WASHINGTON — There is no question that the Superfund program, first established 30 years ago, is facing a budget crunch. For 15 years, the federal government imposed taxes on oil and chemical companies and certain other corporations that went directly into a cleanup trust fund, which reached its peak of $3.8 billion in 1996.
But the taxes expired in 1995, and because Congress refused to renew them, the fund ran out of money.
Now the Obama administration will push to reinstate the so-called Superfund tax. The Environmental Protection Agency, which rarely urges the passage of specific bills, will send a letter to Congress calling for legislation to reimpose the tax.
The move will spark an intense battle on Capitol Hill, with Democrats and the administration lining up against oil companies and chemical manufacturers. The measure’s proponents say it will ease the burden on taxpayers, who are funding the cleanup of “orphaned” sites, where no one has accepted responsibility for the contamination. Opponents suggest that it amounts to an unfair penalty.
“This is really about who should pay for the cleanup,” said Mathy Stanislaus, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. “Should it be the taxpayer, who has no responsibility for contaminating the sites, or should it be those individuals who create hazardous substances that contaminate the site?”
Since the fund ran out of money at the end of fiscal 2003, the federal government has appropriated public dollars each year to pay for orphaned sites, which account for 606 of the 1,279 sites across the nation. The program completed 19 sites last year, compared with 89 in 1999, the EPA says.
“It’s clearly slowed down as the money’s dried up,” said Mike Charles, senior manager for government relations at the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Superfund sites are found in the District of Columbia and every state except North Dakota (whose one site was restored to health). The Denver metro area has four sites and a proposal for a fifth.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who has been pushing to reinstate the Superfund tax for more than three years, said the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico might encourage lawmakers, even some Republicans, to embrace a new tax on oil and petrochemicals.
Blumenauer’s bill would raise about $18.9 billion over 10 years by imposing excise taxes of 9.7 cents a barrel on crude oil and refined oil products, excise taxes of 22 cents to $4.87 a ton on certain chemicals, and an income tax of 0.12 percent on certain corporations’ modified alternative minimum taxable income above $2 million.
“I think the stars have aligned to make it not only possible for the first time in 15 years but likely that we will reinstate the Superfund tax,” Blumenauer said. He added that for industries facing the tax, “it’s a golden opportunity to demonstrate their environmental responsibility and their willingness to solve problems.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also supports the reinstatement of what her spokesman Drew Hammill called the “polluter pays” tax.
But a similar measure in the Senate, sponsored by New Jersey Democrat Frank Lautenberg, could face a greater challenge, given Republicans’ inclination to filibuster any measure that lacks the support of 60 senators.
Oil producers and refiners, now facing the prospect of Congress raising the Oil Spill Liability Fund tax from 8 to 49 cents a barrel, are furious at the idea of another tax burden.
