CCP 03-30-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

." --.-.---,~- Q~NI ~Y;~~l~ij~L . McU1ARMID ; 3-24-92 ; 17:20 , 20'23932666" 612 784 3644:# 3 - 2- . There also remains the very considerable problem of persuading:EPA to apply the fonnula to actual cases: The draft guidance does not contain any commitment by EPA to devote additional reSOUrces to such settlements. The problem of implementing the guid~ce in practice is compounded by the fact that the formula asilUmes the existence of a w~Il-Qrianized ifOUP of ~ MSWaeneraton and transporters who can allocate the four percent to~al among themselves. It does not address the question of how a subgroup of parties can settle w,ith the Agency, Last but by no means least. there is the unfortunate reality that some of our membbrs may be unable to ~ay the four percent. eVen if this total is allocated among a larger group. I I I I We recommend that if you are given the opportunity to speak to the preSS, you commejd . EPA efforts but express skepticism that anything but legislation will elitninate the current'ab se of Supodund "'" ~low l",~ llOWmUnon'<to g., bod '0 tho wo,k of ..~g th." citizoruy. W'lltavo attached the statement we intend to release from Washington, We ha e not attached a copy ~f the guidance i1self because it is 33 pages long and the cost of faxing it woul be prohibitive. i ; , ! Some of the finer but very significant points made in the guidMCf inc:lllde: i , , t · . The "unit cost" approach adopted by the Agency is based on t e assumption that it cpsts $94,000 per acre to clean up the averaae "pure" MSW site an $2.279 million to cleaf: up an acre of industrial hazardous waste. EP A derivlls the four ercent formula by divining $94,000 by the sum of $2.279 million J2lJt6 $94,000. I i i > i . EP A states that the four percent figure is the starting point (o~ cap) for ita negotiations . and that it will consider reducing this amount further ifan M~W generator or trans~orter can provide valuable in-kind services or demonstrates an inab,lity to pay. i ' I: . EPA solicits comments On how this formula could apply to 10~1 government ownersiand operators, leaving the door open a crack that it will consider t em for special settlements. We plan to make the most of thii invitation in our comments, larguini that settleme~! should be provided for owners and operators in their role as ters of the site and thl such settlements should account for the bulk of their "share" of cos . . , EPA considers and discards all of the allocation theories push~d by industry at virtually every "municipal" Superfund site, statinll flatly that volumetric] allocation "is not : . appropriate" and that the 'delta" system of allocation "does no~ adequately account f~r the remediation costs associated with industrial waste: It rejects the "what drives the remedy' approach because "it is extremely difficult to establish a nexusibetween the MSW at ~ site and one or more components of a remedy." : . I , I ' I I . The Aiency states that toxicity of MSW rangos ftom 0.004 to q.45 percent but says ~at it did not adopt the approach of applying this percentage to the yolunul of waste at theisite because "the actual volume of MSW at a site may not be knOj because of poor or ! non-oxistent .ite records.' ! . I I · EPA says that it willllsc the guidance in settling Catles even w~cre it has Illready ent~ed . into settlements with industrial PRPs at the site., ! I ' I I As always, let us know if you have questions or comments. I !