“Polluter Tax an Unfair Way to Fund Cleanup"

(As Published in The Atlanta-Journal Constitution 07/02/02, similar pieces also appeared in the Indianapolis Star and The Virginia Pilot)

Some environmental groups and former Clinton appointees are bashing the Bush administration for not supporting renewal of the "polluter tax" in the Superfund hazardous waste site cleanup program. Carol Browner, President Clinton's former Environmental Protection Agency chief, says the tax should be reinstated because "the polluters must pay."

That's a good sound bite, but for the tax in question it would be more accurate to say "only some polluters must pay," or even "some polluters must pay twice." This issue of who pays is important locally since the Southeastern states have close to 150 Superfund sites.

The polluter tax refers to a levy imposed mainly on the chemical and petroleum industries. Congress has been unable to reauthorize this tax since 1995, since many legislators insist on reforms to the Superfund program as a condition for renewing the tax.

It's most important to note that about 70 percent of Superfund sites nationally are being cleaned up by the responsible parties, either directly or by paying EPA to do so. For the most part, the Superfund program is already running on the polluter-pays principle.

For the remaining sites -- often called "orphan" sites -- for which no responsible parties can be found, or where such parties are insolvent, general tax revenues are used. This seems fair since we cannot collect from anyone at these sites and waste sites are a broad societal problem, involving many public and private organizations and even some individuals.

Administration critics are upset because the polluter tax was a handy tool to clean up the orphan sites. Handy, but not fair, since most of the orphan sites do not involve the chemical and petroleum industries. Let's call this the "only some polluters must pay" principle.

In addition to paying the polluter tax, oil and chemical firms pay directly for the cleanup of sites for which they are responsible. This is the "some polluters must pay twice" principle. The petroleum and chemical industries ask why they should be singled out as "the polluters." What about the other responsible parties at waste sites, which have included automobile manufacturers, oil or battery recyclers, electronics firms, mining concerns,and even some federal, state, and local governments? Of course, these and other groups are only too happy to have two industries pay most of the freight.

For the past five years, the Republicans and some Democrats in Congress have offered to reinstate some type of business tax in return for certain reforms of the oft-criticized Superfund program. These include making cleanup decisions more cost-effective and rapid, placing time limits on the liability of responsible parties who cooperate in site cleanup, and giving more authority to those states that have their own cleanup programs.

However, even if the program is reformed, Congress should continue appropriating a reasonable amount of federal revenues to fund Superfund enforcement and administration, and to conduct cleanups where there are no available responsible parties.

Most importantly, the Superfund program increasingly needs to come up with new concepts for cleaning up sites more rapidly and cost-effectively. One example, which EPA Superfund director Marianne Horinko has embraced, involves the EPA working with the Army Corps of Engineers and others to clean up urban rivers that contain Superfund sites. The Southeast has several such rivers.

Another Horinko initiative is her emphasis on completing some of the large complex Superfund sites that have been studied for decades. This is in contrast to the Clinton administration's emphasis on easy-to-complete sites in order to pump up the numbers of sites cleaned up.

So, let’s not get carried away with the prospect of increasing Superfund monies by simply taxing certain unfavored industries. The truth is that having somewhat limited funding, coupled with a very strong law, is focusing EPA on innovative and more cost-effective cleanup strategies.

---

Dr. Porter is president of the Waste Policy Center, an evnironmental consulting and communications organizations based in Leesburg, VA. From 1985 to 1989, he was the EPA assistant administrator with responsibility for Superfund and other waste programs.