CABINET COUNCIL ON NATIONAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT MINUTES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP87M00539R002303860002-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 14, 2009
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: February 19, 1985
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2009/09/14 CIA-RDP87M00539R002303860002-5
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT
ROUTING SLIP
TO: ACTION INFO DATE INITIAL
1 DCI
2 DDCI
3 EXDIR
4 D/ICS
5 DDI
6 DDA
7 DDO
8 DDS&T
9 Chm/NIC
10 GC
11 IG
12 Compt
13 D/Pers
14 D/OLL
15 D/PAO
16 SA/IA
17 AO/DCI
18 C/IPD/OIS
19 NIO
20
21
22
SUSPENSE
Remarks
STAT
3637 (1081) D.te
Approved For Release 2009/09/14 CIA-RDP87MOO539ROO23038
 Approved For Release 2009/09/14 : CIA-RDP87M0053.9_R002303860002-5
CABINET AFFAIRS STAFFING MEMORA
Date: 2/19/85 Number: --------- Due By:
Subject: Cabinet Council on Natural Resources and Environment Minutes
FYI
ALL CABINET MEMBERS
^
.0
a,
Vice President
State
13
^
^
Treasury
^
^
Defense
Justice
13
0
Interior
0
Agriculture
Commerce
Lab
weaver
"%-
or
0
0
^
Q
HHS
0
Mc Farlane ^
f,1-
HUD
0
Transportation
0
~~.~c.. It -. an .mrrmy/ 0cr
^
Energy
0
0
Chapman n
K7
Education
0
Counsellor
0
0
Cl
USTR ^ ^
Chief of .. Staff ^ 171
.........................................................................................
GSA
EPA
NASA
OPM
VA
SBA
Attached for your information are the minutes of the
February 12, 1985 Cabinet Council on Natural Resources
and Environment Meeting.
^ Alfred H. Kingon
Cabinet Secretary
456-2823
(Ground Floor, West Wing)
QDon Clarey
^ Tom Gibson
^ Larry Herbolsheimer
Associate Director
Office of Cabinet Affairs
456-7Rnr) (Room 129, OEO8)
Approved For Release 2009/09/14 : CIA-RDP87M00539R002303860002-5
 Approved For Release 2009/09/14 : CIA-RDP87M00539R002303860002-5
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
CABINET COUNCIL ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
February 12, 1985, 2:'00 p.m.
Cabinet Room
MINUTES
Participants: The President, the Vice President, Hodel,
Baker, Smith, Block, Baldrige, Herrington, Meese, Regan,
Thomas, Svahn, Fielding, Buchanan, Hill, Ford, Taft, Knapp,
Lighthizer, Niskanen, Oglesby, Speakes, Verstandig, Davis,
Clarey, Boggs, Baroody, Cribb, Kingon, Wallis, Porter,
Khedouri, Gray, Habicht, Pearlman, Faoro, Smith.
The President brought the.Council meeting to order and called
upon Secretary Hodel to make brief introductory remarks.
Secretary Hodel then yielded to Administrator Thomas for a
presentation on the Superfund program.
Administrator Thomas gave an update on the progress that has
been made in cleaning up abandoned waste sites and indicated
that, by the end of 1985, the following milestones will be
met:
o Over 20,000 sites will have been inventoried;
o Over 16,000 sites will have been assessed for
their potential danger;
o Over 5,000 sites will have been inspected;
o Over 600 emergency removals will have been
completed;
0 Engineering studies will be underway at over
494 sites to determine long-term remedies;
0 Construction will be underway at over 160
sites; and
o Sites with actk.vity occurring on them will
total over 1,000.
 Approved For Release 2009/09/14 : CIA-RDP87M00539R002303860002-5
Thomas then outlined five major issues which must be resolved
in order to develop reauthorization legislation. These
issues are (1) the scope of the program; (2) the size'and
pace of the program; (3) the authority which EPA will have to
enforce activities of other federal agencies; (4) the role of
state and local governments in the administration of the
Superfund program; and (5) whether or not the Fund should be
used to pay for natural resource damages. After discussion,
the President took these issues under advisement.
Secretary Hodel then called upon Secretary Herrington for an
update on the world petroleum situation. The President
requested information on the increasing role of petroleum
product imports. After discussion, it was decided that this
was an issue that deserves further attention, but no other
decisions or recommendation were made.
 Approved For Release 2009/09/14 CIA-RDP87M00539R002303860002-5
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT
ROUTING SUP.'
STAT` .em"k'
ACTION
INFO
DATE
INITIAL
1
DCI
2
DDCI
3
EXDIR
X
4
D/ICS
5
DDI
6
DDA
X
7
DDO
8
DDS&T
9
Chm/NIC
10
GC
11
IG
12
Compt
x
13
D/Pers
14
D/OLL
15
D/PAO
16
SA/IA
17
AO/DCI
18
C/IPD/OIS
19
20
21
22
 Approved For Release 2009/09/14 : CIA-RDP87M00539R002303860002-5
WASHINGTON
CABINET AFFAIRS- STAFFING MEMORANDUM..07 ----.-
Date: 2/7/85 Number: 169133CA Due By:
Subject: Cabinet Council on Natural Resources and Environment with the
.President - Tuesday, February 12, 1985 - 2:00 P.M. - Cabinet Room
Action
FYI
ALL CABINET MEMBERS
^
^
CEQ
^
Vice President
State
T
~
OSTP ^
^
^
^
reasury
^
L9
Defense
Attorn
G
l
enera
ey
Interior
Agriculture
Commerce
^^
^.
Labor
HHS
HUD
DS/
0
Transportation
Energy
4d
^
^
Education
Counsellor
OM6
o
ciJ
USTR
GSA
EPA
NS
^
NASA
^
^
OPM
^
^
CCHR ^
^
VA
^
^
CCLP ^
^
SBA
^
^
The President will chair a meeting of the Cabinet Council on
Natural Resources and Environment on Tuesday, February 12,
at 2:00 P.M. in the Cabinet Room.
The agenda is Superfund Reauthorization. A background
paper is attached.
RETURN TO: ^ Alfred H. Kingon 0 Don Clarey
Deputy Assistant to ^ Tom Gibson
the President for ^ Larry Herbolsheimer
Cabinet Affairs
A s g -) Q ., Associate Director
Approved For Release 2009/09/14 : CIA-RDP87M00539R002303860002-5 JO (Room 129 OEOB)
JvvG
 The President committed, in his 1984 and 1985 State of the
Union Addresses, that the Administration would support reauthori-
zation of the Superfund program. A number of issues, including
the size, scope, and pace of the program, have been identified as
pivotal for the development of reauthorization legislation. EPA,
in consultation with other interested agencies, is currently
drafting legislative language for submission to the Congress.
Responding to nightly newscasts showing toxic wastes oozing
from the infamous Love Canal, the Congress, in the last days of
the Carter Administration, passed the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, better known
as Superfund. Superfund's implied purpose was to provide a
federal mechanism for cleaning up abandoned hazardous waste
sites, yet the statute allowed response to a very broad set of
environmental problems. The statute was authorized for five
years and a $1.6 billion fund, primarily generated by a tax on
chemical and petroleum feedstocks, was established. Superfund
introduced two new concepts into environmental law: it retro-
actively imposed "joint and several liability" on companies that
generated or contributed to the disposal of hazardous waste, and
it imposed a tax on current chemical and petroleum production to
finance cleanup of orphaned or abandoned waste sites.
Size and Pace
The Superfund program had a controversial start. Part of
the controversy stemmed from public and Congressional impatience
with the pace of cleanup activity at priority sites. While the
pace and the administration of the Superfund program have improved
in the past 18 months, the Congress remains concerned about the
program's accomplishments to date. Actual field work in the form
of engineering studies or site construction is underway at over
300 sites, and over 470 emergency actions have been initiated
(over 300 completed). However, only six long-term cleanups have
been completed in the four years since enactment.
The statute provides for three types of actions to cleanur
sites: removal, remedial and enforcement. A removal action is
taken in emergency situations to eliminate any immediate health
risk to the exposed population and to stabilize conditions at thr'
site until a long-term cleanup action, if required at a site, car
be undertaken. These are generally less than six months in
duration and cost an average of $300,000. To date, EPA has
 Approved For Release 2009/09/14 : CIA-RDP87M00539R002303860002-5
undertaken over 470 of these removal actions. A remedial action
is a long-term cleanup action taken at more severe sites that
must be first listed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
These cleanups involve complex engineering studies and major
construction projects. They cost an 'average of $8.1 million and
require approximately 36.months for investigation, design and
construction. Through its enforcement authorities, where, feasible
and timely, EPA can require the responsible party (owner, operator,
generator or transporter) to undertake site cleanup or finance a
cleanup prior to the expenditure of Fund money. To date, EPA has
received over $300 million in private party cleanup action
through these authorities.
Scope of Program
An area of growing concern is the potential scope of the
program. EPA currently has an inventory of 18,`000 potential
sites that require investigation. The Agency estimates that the
NPL will ultimately include 1,500 to 2,000 sites which will
require long-term cleanup. While Superfund was popularly repre-
sented as being aimed at discreet, abandoned hazardous waste
dumps (e.g. Love Canal), in fact, the law authorizes response to
any release or threatened release of a hazardous substance,
pollutant or contaminant into the environment. These words are
statutorily defined very broadly.
EPA has already used Superfund to undertake cleanup or
enforcement activities at sites that don't fit in the traditional
"hazardous waste dump" category, but nonetheless fall within the
statutory authorities (dioxin contamination from road oiling,
mining mill tailings and groundwater contamination from the
normal application of currently approved pesticides). If the
scope of response authority is not narrowed, or redirected to
traditional sites, the Agency is concerned that the NPL could
grow dramatically beyond the current projections, and the program
could be impossible for EPA or the states to manage.
The EPA, in a recent report to the Congress, estimated that
it will cost $11.7 billion to cleanup the estimated 1,800 sites
which will be put on the National Priorities List. In the last
Congress, the House passed and the Senate seriously considered
legislation which would have substantially expanded the program.
If the scope of the Superfund program is not narrowed, Superfund
could easily become an open-ended public works program to address
any-environmental problem (see chart). if-this occurs, the
ultimate cost will be substantially higher than the $11.7 billion
current estimate.
In testimony before Congress last year, EPA indicated that
approximately $1 billion per year is the optimum amount that they
can realistically manage. Due to technical and personnel constraints,
the EPA cannot efficiently spend at a higher rate.
Approved For Release 2009/09/14 : CIA-RDP87M00539R002303860002-5
 Approved For Release 2009/09/14 : CIA-RDP87M00539R002303860002-5
Financing
The original Superfund tax raised approximately $300 million
per year. Given the magnitude of the increase in funding which
the EPA is recommending, a number of legitimate questions have
been, raised regarding the equity of the current tax formula and
the ability of the chemical industry to,ifinance this program.
Since enacted in 1980, eleven chemical companies have paid the
majority of the $1.3 billion raised from private funds to finance
this program, even though they were not directly associated with
the improper disposal. EPA and Treasury are currently developing
options for revenues. In a separate paper, these options will be
presented.
 SCOPE OF SUPERFUND ACTIVITY
Operation and
Maintenance
Natural
Resource
Damages
Pollutants and
Contaminants
Hazardous
i. Substances is
r _I r
I..
`waste;Stres
lilies Over 28.5
Min
ands
Pestia
Sites
Friable Fed.
Asbestos Permit
Releases Releaser
Acid Rain
Damages