CRS Issue Statement on Environmental Cleanup and Waste Management

CRS Issue Statement on Environmental Cleanup and Waste Management

CRS Issue Statement on Environmental
Cleanup and Waste Management
Jonathan L. Ramseur, Coordinator
Specialist in Environmental Policy
June 11, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
IS40275
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

CRS Issue Statement on Environmental Cleanup and Waste Management

lthough environmental cleanup and waste management policies have a common goal—
to reduce risk to human health and the environment—they raise distinct policy questions
A that are generally addressed with different policy approaches. For instance,
environmental cleanup issues generally require reactive public policies that seek to
address an existing problem: environmental contamination. Waste management issues, on the
other hand, typically deal with current waste materials, and thus involve proactive policies,
initiated to prevent environmental damages.
Environmental cleanup issues continue to generate interest among policymakers. For much of the
20th Century, the standard method of waste disposal was to bury the waste or dump it in a nearby
waterway. This resulted in thousands of contaminated properties owned by private parties and the
federal government, some of which posed dangerous threats to human health. This problem is
nationwide. To address this problem of waste from past activities, Congress enacted the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA,
commonly referred to as Superfund). CERCLA authorizes the federal government to clean up
contaminated sites in the United States and to make the “potentially responsible parties”
connected to those sites financially liable for the cleanup costs. CERCLA created the Superfund
program to carry out these authorities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
responsible for administering the program.
The cleanup of contaminated sites under the Superfund program has generated continuing debate
of various issues within Congress over the past several years, with particular focus on two
funding questions: (1) how the program is funded, and (2) whether the program is receiving an
adequate level of funding. Dedicated taxes on petroleum, chemical feedstocks, and corporate
income initially financed most of the Superfund program, but the taxes expired at the end of
1995. As revenues from these taxes were expended, Congress increased the share of contributing
revenues from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury to maintain program funding levels. The
Superfund program now is funded primarily with these general Treasury revenues.
In recent years, some Members have introduced legislation to reinstate the original Superfund tax,
arguing that under the “polluter pays” principle, industry, not the general public, should bear the
cleanup costs associated with industry-caused pollution. On the other hand, opponents of the
Superfund tax have observed that not all of the taxed companies necessarily caused
contamination, and that the tax therefore could be viewed as unfair in certain instances in that it
may capture some parties who are not polluters. Opponents of the tax have emphasized that EPA
has continued to take enforcement actions against the responsible parties to require them to pay
for the cleanup of contamination that they caused or to which they contributed. In this sense,
opponents of the tax note that polluters have continued to pay for the cleanup of contamination
for which they are responsible, and that the “polluter pays principle” has remained in effect.
In addition to the source of funding, the availability of annual funding to meet cleanup needs has
been an ongoing issue. While EPA may take enforcement actions to require the responsible
parties to pay for the costs of cleanup, not all of the parties may be financially viable, or some of
them simply may not be found, creating “orphan shares” of the cleanup costs which are borne by
the Superfund program. There has been much debate about the level of funding that is necessary
to pay these orphan shares to perform cleanup at an adequate pace and to a degree that is
protective of human health and the environment. Although annual appropriations for the
Superfund program have remained nominally steady over the past decade, some have drawn
attention to the decline in real resources as a result of inflation over time.
Congressional Research Service
1

CRS Issue Statement on Environmental Cleanup and Waste Management

The adequacy of funding for the cleanup of federal facilities has also been an issue. While EPA
oversees the cleanup of federal facilities under the Superfund program, the relevant federal
agencies are responsible for funding the cleanup with separate appropriations by Congress. These
agencies act as the responsible parties on behalf of the federal government at its own
contaminated facilities. Although much of contamination at federal facilities is similar in nature to
industrial facilities, many federal facilities present special health, environmental, and safety risks
resulting from their unique missions.
The vast majority of contaminated federal facilities became contaminated as a result of national
security activities, such as military installations administered by the Department of Defense
(DOD). The cleanup of DOD sites may involve not only health and environmental risks from
chemical contaminants, but also safety risks from unexploded ordnance on decommissioned
training ranges and munitions disposal sites. Former nuclear weapons production sites
administered by the Department of Energy (DOE) also present unique challenges involving the
disposal of substantial quantities of nuclear wastes and the cleanup of radioactive contamination.
How to speed the pace of cleanup at these facilities to address potential risks in a timely manner,
and the substantial costs of these tasks, have received long-standing attention within Congress.
CERCLA also authorizes federal assistance to states and communities for the cleanup of lower
risk sites, referred to as “brownfields,” which are not addressed under the Superfund program.
These properties typically are abandoned, idled, or underutilized. Known or suspected
contamination may deter redevelopment by prospective purchasers, who may be concerned about
cleanup liability upon acquiring ownership. EPA administers federal assistance for the cleanup of
these properties under its Brownfields grant program. Local governments, in particular, have been
urging Congress to increase annual appropriations for these grants. A special tax incentive, which
expired on December 31, 2009, provided another form of financial assistance, allowing parties to
deduct brownfield cleanup expenses. This tax incentive has expired and been reinstated on
multiple occasions. Thus, its continuation and whether to make it permanent, has been an ongoing
issue.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) is the primary federal environmental law that addresses
releases of petroleum, such as oil spills (Congress generally excluded releases of petroleum from
CERCLA). In contrast to hazardous substance releases and related policy debates, major oil spills
have been infrequent (at least over a time frame) and interest in oil spill legislation generally
tends to wax and wane. However, the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has generated
considerable interest and debate over a range of oil spill prevention and response policy issues,
including governance of exploration and development in U.S. waters. Other issues that were
raised before the Gulf spill (and are now receiving increased attention) in the 111th Congress
include (1) funding for research and development for oil spill response, which has decreased in
recent years; and (2) whether or not to require increased oil spill protection (akin to double-hulls)
on cargo vessels. This latter issue is likely related to the 2007 cargo vessel (or container ship) oil
spill in San Francisco Bay.
Waste management policies seek to reduce environmental contamination and related cleanup
problems by proactively addressing current waste materials. Waste management encompasses a
broad range of activities, including recycling, land disposal, and incineration. The type of waste
involved—from solid waste (e.g., household trash and construction debris) to hazardous waste—
influences waste management policy. These issues are often highlighted during responses to
national disasters (e.g., Hurricane Katrina) when vast quantities of debris wastes may be
generated quickly or when certain waste-related issues draw national attention (e.g., spent
Congressional Research Service
2

CRS Issue Statement on Environmental Cleanup and Waste Management

compact fluorescent light bulbs). Although the implementation of federal waste management
authorities primarily is delegated to the states, the management of certain waste streams has
drawn attention from some Members of Congress. For example, a perennial issue has been
whether to allow states to restrict importation of waste from other states or countries.
In recent years, recycling issues have generated congressional interest. Although there are few
federal requirements applicable to recycling, states continue to develop their own requirements.
For example, many states and interest groups have raised concern regarding the landfill disposal
or incineration of lead and mercury-containing electronic wastes (e-wastes). To address this
concern, several states now require electronics manufacturers to either take back used products
for reuse or recycling, or provide funding so the electronics can be recycled elsewhere.
Manufacturers argue that a patchwork of state requirements would prove more costly than a
national e-waste management program. Thus, there is some interest in enacting national e-waste
legislation. Members have also proposed legislation that would provide an incentive to recycle
certain materials. Among other approaches, the proposals include tax incentives for businesses to
purchase certain types of recycling equipment or grants to states to establish recycling programs
for specific types of products. As efforts to increase recycling domestically have been
implemented, the negative impacts of exporting e-waste to developing nations has become
apparent—drawing attention from various national media outlets. Congressional attention to
issues associated with e-waste exports has similarly increased.
The management of coal combustion waste (CCW) has also received recent attention. CCW
represents the second largest waste stream in the United States, but its disposal is unregulated at
the federal level. After a 1.1 billion gallon CCW release in Kingston, Tennessee, EPA stated its
intent to promulgate consistent requirements for CCW management. The upcoming rulemaking
has drawn attention from a wide range of stakeholders including environmental groups,
concerned that the waste will not be managed strictly enough to protect human health or the
environment, and industry groups, concerned that strict regulations would increase disposal costs
and possibly limit its potential for recycling. Concerns among some Members have covered a
range of issues, including the role that coal mining plays in our economy, the role that coal-fired
utilities play as a major source of domestic energy, the federal role in the regulation of CCW, as
well as the potential risks posed to their constituents if CCW is managed improperly.

Congressional Research Service
3

CRS Issue Statement on Environmental Cleanup and Waste Management

Issue Team Members

Jonathan L. Ramseur, Coordinator
Robert Meltz
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Legislative Attorney
jramseur@crs.loc.gov, 7-7919
rmeltz@crs.loc.gov, 7-7891
David M. Bearden
Jacob R. Straus
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Analyst on the Congress
dbearden@crs.loc.gov, 7-2390
jstraus@crs.loc.gov, 7-6438
Linda Luther
Carol Glover
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Information Research Specialist
lluther@crs.loc.gov, 7-6852
cglover@crs.loc.gov, 7-7353
James E. McCarthy
Sandra L. Johnson
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Information Research Specialist
jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7225
sjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-7214
Mary Tiemann
Rita Tehan
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Information Research Specialist
mtiemann@crs.loc.gov, 7-5937
rtehan@crs.loc.gov, 7-6739

Congressional Research Service
4