Volume 145, No. 15 covering the 1st Session of the 106th Congress (1999 - 2000) 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.
“RCRA REFORM LEGISLATION” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S1031-S1032 on Jan. 27, 1999.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
RCRA REFORM LEGISLATION
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for years the Administration has expressed a need for targeted legislation which will provide necessary, regulatory flexibility for successful clean up goals of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has unsuccessfully tried several times to address those needs through regulatory reform. While those efforts have attempted to speed cleanup and make more rational requirements, these attempts have repeatedly been met with legal challenges. These challenges severely limit the Agency's ability to effectively address this concern. Furthermore, a General Accounting Office (GAO) study concluded that EPA cannot achieve comprehensive reform through the regulatory process. GAO also believes that such reform can best be achieved by revising the underlying law.
Indeed, my colleagues and I have been working with the Administration and stakeholders for several years to try to give EPA the flexibility it needs. We recognize that Americans are fed up with ineffective environmental programs that do little for cleanup. Americans want their hard-earned dollars used wisely and effectively.
RCRA's goals are very important. RCRA involves cleanup of properties contaminated with hazardous waste, at more than the 5000 sites. Therefore, the barriers to cleanup are a great concern. The GAO report echoes these concerns, noting that EPA believes that current RCRA requirements can lead parties to select cleanup remedies that are either too stringent or not stringent enough--given the risks posed by the wastes. Ultimately these requirements can discourage the cleanup of sites.
The current RCRA cleanup program potentially affects all state cleanups, including the cleanup of ``brownfield sites.'' Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. As Brownfield redevelopment activities have increased, it has come to our attention that the hazardous waste management and permitting requirements under RCRA either preclude the redevelopment of these properties all together or significantly add to the cost and time of their redevelopment.
Late last year, EPA attempted once more to address the need for regulatory flexibility to speed effective RCRA cleanups. This new rule, called the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule, addresses several of the disincentives to clean up. We applaud the Agency for its efforts. Nonetheless, EPA notes with certainty that additional reform is needed.
The Administration is sending a clear message. RCRA reforms are desired. EPA will do what it can, and should be commended for their most recent effort. However, legislative reforms are needed this year.
I commend Senators Chafee, Smith, Lautenberg, Baucus, and Breaux for their past efforts to address this problem. I have given them my full support in their plans to definitively fix the problem and given certainty to recent agency actions. Thank you for your leadership in recognizing the need for action. This effort addresses a real need, focusing on expediting clean ups. This need can be readily met if we continue to work in a bipartisan manner.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, there are over 6000 contaminated sites across the country waiting to be cleaned up under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These sites include active industrial facilities, unused urban lots well suited for redevelopment, and many other sites that have contaminated soil or groundwater. No one disputes that these sites should be cleaned up. But RCRA itself, and certain regulations implementing RCRA, are making it difficult--and unnecessarily costly--to get these sites cleaned up. As a result, cleanups at many sites are delayed for years and, in a number of cases, not performed at all. The waste remains in place, untreated and untouched.
This is an issue where legislative action can both improve the environment and save money. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report in late 1997 that identified three key requirements under RCRA that pose barriers to cleanups. The GAO concluded EPA's land disposal restrictions, minimum technological requirements for disposal facilities, and permitting requirements, when applied to remediation waste, can significantly increase the cost of a cleanup action and even act as an incentive for parties to abandon cleanups altogether. Tailoring these requirements to address the specific characteristics of remediation waste would eliminate this incentive, facilitating the actual cleanup of thousands of sites, and, according to GAO's estimate, save up $2 billion a year without negatively impacting human health or the environment.
This is an environmental problem that we can and should address. And it is one that we can resolve in a bipartisan manner.
During the 105th Congress, the Majority Leader, Senator Bob Smith, and I worked with our colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Administration, and interested parties to reform RCRA to remove the major regulatory obstacles that currently impede the timely remediation of many contaminated sites. There was a broad consensus that changes needed to be made to make RCRA work better to clean up sites in an environmentally protective manner more quickly and more cost effectively. Unfortunately, we ran out of time before we were able to reach agreement on specific legislation.
The Environmental Protection Agency has issued regulations, including the recently finalized ``Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for Contaminated Media,'' to address some of the regulatory burdens that we sought to eliminate through legislation. I applaud the Agency for its efforts. I believe, however, that there is still a need for legislation in this area to complete the reform the EPA has started. Therefore, I intend to make RCRA remediation waste legislation a priority for the Environment and Public Works Committee this year. Building on the progress that we made in the last Congress, I believe we can draft a bill early this year that will address the remaining regulatory obstacles that exist to achieving environmentally protective and cost effective remediations.
I look forward to working, under Senator Lott's leadership, on a bipartisan basis, with all parties interested in RCRA reform. I know that Senator Smith, Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment, shares my commitment to reforming RCRA. This is an issue on which everyone agrees--reform is necessary, and it can be done in a way that will save money without posing a threat to human health or the environment.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am here today to join my colleagues, Majority Leader Trent Lott and Environment Committee Chairman John Chafee, in expressing support for enacting legislation this year to reform the remediation waste provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
As many of my colleagues know, since I assumed the chairmanship of the Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over RCRA, I have worked to bring some rational reforms to this hazardous waste law. It is well known that hazardous waste cleanups in this country take too long, are too costly, and inhibit the redevelopment of industrial brownfield sites.
Since I first introduced RCRA remediation legislation in the 104th Congress, I have worked with Senators Lott, Chafee, Breaux, Baucus, and Lautenberg, with the Clinton Administration, state governments and members of the industrial and environmental communities to achieve a bipartisan fix to this confusing and burdensome law. Despite our best efforts, we were not able to come to an agreement before the close of the 105th Congress.
However, I am eager to press forward and reach a bipartisan agreement this year. There is simply too much time and money being wasted under the current regulatory process for Congress not to take action on this important issue. In fact, according to a GAO report, as much as $2 billion per year could be saved by making certain common sense legislative fixes to RCRA. In addition to cost savings, cleanups would be accelerated by removing bureaucratic roadblocks. Such reforms mean a win for the economy and a win for the environment.
In closing, I want to reiterate my pledge to working with Senators Lott, Chafee, Baucus, and Lautenberg to reach consensus on much needed reforms to the RCRA program this year. It will certainly be one of my subcommittee's top priorities.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up