bill as a compromise. It would provide 10 weeks of maternity leave for women--except in the case of adoption, when it would include men--and has no provisions for sick leave. “It’s the only workable job security plan that can be embraced by all sides to this debate,” Penny said in a letter to his colleagues.

Still, Schroeder and other supporters say maternity leave is not enough. “American families have no job protection if they need time to care for newborn, adopted or seriously ill children. This country needs a new minimum labor standard so that men and women don’t have to choose between their jobs or their families.”

Legislation Would Regulate Pensions

Employers would face tough restrictions on their ability to reap surplus cash from employee pension plans under legislation approved by a Senate committee.

The action by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee is likely to intensify the debate between management and labor about who should benefit from excess assets earned by pension funds. Employers argue that they have the right to any funds above those required to pay the minimum defined benefits; labor contends that pensioners should share in the excess through increased benefits.

The bill (S 685) would restrict an employer’s ability to terminate an employee pension plan and substitute a lesser plan unless the plan’s administrator determines that the change is in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

“Unless it is in the interests of the pension participants, companies will not be able to terminate pension plans to raid their so-called excess assets,” said Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), who is sponsoring the bill along with Sen. Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kan.).

People With Disabilities Focus of Upcoming Bill

The Americans With Disabilities Act (HR 2273) is expected to emerge from the House Public Works and Transportation Committee and move to the floor for a vote within the next two weeks.

Supporters refer to the legislation as a new civil rights bill for people with disabilities. Last fall, the Senate approved a similar measure by a wide margin.

The Senate bill establishes “a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability” in employment, public accommodations, private businesses, public services, transportation and telecommunications.

Although approval is also expected in the House, the bill will still face heavy opposition from some major business organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business.

They claim, among other things, that the law is too vague for business to follow. “It lacks guidelines and parameters for business compliance,” said the Chamber. “It is punitive and relies on lawsuits to encourage compliance, rather than conciliation.”