Volume 143, No. 23 covering the 1st Session of the 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“INTRODUCING THE LAND RECYCLING ACT OF 1997” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E349-E351 on Feb. 27, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
INTRODUCING THE LAND RECYCLING ACT OF 1997
______
HON. JAMES C. GREENWOOD
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, February 27, 1997
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Land Recycling Act of 1997, legislation designed to spur economic growth in virtually every community across the country, particularly in America's urban core.
the brownfields epidemic
My bill is an aggressive attack on brownfields, abandoned or underutilized former industrial properties where actual or potential environmental contamination hinders redevelopment or prevents it altogether. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] estimates that there may be as many as 500,000 such sites nationwide. In my own congressional district, the southern portion of Bucks County is estimated to have 3 square miles of abandoned or underutilized industrial property.
This epidemic poses continuing risks to human health and the environment, erodes State and local tax bases, hinders job growth, and allows existing infrastructure to go to waste. Moreover, the reluctance to redevelop brownfields has led developers to undeveloped greenfields, which do not pose the risk of liability. Development in these areas contributes to suburban sprawl, and eliminates future recreational and agricultural uses. The Land Recycling Act will help stop urban erosion, and provide incentives to the redevelopment of our cities and towns across the country.
the sources of the problem
The brownfields problem has many sources. Foremost among them is Federal law itself. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act [CERCLA], more commonly known as Superfund, parties who currently own or operate a facility can be held 100 percent liable for any cleanup costs regardless of whether they contributed to the environmental contamination and regardless of whether they were in any way at fault. The imposition of this liability has led to tragic consequences, including the potential that a completely innocent purchaser of property can be held liable for catastrophic environmental damage. Because of the potential for this kind of liability, it is no wonder that potential developers recoil from any site with a history of industrial activity. It is simply not worth dealing with the environmental exposure when they have the alternative of developing in rural areas with no potential for liability.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] poses nearly identical concerns. Under section 7003 of that law, for instance, EPA has broad authority to order a current owner-operator to address environmental contamination, again, regardless of fault.
RCRA also hinders redevelopment of properties that may be subject to its corrective action program, many of which are in Pennsylvania and throughout the Great Lakes region. Enacted in 1984, RCRA's corrective action provisions comprise two relatively innocuous looking paragraphs requiring environmental cleanup of hazardous waste releases for certain regulated facilities. Unfortunately, Congress failed in these provisions to set out with any real specificity how EPA was to implement these requirements. As a result, well over a decade after enactment of the statute, EPA still has not finalized regulations governing the corrective action program. The glacial pact of EPA's rulemaking, in turn, has left many owners of facilities subject to corrective action in a regulatory void, either unwilling to begin environmental cleanups because of the uncertainty as to what will be required of them, or simply unable to because of the lack of regulatory guidance. Like other brownfields, these sites lie idle. In many instances, it simply makes no business sense to begin performing cleanups in the absence of some certainty as to what standards will be used in addressing them. This is frustrating for the business that own these properties and for the communities in which they are located.
In the past several years Congress has considered a variety of proposals to combat these problems. Unfortunately, we have not yet enacted, been able to enact, amendments to CERCLA or RCRA.
In stark contrast, 32 States have launched so-called voluntary cleanup programs. Under these initiatives property owners comply with State cleanup plans and are then released from further environmental liability at the site. The subcommittee has received testimony in the past from a variety of States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] demonstrating that these State voluntary cleanup programs have been responsible for the redevelopment of hundreds of brownfields.
In the first year the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted its brownfields program, it succeeded in cleaning 35 sites.
Although many of these State laws have proven successful, States, businesses, and other experts have tested that they could be far more effective if participation in a State voluntary cleanup program also included a release from Federal environmental liability. At field hearings in my district last September and in Columbus, OH, on February 14, 1997, the House Commerce Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, chaired by Mr. Oxley heard testimony that the possibility of continuing Federal liability despite an agreement to limit State liability--the so-called dual master problem--seriously diminishes the effectiveness of State voluntary cleanup programs. Because redevelopers face the potential for cleanup obligations above and beyond what a State has decided is appropriate to protect health and the environment, they may hesitate to enter into agreements with sellers to purchase idle properties. The testimony establishes, in my mind, that if brownfields redevelopers could be confident that the cleanup agreements entered into with States would not be second-guessed by EPA, then they would be far more likely to agree to conduct a cleanup.
The Land Recycling Act Solutions
Based on the input of all of the stakeholders in the brownfields debate--the Federal Government, States, local governments, sellers, buyers, developers, lenders, environmentalists, community interests, and others--and in particular based on my own experiences in my district, I have drafted the Land Recycling Act to remove Federal barriers to the cleanup of brownfields across the country. The solutions I propose, I am proud to say, do not cost the American taxpayers one nickel. Instead, they will unleash the enormous capital of the private sector to get brownfields cleaned up and put back to productive use.
First, the act removes what I believe is the most significant obstacle to redevelopment: the fear of EPA intervention at a site being cleaned up pursuant to a State voluntary cleanup program. The Land Recycling Act prohibits any person--other than a State--from using any enforcement provision of CERCLA or RCRA with respect to a release of hazardous substances at any facility that is being addressed pursuant to a State voluntary cleanup program. In order to take advantage of this liability shield, a State must certify to EPA that it has enacted a voluntary cleanup program and that it has the resources necessary to carry out the program, and notify EPA of the facilities being addressed pursuant to the program.
I am very sensitive to the concern that this provision could lead to a ``race to the bottom'' among the States, which, some argue, may lower their cleanup standards in order to attract new jobs at the expense of health and the environment. Accordingly, my bill makes numerous exceptions to the EPA enforcement ban. Sites listed on the Superfund National Priorities List [NPL] are not eligible, for instance, nor would any site that EPA proposed for listing on the NPL; nothing in the legislation limits EPA's current authority to investigate sites pursuant to CERCLA section 104 to determine whether they are eligible for listing on the NPL. Thus, Federal enforcement authorities will not be limited at any site that is truly of national significance. Further, the limitations on enforcement will not apply to any site that is already being addressed pursuant to consent decrees or other agreements with the United States. If someone has agreed with EPA to clean up a site, they should clean it up--the Act is not an escape hatch for parties responsible for cleaning up environmental contamination.
This limitation on enforcement will allow parties tremendous certainty in their decisionmaking. Knowing that they only have to deal with a State, redevelopers can be certain that once they have reached agreement with a State on the scope and extent of any necessary cleanup, that agreement will not be second-guessed by the Federal Government.
The act has two provisions aimed directly at ensuring Superfund's sweeping liability scheme does not apply to innocent parties. The first protects prospective purchasers of property from Superfund liability if they conduct a baseline assessment of a facility's contamination, do not contribute to any contamination at a property, and otherwise comply with law. It is EPA's current policy to grant this relief, but it may only be accomplished through the cumbersome, time-consuming process of negotiating and entering into an agreement with the United States. The bona fide prospective purchaser provision is self-executing, and therefore obviates the need to conduct a time-consuming negotiation for a prospective purchaser agreement with EPA.
Another provision deals with innocent landowners. Building on language that has had a bipartisan consensus over the last several years, the Land Recycling Act shields innocent landowners from CERCLA liability if they have made all appropriate inquiry into the condition of a property prior to acquiring it. The bill requires an environmental assessment of the property to have been performed within 180 days of acquisition in order to satisfy the all appropriate inquiry standard.
I believe these three straightforward solutions will provide an aggressive antidote to the epidemic of brownfields in America. Let me say, though, that I am not, nor do I think my original cosponsor Congressman Klink, are wedded to any particular provision contained in the bill. I know that my friends in the environmental community will have concerns with some of the approaches we have taken. Some in industry, on the other hand, have told me that legislation like this does not go nearly far enough, either in the kinds of sites it addresses nor in the certainty that it provides under Federal environmental law. I look forward to a vigorous debate because I am confident that we can resolve these issues.
the need for comprehensive reform
While I am confident that the Land Recycling Act will go a very long way toward getting the half million brownfields sites across the country cleaned up, we in Congress have a much larger task at hand. I strongly support a comprehensive overhaul of the Superfund Program to ensure that we do not perpetuate the brownfields problem across the country. The Congress needs to address liability issues, remedy selection concerns, and other matters that have prevented Superfund from accomplishing more in its 17-year existence. I am both dissatisfied with the current pace of NPL site cleanups convinced that the roots of many of the brownfields problems lie throughout the Superfund statute.
I look to the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley, and the chairman of the Finance and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, Mr. Oxley, for leadership on comprehensive Superfund reform. These two chairmen ably fought for Superfund reform in the last Congress, but the process unfortunately broke down in the mire of election year politics. I hope that 1997 offers more promise, and that they will consider including the Land Recycling Act as part of their Superfund reform package.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up