ATTITUDES TOWARD MANAGING HAZARDOUS-WASTE - WHAT SHOULD BE CLEANED UPAND WHO SHOULD PAY FOR IT

Hazardous waste policy in the United States uses a liability-based app roach, including strict, retroactive, and joint and several liability. To assess attitudes toward these basic principles of liability, and t oward priorities for clean-up of wastes, a questionnaire was mailed to legislators, judges, executives of oil and chemical companies, enviro nmentalists, and economists. The questionnaire consisted of abstract, simplified cases, which contrasted basic principles rather than dealin g with real-world scenarios. Subjects were asked how they would alloca te clean-up costs between companies and government as a function of su ch factors as adherence to standards, adoption of best available techn ology (BAT), and influence of penalties on future behavior. Most subje cts felt that, if the company followed government standards or used th e best available technology (BAT), it should pay for only a portion of the clean-up cost, with the government paying the rest. In general, r esponses did not support the principles underlying current law-strict, retroactive, and joint-and-several liability. Most subjects were more interested in polluters paying for damages than in deterrence or futu re benefit-even to the extent that they would have ''harmless'' waste sites cleaned up. A bias was found toward complete clean-up of some si tes, or ''zero risk.'' Different groups of subjects gave similar answe rs, although more committed environmentalists were more willing to mak e companies pay and to clean up waste regardless of the cost.