29–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPT. 113–179 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

REDUCING EXCESSIVE DEADLINE OBLIGATIONS ACT OF 

2013 

JULY 30, 2013.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. UPTON, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2279] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 2279) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act relating 

to review of regulations under such Act and to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980 relating to financial responsibility for classes of facilities, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 

amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 3 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 3 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 4 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 5 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 9 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 9 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 9 

Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ........................... 9 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 9 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 9 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 10 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 11 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 11 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 11 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 11 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 11 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 13 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 16 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 

2013’’. 

SEC. 2. REVIEW OF REGULATIONS UNDER THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT. 

Section 2002(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6912(b)) is amended 

to read as follows: 

‘‘(b) REVIEW OF REGULATIONS.—The Administrator shall review, and revise, as the 

Administrator determines appropriate, regulations promulgated under this Act.’’. 

SEC. 3. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLASSES OF FACILITIES UNDER CERCLA. 

Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9608(b)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘Not later than three years after the date of enactment 

of the Act, the President shall’’ and inserting ‘‘The President shall, as appropriate,’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘first’’ after ‘‘for which requirements will be’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (2)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘Financial responsibility may be established’’ and inserting ‘‘Owners and operators may establish financial responsibility’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘any one, or any combination, of the following:’’ and inserting ‘‘forms of security, including’’; and 

(C) by striking ‘‘or qualification’’ and inserting ‘‘and qualification’’. 

SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS REGARDING FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 

Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9608(b)) is further amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(6) The President may not promulgate any financial responsibility requirement 

under this subsection without first submitting to Congress a report— 

‘‘(A) describing each facility or class of facilities to be covered by such requirement; 

‘‘(B) describing the development of such requirement, why the facility or class 

of facilities proposed to be covered by such requirement present the highest 

level of risk of injury, and why the facility or class of facilities is not already 

covered by adequate financial responsibility requirements; 

‘‘(C) describing the financial responsibility requirements promulgated by 

States or other Federal agencies for the facility or class of facilities to be covered by the financial responsibility requirement proposed under this subsection 

and explaining why the requirement proposed under this subsection is necessary; 

‘‘(D) describing the exposure to the Fund for response costs resulting from the 

facility or class of facilities proposed to be covered; and 

‘‘(E) describing the capacity of the financial and credit markets to provide instruments of financial responsibility necessary to meet such requirement. 

The President shall update any report submitted under this paragraph to reflect 

any revision of the facilities or classes of facilities to be covered by a financial responsibility requirement that is the subject of such report.’’. 

SEC. 5. PREEMPTION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 

Section 114(d) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9614(d)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(d) No owner or operator of a vessel or facility who establishes and maintains 

evidence of financial responsibility associated with the production, transportation, 

treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances pursuant to financial responsibility requirements under any State law or regulation, or any other Federal 

law or regulation, shall be required to establish or maintain evidence of financial 

responsibility under this title, unless the President determines, after notice and opportunity for public comment, that in the event of a release of a hazardous substance that is not a federally permitted release or authorized by a State permit, 

such other Federal or State financial responsibility requirements are insufficient to 

cover likely response costs under section 104. If the President determines that such 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

other Federal or State financial responsibility requirements are insufficient to cover 

likely response costs under section 104 in the event of such a release, the President 

shall accept evidence of compliance with such other Federal or State financial responsibility requirements in lieu of compliance with any portion of the financial responsibility requirements promulgated under this title to which they correspond.’’. 

SEC. 6. EXPLOSIVE RISKS PLANNING NOTIFICATION. 

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the owner or operator of each facility at which substances listed in appendix A to part 27 of title 6, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as flammables or explosives are present above the 

screening threshold listed therein shall notify the State emergency response commission for the State in which such facility is located that such substances are 

present at such facility and of the amount of such substances that are present at 

such facility. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The legislation removes unnecessary and outdated deadlines for 

certain rulemaking activities to be conducted by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

or RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The legislation requires 

EPA, before promulgating financial responsibility requirements 

under CERCLA, to evaluate existing State or other Federal financial assurance requirements to determine whether additional requirements are necessary. Should EPA determine that additional 

financial assurance requirements are necessary to prevent the 

United States from incurring response costs under section 104 of 

CERCLA, the legislation protects the existing State or Federal requirements by requiring that EPA accept compliance with the existing requirements in lieu of compliance with the new EPA requirements. The legislation also requires that the owner or operator of a facility that stores chemicals on the Department of Homeland Security Chemicals of Interest that are flammables or explosives above the identified threshold, to report the presence of such 

chemicals to the State emergency response commission. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

RCRA and CERCLA both contain deadlines that were enacted 

over thirty years ago and now either are outdated or unnecessary. 

Section 2002(b) of RCRA was enacted as part of the 1976 Amendments to the Solid Waste Disposal Act at a time when the complexity and volume of regulations was significantly less. To require 

EPA to review and, if necessary, revise all current regulations 

under RCRA every three years would pose an unnecessary regulatory burden on the Agency. Section 108(b)(1) of CERCLA was enacted in 1980 and contains a deadline by which EPA was to identify the classes for which financial responsibility requirements 

would first be developed. EPA missed the deadline by almost thirty 

years, but has since completed the task of identifying the classes 

of facilities. These deadlines are no longer appropriate. 

CERCLA section 108(b) gives EPA authority to establish Federal 

requirements for financial responsibility for various classes of facilities consistent with the degree and duration of risk associated 

with the facilities’ production, transportation, treatment, storage, 

or disposal of hazardous substances. The intent of section 108(b) 

was to reduce future reliance on the Hazardous Substances SuperVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:44 Aug 01, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR179P1.XXX HR179P1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

fund and to assure the availability of funds to address the release 

of hazardous substances. When CERCLA was enacted in 1980, 

Congress directed the President to identify the classes of facilities 

that presented the highest risk of injury no later than three years 

after the date of enactment, and Congress likely intended that the 

process of establishing financial responsibility requirements would 

be done quickly. However, for almost thirty years, EPA did not 

start the process of establishing requirements under section 108(b), 

leaving States or other Federal agencies to promulgate financial responsibility requirements. A significant body of State and other 

Federal law currently exists that requires facilities to provide evidence of financial responsibility. It is important that EPA understand the existing financial responsibility requirements under 

State or other Federal law because it is unnecessary for EPA to establish financial responsibility requirements under section 108(b) 

for facilities or classes of facilities that are already sufficiently covered by State or other Federal law or regulations. It also is important that the existing State or other Federal requirements be protected and that compliance with these requirements be counted towards compliance with any new requirements determined to be 

necessary by EPA. 

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy held a 

hearing entitled ‘‘Discussion Draft, the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013’’ on May 17 and 22, 2013. The Subcommittee received testimony from: 

• Carolyn Hanson, Deputy Executive Director, Environmental Council of States; 

• Jeffery Steers, Director Central Office Division of Land 

Protection and Revitalization Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; 

• Dan Miller, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural 

Resources and Environment Division, Colorado Department of 

Law; 

• Abigail Dillen, Coal Program Director, Earthjustice; 

• Thomas Duch, City Manager, City of Garfield, New Jersey; 

• David Bearden, Specialist in Environmental Policy, Congressional Research Service; and, 

• David Trimble, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On June 5 and 6, 2013, the Subcommittee on Environment and 

the Economy met in open markup session and approved the Committee Print entitled ‘‘Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act 

of 2013’’ for full Committee consideration, without amendment, by 

a voice vote. 

On June 18 and 19, 2013, the full Committee on Energy and 

Commerce met in open markup session and considered H.R. 2279. 

During the markup, four amendments were offered and two were 

adopted. An amendment offered by Mr. Gardner was adopted by 

voice vote, and an amendment offered by Mr. Waxman was adopted 

by voice vote. On June 19, 2013, the Committee ordered H.R. 2279 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

favorably reported to the House, as amended, by a recorded vote 

of 25 ayes and 18 nays. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. There were three 

record votes taken in connection with ordering H.R. 2279 reported. 

A motion by Mr. Upton to order H.R. 2279 reported to the House, 

as amended, was agreed to by a recorded vote of 25 ayes and 18 

nays. The following reflects the recorded votes taken during the 

Committee consideration: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 9 here HR179P1.001

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE -- 113TH CONGRESS 

ROLL CALL VOTE # 21 

BILL: H.R. 2279, the "Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of2013" 

AMENDMENT: A amendment offered by Ms. Capps, No.3, to provide that the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency shall, after consultation with the States, the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, and other appropriate entities, promulgate regulations establishing 

financial responsibility requirements for owners and operators of facilities that manufacture, 

store, distribute, or sell fertilizer in quantities that would pose significant risk in the event of 

an accident or explosion, and to provide that such financial responsibility requirements shall 

require sufficient provision to be made by the owner or operator of any such facility to fully 

compensate affected communities in the event of such an accident or explosion. 

DISPOSITION: NOT AGREED TO, by a roll call vote of 17 yeas and 26 nays. 

REPRESENTATIVE YEAS NAYS PRESENT REPRESENTATIVE YEAS NAYS PRESENT 

Mr. Upton X Mr. Waxman X 

Mr. Hall X Mr. DingeU 

Mr. Barton X Mr. Markey 

Mr. Whitfield Mr. Pallone 

Mr. Shimkus X Mr. Rush 

Mr.Pitts X Ms. Eshoo X 

Mr. Walden X Mr. Engel X 

Mr. Terry X Mr. Green 

Mr. Rogers X Ms. DeGette X 

Mr. Murphy X Mrs. Capps X 

Mr. Burgess Mr. Doyle X 

Mrs. Blackburn Ms. Schakowsky X 

Mr. Gingrey X Mr. Matheson X 

Mr. Scalise R Mr. Butterfield X 

Mr. Latta Mr. Barrow X 

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers Ms. Matsui X 

Mr. Harper tH Ms. Christensen 

Mr. Lance Ms. Castor 

Mr. Cassidy Mr. Sarbanes X 

Mr. Guthrie X Mr. McNerney X 

Mr. Olson X Mr. Braley X 

Mr. McKinley X Mr. Welch X 

Mr. Gardner X Mr. Lujan X 

Mr. Pompeo X Mr. Tonko X 

Mr. Kinzinger X 

Mr. Griffith X 

Mr. Bilirakis X 

Mr. Johnson X 

Mr. Long X 

Mrs. Ellmers X 

06/19/2013 
7 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 10 here HR179P1.002

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE -- I 13TH CONGRESS 

ROLL CALL VOTE # 22 

BILL: H.R. 2279, the "Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of2013" 

AMENDMENT: An amendment offered by Ms. Schakowsky, No.4, to provide that section 2002(b) oflhe 

Solid Waste Disposal Act does not affect any law suit filed on or before June 19,2013. 

DISPOSITION: NOT AGREED TO, by a roll call vote ofl8 yeas and 25 nays. 

REPRESENTATIVE YEAS NAYS PRESENT REPRESENT A TIVE YEAS NAYS PRESENT 

Mr. Upton X Mr. Waxman X 

Mr. HaJl X Mr. Dingell 

Mr. Barton Mr. Markey 

Mr. Whitfield Mr. Pallone 

Mr. Shimkus X Mr. Rush 

Mr. Pitts X Ms. Eshoo X 

Mr. Walden X Mr. Engel X 

Mr. Terry X Mr. Green , 

Mr. Rogers X Ms. DeGette X I 

Mr. Murphy X Mrs. Capps X 

Mr. Burgess Mr.Doyle X 

Mrs. Blackburn Ms. Schakowsky X 

Mr. Gingrey X Mr. Matheson X 

Mr. Scalise X Mr. Butterfield X 

Mr. Latta X Mr. Barrow X 

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers X Ms. Matsui X 

Mr. Harper X Ms. Christensen 

Mr. Lance X Ms. Castor X 

Mr. Cassidy Mr. Sarbanes X 

Mr. Guthrie X Mr.McNemey X 

Mr. Olson X Mr. Braley X 

Mr. McKinley X Mr. Welch X 

Mr. Gardner X Mr. Lujan X 

Mr. Pompeo X Mr. Tonko X 

Mr. Kinzinger X 

Mr. Griffith X 

Mr. Bilirakis X 

Mr. Johnson X 

Mr. Long X 

Mrs. Ellmers X 

06119/2013 
8 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 11 here HR179P1.003

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE --ll3TH CONGRESS 

ROLL CALL VOTE # 23 

BILL: H.R. 2279, the "Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of2013" 

AMENDMENT: A motion by Mr. Upton to order RR. 2279 favorably reported to the House, as amended. 

(Final Passage) 

DISPOSITION: AGREED TO, by a roll call vote of25 yeas and 18 nays. 

REPRESENT A TIVE YEAS NAYS PRESENT REPRESENTATIVE YEAS NAYS PRESENT 

Mr. Upton X Mr. Waxman X 

Mr. Hall X Mr.DingeU 

Mr. Barton Mr. Markey 

Mr. Wbitfield Mr. Pallone 

Mr. Shimkus X Mr. Rush 

Mr.Pitts X Ms. Eshoo X 

Mr. Walden X Mr. Engel X 

Mr. Terry X Mr. Green E Rogers X Ms. DeGette X 

Mr. Murphy X Mrs. Capps X 

Mr. Burgess Mr.Doyle X 

Mrs. Blackburn Ms. Schakowsky X 

Mr.Gingrey X Mr. Matheson X 

Mr. Scalise X Mr. Butterfield X 

Mr. Latta X Mr. Barrow X 

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers X Ms. Matsui X 

Mr. Harper X Ms. Christensen 

Mr. Lance X Ms. Castor X 

IMr. Cassidy Mr. Sarbanes X 

IMr. Guthrie X Mr.McNerney X 

Mr. Olson X Mr. Braley X 

Mr. McKinley X Mr. Welch X 

Mr. Gardner X Mr. Lujan X 

Mr. Pompeo X Mr. Tonko X 

Mr. Kinzinger X 

Mr. Griffith X 

Mr. Bilirakis X 

Mr. Johnson X 

Mr. Long X 

Mrs. Ellrners X 

0611912013 
9 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee held a hearing and made findings that are reflected in this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goals and objectives of H.R. 2279 are to remove unnecessary 

deadlines from the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act and 

to preserve existing financial responsibility requirements. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 2279, the 

‘‘Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013,’’ would result in no new or increased budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that 

H.R. 2279, the ‘‘Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 

2013,’’ contains no earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 

benefits. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

JUNE 26, 2013. 

Hon. FRED UPTON, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. Mehlman. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

H.R. 2279—Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013 

H.R. 2279 would amend laws concerning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) oversight of hazardous substances. The bill 

would authorize EPA to review regulations related to solid waste 

disposal only when necessary instead of every three years as required under current law. The legislation also would remove a 

long-expired deadline, which EPA has already met, regarding regulations for the owners and operators of certain types of facilities 

that produce, transport, treat, store, and dispose of hazardous substances. In addition, the bill would direct that any financial requirements established by EPA for such owners and operators do 

not preempt state or other federal agency requirements. 

The bill also would require EPA to report to the Congress any 

financial responsibility requirements it intends to establish under 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act. Finally, H.R. 2279 would require certain facilities 

holding flammable or explosive materials to report on those holdings to state and local officials. 

Based on information from EPA, CBO expects that removing the 

current requirement to review certain regulations every three years 

would reduce administrative costs. However, some of those savings 

in administrative expenses would be offset by spending on the new 

requirement to report to the Congress any financial responsibility 

requirements. CBO estimates that, on balance, implementing this 

legislation would not have a significant net impact on spending 

that is subject to appropriation over the 2014–2018 period. Enacting H.R. 2279 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

H.R. 2279 contains an intergovernmental and private-sector 

mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA). The bill would require some owners or operators of facilities that store flammable or explosive substances to provide information about the amount of such substances at the facility to state 

emergency response commissions. Because those owners and operators submit similar information to federal agencies, CBO estimates 

that the cost to submit information to state commissions would be 

minimal. Consequently, CBO estimates that the costs of the mandate would fall well below the annual thresholds established in 

UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($75 

million and $150 million in 2013, respectively, adjusted annually 

for inflation). 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Susanne S. 

Mehlman (for federal costs), J’nell Blanco (for the state and local 

impact), and Amy Petz (for the private-sector impact). This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 2279 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 2279 does not specifically direct to be completed any specific rule makings within the 

meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1—Short title 

This section entitles the Act the ‘‘Reducing Excessive Deadline 

Obligations Act of 2013.’’ 

Section 2—Review of regulations under the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act 

This section amends section 2002(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act to allow EPA to review and revise regulations promulgated 

under the Solid Waste Disposal Act as the Administrator determines to be appropriate. The Committee intends that this section 

reduce the regulatory and resource burden on EPA, while preserving the Agency’s ability to review and revise regulations as 

necessary. 

Section 3—Financial responsibility for classes of facilities under 

CERCLA 

Paragraph (1) of this section amends section 108(b)(1) of 

CERCLA by striking the deadline that three years after the date 

of enactment the President identify classes of facilities for which to 

develop financial assurance regulations. 

Paragraph (2) of this section amends section 108(b)(2) of 

CERCLA by adding the provision that owners or operators may establish financial responsibility through the forms of security identified in the statute: insurance, guarantee, surety bond, letter of 

credit, and qualification as a self-insurer. The Committee intends 

that the owner or operator of a facility, rather than EPA, identify 

the appropriate mechanism to establish evidence of financial responsibility for requirements promulgated under section 108(b). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

The Committee also intends that insurance, guarantee, surety 

bond, letter of credit, and qualification as a self-insurer all be accepted as evidence of financial responsibility. 

Section 4—Report to Congress regarding financial responsibility requirements 

This section amends section 108(b) of CERCLA by adding a new 

paragraph (6), which requires that the President, prior to promulgating any financial responsibility requirement under this subsection, submit a report to Congress describing: (1) the facilities or 

classes of facilities for which financial responsibility requirements 

are being developed; (2) the development of the financial responsibility requirement and why the facility or class of facility is not already covered by adequate financial responsibility requirements; 

(3) the financial responsibility requirements promulgated by States 

or other Federal agencies for the facility or class of facilities and 

explaining why the regulations by EPA are necessary; (4) the exposure to the United States for response costs resulting from the facility or class of facilities; and (5) the capacity of the financial markets to provide instruments of financial responsibility necessary to 

meet the new EPA requirement. The Committee acknowledges that 

the purpose of section 108(b) of CERCLA was to prevent the United 

States from incurring response costs under section 104 of CERCLA 

for the cleanup of hazardous substances. The Committee recognizes 

that the President has not yet promulgated financial responsibility 

requirements under section 108(b), and in the more than thirty 

years since CERCLA was enacted, States and other Federal agencies have developed financial responsibility requirements for many 

of the facilities or classes of facilities that the President has identified as the priorities for development of financial responsibility requirements. The Committee intends that prior to promulgating requirements under section 108(b), EPA must determine whether additional financial responsibility requirements are necessary. The 

Committee expects EPA to make the determination based on the 

existing financial responsibility requirements for a facility or class 

of facilities and an assessment of whether there is likely to be a 

cost to the Federal government for remediation despite the existing 

financial responsibility requirements. 

Section 5—Preemption of financial responsibility requirements 

This section amends section 114(d) of CERCLA by replacing the 

existing language with language that provides that if an owner or 

operator of a facility or vessel already has established evidence of 

financial responsibility under State law or under any other Federal 

law, they are not required to establish evidence of financial responsibility under this title unless the President determines that, in the 

event of a non-permitted release of hazardous substances, the existing financial responsibility requirements will not be sufficient to 

cover likely response costs under section 104 of CERCLA. This section also provides that if the President determines that such other 

Federal or State financial responsibility requirements are sufficient 

to cover likely response costs under section 104 then the President 

shall accept evidence of compliance with such other Federal or 

State financial responsibility requirements in lieu of compliance 

with the financial responsibility requirements. The Committee exVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:44 Aug 01, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR179P1.XXX HR179P1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

pects that requirements promulgated by EPA under section 108(b) 

will not duplicate existing financial responsibility requirements. 

The Committee intends that, to the extent that existing State or 

other Federal financial responsibility requirements protect the 

United States from incurring response costs under section 104, that 

evidence of compliance with the State or other Federal agency financial responsibility requirements be sufficient to establish compliance with requirements promulgated under section 108(b). 

Section 6—Explosive risks planning notification 

This section requires that, not later than 180 days after the date 

of enactment, owners or operators of facilities that store substances 

listed in Appendix A to part 27 of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations that are flammables or explosives and stored in amounts 

above the screening threshold, must notify the State emergency response commission in the State in which the facility is located. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle B—Office of Solid Waste; Authorities of the Administrator 

* * * * * * * 

AUTHORITIES OF ADMINISTRATOR

SEC. 2002. (a) * * * 

ø(b) REVISION OF REGULATIONS.—Each regulation promulgated 

under this Act shall be reviewed and, where necessary, revised not 

less frequently than every three years.¿ 

(b) REVIEW OF REGULATIONS.—The Administrator shall review, 

and revise, as the Administrator determines appropriate, regulations promulgated under this Act. 

* * * * * * * 

COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, 

COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES, LIABILITY, 

COMPENSATION 

* * * * * * * 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

SEC. 108. (a) * * * 

(b)(1) Beginning not earlier than five years after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall promulgate requirements 

(for facilities in addition to those under subtitle C of the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act and other Federal law) that classes of facilities 

establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of risk associated with the 

production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances. øNot later than three years after the date of enactment of the Act, the President shall¿ The President shall, as appropriate, identify those classes for which requirements will be 

øfirst¿ developed and publish notice of such identification in the 

Federal Register. Priority in the development of such requirements 

shall be accorded to those classes of facilities, owners, and operators which the President determines present the highest level of 

risk of injury. 

(2) The level of financial responsibility shall be initially established, and, when necessary, adjusted to protect against the level 

of risk which the President in his discretion believes is appropriate 

based on the payment experience of the Fund, commercial insurers, 

courts settlements and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction. To the maximum extent practicable, the President shall cooperate with and seek the advice of the commercial insurance industry in developing financial responsibility requirements. øFinancial responsibility may be established¿ Owners and operators may 

establish financial responsibility by øany one, or any combination, 

of the following:¿ forms of security, including insurance, guarantee, 

surety bond, letter of credit, øor qualification¿ and qualification as 

a self-insurer. In promulgating requirements under this section, 

the President is authorized to specify policy or other contractual 

terms, conditions, or defenses which are necessary, or which are 

unacceptable, in establishing such evidence of financial responsibility in order to effectuate the purposes of this Act. 

* * * * * * * 

(6) The President may not promulgate any financial responsibility 

requirement under this subsection without first submitting to Congress a report— 

(A) describing each facility or class of facilities to be covered 

by such requirement; 

(B) describing the development of such requirement, why the 

facility or class of facilities proposed to be covered by such requirement present the highest level of risk of injury, and why 

the facility or class of facilities is not already covered by adequate financial responsibility requirements; 

(C) describing the financial responsibility requirements promulgated by States or other Federal agencies for the facility or 

class of facilities to be covered by the financial responsibility requirement proposed under this subsection and explaining why 

the requirement proposed under this subsection is necessary; 

(D) describing the exposure to the Fund for response costs resulting from the facility or class of facilities proposed to be covered; and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

(E) describing the capacity of the financial and credit markets to provide instruments of financial responsibility necessary 

to meet such requirement. 

The President shall update any report submitted under this paragraph to reflect any revision of the facilities or classes of facilities 

to be covered by a financial responsibility requirement that is the 

subject of such report. 

* * * * * * * 

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW

SEC. 114. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(d) Except as provided in this title, no owner or operator of a 

vessel or facility who establishes and maintains evidence of financial responsibility in accordance with this title shall be required 

under any State or local law, rule, or regulation to establish or 

maintain any other evidence of financial responsibility in connection with liability for the release of a hazardous substance from 

such vessel or facility. Evidence of compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of this title shall be accepted by a State 

in lieu of any other requirement of financial responsibility imposed 

by such State in connection with liability for the release of a hazardous substance from such vessel or facility.¿ 

(d) No owner or operator of a vessel or facility who establishes 

and maintains evidence of financial responsibility associated with 

the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of 

hazardous substances pursuant to financial responsibility requirements under any State law or regulation, or any other Federal law 

or regulation, shall be required to establish or maintain evidence of 

financial responsibility under this title, unless the President determines, after notice and opportunity for public comment, that in the 

event of a release of a hazardous substance that is not a federally 

permitted release or authorized by a State permit, such other Federal or State financial responsibility requirements are insufficient to 

cover likely response costs under section 104. If the President determines that such other Federal or State financial responsibility requirements are insufficient to cover likely response costs under section 104 in the event of such a release, the President shall accept 

evidence of compliance with such other Federal or State financial 

responsibility requirements in lieu of compliance with any portion 

of the financial responsibility requirements promulgated under this 

title to which they correspond. 

* * * * * * * 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(16) 

1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act § 2002(b), 42 U.S.C. § 6912(b). 

2 E-mail from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency staff to Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democratic Staff (Jul. 3, 2013). 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

As introduced, H.R. 2279 was comprised of unrelated amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). The legislation is not based on an oversight record before the Committee, and has not been publicly endorsed by any stakeholders. The legislation would amend RCRA to 

repeal a requirement that regulations be reviewed every three 

years, with the primary effect of blocking ongoing litigation brought 

by industry and environmental groups. The legislation would also 

complicate the process for establishing federal financial responsibility requirements for the most polluting industries, and prevent 

those requirements from going into effect in some states, potentially leaving cleanup costs to taxpayers. H.R. 2279 was amended 

during Committee consideration to require facilities holding dangerous quantities of flammable and explosive chemicals to report 

those holdings to state emergency planners within 180 days of the 

bill’s enactment into law. These provisions are described more fully 

below. 

THE RCRA AMENDMENT

RCRA requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 

review, and where necessary, revise, regulations promulgated 

under RCRA every three years.1 H.R. 2279 would repeal this requirement and replace it with discretionary authority to review 

regulations. 

Although the majority report states that the requirement to review and, if necessary, revise RCRA regulations every three years 

‘‘would pose an unnecessary regulatory burden on the Agency’’ that 

requirement is longstanding and there is no evidence before the 

Committee that it has imposed a burden on the Agency. Democratic members submitted questions to EPA for the record of the 

hearing on this bill, seeking information about the time spent by 

staff carrying out this requirement. According to EPA, no staff time 

(0 FTEs) is used to carry out this requirement.2

The majority report also says that the review requirement was 

put in place in 1976, ‘‘when the complexity and volume of regulations was significantly less.’’ This suggests that recent increases in 

the complexity or volume of regulations under RCRA have made 

this legislation necessary. However, the Committee has received no 

evidence to support this claim. According to the Congressional Research Service, EPA has only finalized two actions designated as 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

3 Congressional Research Service, Correspondence with Committee Democratic Staff, (Jul. 8, 

2013). 4 House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, Testimony of Abigail Dillen, Coal Program Director, EarthJustice, Legislative Hearing on 

H.R. ll the ‘‘Federal and State Partnership for Environmental Protection Act of 2013;’’ H.R. ll, the ‘‘Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013;’’ and H.R. ll, the ‘‘Federal 

Facility Accountability Act of 2013.’’ 113th Cong. (May 17, 2013). 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; 

Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities, 75 Fed. Reg. 35127 (June 21, 2010) (proposed rule). 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Docket EPA–HQ–RCRA–2009–0640. 

7 Case 1:12–cv–005230RBW, Appalachian Voices et al. v. Lisa P. Jackson, Plaintiffs Headwaters Resources, Inc. and Boral Material Technologies Inc.’s Combined Opposition to Defendant 

EPA’s and Intervenor-Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply, Filed Nov. 20, 

2012. 8For more information on the inadequacies of current coal ash regulation, see past memoranda prepared by the Democratic Staff of the Committee, including the memorandum prepared 

for the Apr. 11, 2013 hearing entitled, H.R. ll, the ‘‘Coal Ash Recycling and Oversight Act 

of 2013.’’ 

major under RCRA since 2000, and both reduced regulatory requirements.3

The primary effect of this provision appears to be to pick winners 

and losers in pending litigation. The Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy heard at the May 17, 2013, legislative hearing on this bill that only three lawsuits have ever been brought to 

enforce this deadline, and all have been brought in the last year 

because of significant delays in EPA’s coal ash rulemaking. An attorney bringing one of those suits, Abigail Dillen of EarthJustice, 

testified that the discussion draft would threaten that ongoing lawsuit.4 At the request of Democratic staff, the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) examined the ongoing proceedings and court precedent and determined that the bill 

as proposed would likely lead to the dismissal of the lawsuits. 

EPA has been engaged in a rulemaking process to regulate disposal of coal ash for several years.5 EPA held eight public hearings 

on the proposed rule and received more than 450,000 public comments.6 EPA is in the process of reviewing those comments and has 

not finalized the rule. Coal ash therefore remains unregulated at 

the federal level. It has now been three years since the new rule 

was proposed. 

According to motions filed with the Court by Headwaters, the 

firm has ‘‘experienced a significant adverse market downturn as a 

result of the uncertainty and stigma created by EPA’s failure to 

comply with Section 2002(b)’’ and ‘‘an order requiring completion of 

its section 2002(b) review will redress that injury.’’ 7 These cases do 

not suggest that the deadline is excessive or outdated—instead, 

they suggest that it is necessary. 

This bill would likely prevent the issuance of such a court order, 

delaying resolution of this issue and extending this economic injury. It would also extend the status quo of coal ash regulation, 

which has proven insufficient to protect human health and the environment.8

THE CERCLA AMENDMENT

The CERCLA deadline 

H.R. 2279 amends CERCLA section 108(b) to repeal a deadline 

that EPA has already satisfied. CERCLA requires EPA to identify, 

by December 11, 1983, those classes of facilities for which financial 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

9 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act § 108(b). 

10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Identification of Priority Classes of Facilities for Development of CERCLA Section 108(b) Financial Responsibility Requirements, 74 Fed. Reg. 37213 

(Jul. 28, 2009) (notice). 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011 Toxic Release Inventory National Analysis 

Overview (Jan. 16, 2013). 12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Identification of Priority Classes of Facilities for Development of CERCLA Section 108(b) Financial Responsibility Requirements, 74 Fed. Reg. 37213 

(Jul. 28, 2009). 13 Id. at 32715. 14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NPL Mining Sites (online at www.epa.gov/aml/ 

amlsite/npl.htm). 15 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Hardrock Mining: Information on Abandoned Mines 

and Value and Coverage of Financial Assurances on BLM Land (Mar. 12, 2008)(GAO–08–574T). 16 Id. 17 Id. 

responsibility requirements should first be developed.9 The requirement was put in place as part of the 1980 amendments to Superfund in response to significant taxpayer cleanup costs. 

EPA satisfied this requirement in July 2009. EPA published a 

notice in the Federal Register designating hardrock mining as the 

first class of facilities to be the subject of financial responsibility requirements.10 The issuance of the actual requirements is still pending and is not affected by the deadline in section 108(b). In January 2010, EPA published an additional notice identifying the next 

classes of facilities that should be subject to such requirements. 

These classes were the chemical manufacturing industry, the petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry, and the electric 

power generation, transmission, and distribution industry. 

Hardrock mining refers to the process of extracting, 

beneficiating, or processing metals and non-metallic, non-fuel minerals. In 2011, the metal mining sector reported releasing or disposing of 1.89 billion pounds of toxic chemicals, more than any 

other industry sector and representing 46% the total disposal or 

other releases for all industries.11 EPA estimates that releases 

from hardrock mining have contaminated at least 3,400 miles of 

streams and 440,000 acres of land.12 According to the U.S. Forest 

Service, acid mine drainage from metal mining has contaminated 

10,000 miles of rivers and streams.13

Many hardrock mining sites are listed under CERCLA, with 

many on the National Priority List (NPL). As of August 2012, over 

130 hardrock mining sites had been listed or proposed for listing 

on the NPL, or designated for cleanups under Superfund Alternative Approaches.14 That number will continue to grow, as the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that there are 

161,000 abandoned hardrock mines in the western United States, 

of which 33,000 have degraded the environment.15

Because many of these sites have been abandoned, much of the 

cleanup cost has been borne by the government. According to the 

GAO, in the 10 fiscal years between 1998 and 2007, the federal 

government spent at least $2.6 billion (in 2008 dollars) to clean up 

these hardrock sites. The largest portion of that spending came 

from the Superfund program.16 GAO also examined financial assurance requirements in place for hardrock mines on public lands. 

GAO found that bond requirements imposed by the Bureau of Land 

Management were insufficient to cover expected cleanup costs, 

identifying an expected shortfall of $61 million for 52 mining operations.17 Similarly, the EPA Inspector General predicts that cleanVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:44 Aug 01, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR179P1.XXX HR179P1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Inspector General, Nationwide Identification of Hardrock Mining Sites (Mar. 31, 2004). 19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Identification of Priority Classes of Facilities for Development of CERCLA Section 108(b) Financial Responsibility Requirements, 74 Fed. Reg. 37213 

(July 28, 2009). 20 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act § 102, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 9602. Those requirements were satisfied with the publication of reportable released quantities 

of hazardous substances on September 29, 1986 and May 24, 1989 (51 Fed. Reg. 34547; 54 Fed. 

Reg. 22538). 

up costs for the evaluated hardrock mining sites are likely to reach 

$24 billion, far exceeding appropriations for the Superfund program.18 These costs are likely to fall on the taxpayer unless EPA 

successfully pursues repayment from the responsible parties. 

Based on those costs, and recommendations from GAO, EPA 

began the process in 2009 of establishing financial assurance requirements for the hardrock mining sector. EPA identified 

hardrock mining as the class of facilities for which it would develop 

regulations and published notice in the Federal Register on July 

28, 2009.19 The agency has received public comment on the notice 

and is working on a proposed regulation. 

Now that the CERCLA deadline in section 108(b) has been satisfied and has no legal effect, it is unclear why the provision is being 

repealed. The majority report states that this deadline is now outdated and ‘‘no longer appropriate.’’ However, CERCLA contains numerous deadlines that have been satisfied, and yet the majority is 

not proposing to repeal them. For example, section 102 of CERCLA 

contains three deadlines that have all been met and are no longer 

in effect.20

The CERCLA Preemption Amendment 

The question of preemption of state requirements was raised by 

EPA in the Federal Register notice listing hardrock mining as the 

class of facilities for which requirements would first be established. 

EPA is still reviewing comments submitted on that question, with 

a focus on the sufficiency of state requirements. It is important to 

distinguish financial responsibility requirements for reclamation of 

mining sites, which cover the costs to restore vegetation and reshape the land, and requirements for potential releases of contaminants from mining activities. The most significant costs associated 

with hardrock mining relate to contaminant releases from waste 

piles, and are not covered by reclamation cost bonds. H.R. 2279 

does not distinguish between these types of requirements. 

The majority report claims that a ‘‘significant body of State and 

other Federal law currently exists that requires facilities to provide 

evidence of financial responsibility.’’ There is no information about 

that body of laws in the record before the Committee. At the May 

17, 2013, legislative hearing, the Subcommittee heard from Carolyn 

Hanson, the Deputy Executive Director of the Environmental 

Council of the States (ECOS). In order to understand the need for 

and impact of this amendment, Democratic members asked for information on what requirements states have in place relating to financial responsibility. Democratic members again requested detailed information on those financial responsibility requirements by 

letter on May 28, 2013. In response, ECOS informed Committee 

staff that they do not have the requested information. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

21Letter from Steven M. Nagy, on behalf of the Attorney General of Colorado, to Jim Berlow, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Feb. 28, 2011) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0834–0136. 22Letter from Cameron M. Leonard, on behalf of the Attorney General of Alaska, to Jim 

Berlow, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Feb. 11, 2011) U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Docket EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0834–0134. 

After several additional weeks, ECOS provided the Committee 

with a list of states that have adopted financial responsibility requirements, but no information about what costs those requirements cover. The letter cites Colorado as an example of a state 

with existing financial responsibility requirements. In a letter sent 

to EPA to provide preliminary input into the process of proposing 

financial responsibility requirements for hardrock mining, the Colorado Attorney General’s office wrote that the state’s requirements 

under its Mined Land Reclamation Act ‘‘can co-exist with CERCLA 

financial assurance requirements and are not the type of financial 

assurances that require preemption.’’ 21

The letter also cites Alaska as an example of a state with existing financial responsibility requirements. According to a letter sent 

to EPA by the Alaska Attorney General to provide preliminary 

input on the financial responsibility requirements, Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources ‘‘does not require financial assurance 

(often referred to colloquially as ‘bonding’) to cover unplanned releases, or ‘worst-case’ scenarios.’’ 22 The requirements therefore do 

not cover the cleanup costs that would be covered by federal requirements under Superfund. 

Despite the lack of a record before the Committee, this bill would 

erect barriers to EPA issuing financial responsibility requirements 

under CERCLA for the hardrock mining industry, the chemical 

manufacturing industry, the petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry, and the electric power generation, transmission, 

and distribution industry and prohibit the application of any federal financial responsibility requirement when an owner or operator is satisfying a state financial responsibility requirement. 

The reporting requirement for explosive chemicals 

An amendment to H.R. 2279 offered by Mr. Waxman during full 

Committee consideration was adopted by voice vote. This amendment addresses the serious problem of chemical facilities failing to 

adequately inform emergency responders about the flammable and 

explosive chemicals stored at facilities throughout the United 

States. This amendment requires that owners or operators of facilities storing flammable and explosive chemicals over threshold 

amounts inform state emergency response personnel about the 

types and amounts of chemicals being stored. This amendment was 

informed by the recent tragic explosion in West, Texas. 

On April 17, 2013, the West Fertilizer Company storage and distribution facility exploded. In a community of 2,600 people, nearly 

200 were injured and 15 killed. The nearby nursing home, a school, 

and several hundred houses were badly damaged. The chemical 

that caused the explosion, ammonium nitrate, is the same substance that was used in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Although this chemical may be safe when stored and handled correctly, its risks are undeniable. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

23Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Testimony of the Honorable Rafael 

Moure-Eraso, Chairperson of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, Hearing on Oversight of Federal 

Risk Management and Emergency Planning Programs to Prevent and Address Chemical Threats, 

Including the Events Leading Up to the Explosions in West, TX and Geismar, LA, 113th Cong. 

(Jun. 27, 2013) (online at www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View 

&FileStorelid=b3617917-9853-4128-ad83-7f305f58fcb1). 24 Id. 

Twelve first responders and volunteer firefighters died in the 

West, Texas explosion. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board reported in 

the preliminary findings from their investigation of the explosion 

that ‘‘the volunteer firefighters were not made aware of the explosion hazard from the [ammonium nitrate] stored at West Fertilizer, 

and were caught in harm’s way when the blast occurred.’’ 23

Rafael Moure-Eraso, Chairperson of the U.S. Chemical Safety 

Board, stated in his testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on June 27, 2013, that the storage of 

ammonium nitrate fertilizer ‘‘falls under a patchwork of U.S. safety 

standards and guidance—a patchwork that has many large 

holes.’’ 24 This provision will address one of those holes, and provide 

important information to emergency responders. 

For the reasons stated above, we dissent from the views expressed in the Committee’s report. 

HENRY A. WAXMAN. 

PAUL D. TONKO. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS