|
On July 23, USEPA announced
it had reached an agreement with General Electric Company to take
the first actions in cleaning up PCB-contaminated sections of the
Hudson River. This highly publicized, decades-long case has held
the attention of many in the surface-water-quality community. As
sampling and sediment-characterization effortspaid for by
GEget underway, this site and others like it could hold far-reaching
implications for how other types of pollutants are handled. Conceivably,
the model at work here could one day apply to nonpoint-source pollution
as well.
As with other companies
in similar circumstances, GE has argued that dumping PCBs was not
illegal when its plants were operating, and that PCBs' effects
on human health were not understood at the time. However, 1980's
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA, commonly called the Superfund law) included controversial
provisions to hold polluters retroactively liable for hazardous
waste discharges, as is happening now with GE. Although most nonpoint-source
pollutionand much of the point-source pollution implicated
in impairing surface waters, for that matterisn't classified
as hazardous waste and doesn't fall under the same regulations,
the costs associated with combating NPS pollution problems are immense.
Perhaps more importantly, these costs are ongoing. While public
funding is being used now, mostly at local levels, to catch NPS
pollution and deal with the water bodies it impairs, cash-strapped
municipalities are constantly seeking revenue. Rather than impose
additional new taxes or utility fees on their own residents, they
could eventually delve for what, by definition, NPS pollution doesn't
have, but what retroactive responsibility might nevertheless providea
source.
Suppose, for example,
a particular metal used in automotive brake liningsor more
conveniently still, in one manufacturer's brake liningsis
found in high concentrations in some places, and it's reasonably
certain that there is no other major source in the environment.
Or suppose specific pesticidesnow legal, but perhaps one day
banned as they already have been in some areasare identified
as a major source of contamination, or as the one factor that limits
beneficial use of a water body. Suppose these substances are found
to pose definite health threats (as PCBs in fact have not, although
evidence points to their being potential carcinogens, causing neurological
problems, and affecting human fetal development). Might a local
government be able to recover some of the costs of its local water-quality
efforts from a manufacturer, even though actually releasing the
pollutants into the environment was accomplished little by littleand
legallyover widespread areas by the consumers of the company's
products? If more than one pollutant affects a water body, cleanup
costs could be prorated among several companiesor, along the
lines of CERCLA, we might see a new Superfund-like tax spread among
certain types of industries, even those that are now unregulated,
specifically to cover the costs of NPS pollution. Stranger things
have happened in the legal system.
GE's electrical
capacitor plants operated for 30 years along the Hudsonlong
enough to discharge at least a million pounds of PCBs into the river,
but still a finite period of time in a single location. Although
it might run to hundreds of millions of dollars, the cleanup work
will eventually end; the mapping and sampling now underway is helping
to determine exactly what the extent of the effort will be. In contrast,
intercepting NPS pollution and dealing with the water bodies it
impairs is an endless process. That's a tremendous incentive
for those who are now financially responsible to take a look over
their shoulder for someone to bear, or at least share, the fiscal
burden.
Correction
The article "Street
Sweepers: Picking Up Speed and Quieting Down" in the July/August
2002 issue should have identified the Tymco sweepers used in West
Palm Beach, FL, as model 600.
Send
Janice an email
SW
- September/October 2002
|