21 June 2010 21:43 [Source: ICIS news]
WASHINGTON (ICIS news)--The Obama administration on Monday formally asked Congress to revive a special environmental tax on oil and petrochemical producers and importers, but industry leaders quickly challenged the revenue bid as short-sighted.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a letter to Congress urging federal legislators to approve pending legislation that would reinstate the so-called Superfund tax to provide additional cash for clean-up work at contaminated sites across the country.
The Superfund law - the colloquial name for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 - was established to enforce contamination clean-up and remediation at waste dumps and other sites, with the costs borne by those most responsible for the pollution - or by taxpayers in instances where direct responsibility could not be established.
A special corporate tax was established to generate additional revenue for the main taxpayer-sourced Superfund, but that so-called Superfund tax was allowed to expire after 15 years at the end of 1995.
Legislation introduced earlier this year in both the US Senate and House would revive the Superfund tax beginning in January 2011 and continue for six or seven years.
In its formal appeal on Monday for Congress to revive the Superfund tax, the EPA said it should be re-instated for a 10-year period.
The agency said a revived Superfund tax - targeting oil and petrochemical producers and those who import products that use hazardous materials as feedstock - was necessary “to ensure that parties who benefit from the manufacture or sale of substances that commonly cause environmental problems at hazardous waste sites, and not taxpayers, help bear the cost of cleanup when responsible parties cannot be identified”.
But American Chemistry Council (ACC) president Cal Dooley said the EPA’s call for a new Superfund tax was short-sighted, would harm the nation’s economy and was unwarranted.
“The fact is, since the taxes expired in 1995, responsible parties have continued paying for the cleanup of Superfund sites and continue to reimburse EPA for all of its cleanup costs,” Dooley said.
“It would be inappropriate and unfair to impose Superfund taxes on companies with no responsibility for site contamination,” Dooley said.
He argued that a new Superfund tax “will simply give our foreign competitors, who don’t pay the tax, yet another advantage”.
“We’ll see the loss of
The council also contends that the country’s environment would not necessarily benefit from additional revenues raised by a new Superfund tax because there had been no historical correlation between remediation taxes and actual work done on contaminated sites.
The EPA’s call for a new Superfund tax likely would be discussed at Tuesday’s Senate hearing on the agency’s supervision and management of site cleanups.
Hill sources said that the Gulf oil spill might provide some additional momentum for those who want to revive the tax.
In addition, Congress is under increasing public pressure over the mounting
For the latest chemical news, data and analysis that directly impacts your business sign up for a free trial to ICIS news - the breaking online news service for the global chemical industry.
Get the facts and analysis behind the headlines from our market leading weekly magazine: sign up to a free trial to ICIS Chemical Business.
|ICIS news FREE TRIAL|
|Get access to breaking chemical news as it happens.|
|ICIS Global Petrochemical Index (IPEX)|
|ICIS Global Petrochemical Index (IPEX). Download the free tabular data and a chart of the historical index|