October 31, 1991 |
In a recent article on this page, U.S. Rep. Robert Torricelli (D., N.J.) argued that corporations that bring suit under the Superfund statute - to ensure that all liable parties contribute their fair share of cleanup costs - somehow undermine the Superfund program. Torricelli points to the difficulties experienced by targeted municipalities and proposes that they be excluded from liability even though their wastes contain hazardous materials. By focusing on this narrow issue, however, Torricelli fails to address the root problem - the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the Superfund liabiity scheme created by Congress.
February 5, 1986
One day after the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to shut down the federal Superfund toxic-waste cleanup program for lack of funds, EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas went before the Senate Environment Committee last week with a compromise of sorts. If Congress would provide temporary financing while House and Senate conferees ironed out differences on reauthorization bills, cleanup could continue. Congress should accept the compromise, but with conditions. Nobody wants Superfund contractors to pack up their moon suits and walk away from 170 sites that at last are being cleaned up. Yet, without additional money, that urgent work can't continue.
July 23, 1986
The final version of the Superfund reauthorization legislation at last may be emerging from a House-Senate conference committee. Eleventh-hour changes are being debated, with most of the work due to be completed by week's end. Once that's done, conferees will try to work out the other troublesome stumbling block - funding. A quick compromise may be possible. If Superfund is to do its job, it must include these program components: State statutes of limitations must be changed as they apply to injuries from toxic waste.
July 14, 1986
No environmental issue is more pressing than the cleanup of abandoned toxic waste dumps. Congress is working on legislation to put another $8.5 billion into the Superfund to pay for the next five years of cleanup, six times more than the fund received in its first five years. This large increase has prompted a serious debate over the best way to finance Superfund. Information put together by the Environmental Protection Agency shows that the broadest spectrum of business is responsible for abandoned dumps.
August 4, 1986
Now that the finishing touches have been placed on the $8.5 billion federal Superfund reauthorization bill, one important question remains: Who picks up the tab? The oil and chemical industries, which shouldered most of the burden during Superfund's first six years of existence, think it's high time for some other industries to get into the act. They claim that just 12 petrochemical companies paid 70 percent of the $1.38 billion raised to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites between 1980 and 1985.
May 3, 1989 |
Removing asbestos from the School District's more than 400 buildings could cost a staggering $500 million that ought to be spent on long-delayed repairs, Superintendent Constance E. Clayton said yesterday. "The extraordinary costs of asbestos control threatens to undermine the system's commitment to the long-deferred major renovations of our school buildings," Clayton said at a press conference. She called on Congress to create a national "superfund" to pay for asbestos cleanup in schools throughout the country.
August 11, 1988
A funny thing happened after the Pennsylvania House unanimously passed a strong, carefully balanced toxic dump cleanup bill in June. The cheering had hardly died down from the governor's office and the state's environmental lobby, when business rolled up its sleeves and went to work. The result, only weeks later, was an anemic, watered-down Senate bill: All manner of industries were exempted; a fee on hazardous wastes had disappeared; clean-up standards got mushy and a whopping tax-break appeared - a break that, according to critics, matched the amount the superfund would raise.
October 29, 1986 |
Here boy. Sit. The new Superfund bill, signed into law by a begrudging President Reagan on Oct. 17, is being sold by the administration and the chemical and oil industries as a luscious treat for us environmentalists - and - wag, wag - if we're really, really good - we may get our Clean Water Bill too. Yes, the new Superfund bill is a treat: There's now more money to clean up toxic waste sites, we have some kind of schedule for cleanup, victims'...
January 13, 1986 |
It has been five years since Bridgeport Rental & Oil Services Inc. halted its waste-oil operations in Gloucester County. In that time, the defunct business, consisting of a blackened, poisonous 12-acre lagoon and rows of rusting tanks, has become the focus of one of the most costly decontamination operations in the state. An estimated $15 million has been spent or authorized for the task so far. Most has been spent on emergency work, planning a fresh-water pipeline for neighbors with polluted wells and devising a long-term plan for cleaning up the site.
June 26, 1988 |
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to add the former Raymark Industries property in Hatboro to the Superfund cleanup list, the federal government's designation of the most serious hazardous-waste sites. The Jacksonville Road property and underground water supplies were contaminated by a suspected carcinogen between 1948 and 1979 by companies that have since merged with Raymark, EPA officials said. The inclusion of the property in the $8.5 billion Superfund program will allow the EPA to study the extent of the pollution and options for a cleanup of the chemical trichloroethylene, or TCE, a spokeswoman for the EPA, Nanci Sinclair, said.