Date: 1986-10-08
Speaker: AL SWIFT (democrat)
Chamber: H

for his work on community right to know. and the gentleman from Kansas. Mr. DAN GLICKMAN and the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. TOM KINDNESS. for their contributions to the judicial issues. I also want to express my appreciation to the leadership and members of the Senate conference committee. particularly to Senators STAFFORD and BENTSEN for their patience and judgment in this long legislative process. Finally. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the major contributions made by the chairman of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. JIM HOWARD. the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources. BoB RoE. and also the gentleman from New Jersey Mr. JIM FLORIO. These gentlemen served as the conscience of the conference. constantly urging us to strive for the goals of environmental protection that are reflected so well in the conference report before us today. Staff as well. spent long hours. A special thanks to Errol Tyler and John Doyle of the Water Resources Staff. Mr. Speaker. this is a sound bill. offering major improvements in virtually all aspects of the existing Superfund law. While time would not permit me to go through all of the changes that I endorse. I feel obliged to mention some of the bills major accomplishments. First of all. the program we are recommending represents a major increase in program funding. The original law authorized a 5year. $1.6 billion program. Today. we bring before this body a bill that authorizes almost six times as much for the next 5 years. In my own view. the amount authorized by this bill is at the absolute limit. and may be beyond what the EPA can reasonably manage. Nonetheless. I believe we must demonstrate this countrys commitment to solving our hazardouswaste problems. Perhaps more controversial than the level of funding has been the question of the source of funding for the program. In the past. the overwhelming source of the funds revenues has come from feedstock taxes imposed on the American petroleum and chemical companies. This has been because of our commitment to the principal that those responsible for the problem should be required to pay for its cleanup. However. a five or sixfold increase in feedstock taxes would result in a serious. and many would say. crippling burden on the American petrochemical industry. Furthermore a review of the wastes found at Superfund sites discloses that these sites are often repositories of wastes from a broad spectrum of American industry. including manufacturing. food processing. and servicerelated industries. Accordingly. the conference agreement adopts a funding mechanism that seeks to broaden somewhat the cost of the program among a wider segment of our economy. I believe the plan that has been developed by the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means conferees is both fair and effective and I would urge my colleagues in the House to accept it and the President to approve it. Perhaps the most criticized aspects of the first 5 years of the Superfund Program has been the abysmally slow pace of cleanups. In 5 years. only a handful of sites were cleaned up to EPAs satisfaction and. of those. at least one wound up leaking even after it was supposed to be cleaned up. I realize that this slow pace is due to a variety of factors. many of which are not the fault of EPA. Nonetheless. I and most of the other conferees felt that mandatory. but realistic. cleanup schedules were essential in a reauthorization package. I am happy to report that the conference agreement includes schedules which I helped develop with those ends in mind. While the schedules are not as demanding as some may have preferred. they nonetheless provide a realistic yardstick against which progress can be measured. I view the schedules as the minimum pace that EPA must be held accountable for. I would urge and expect them to do more than our bill requires. However. I realize that imposing a tougher schedule as an absolute legal requirement could be counterproductivebinding the Agencys hands and resulting in delay through litigation. Another aspect of the program that had been criticized was the lack of any mandatory cleanup standards applicable at Superfund sites. Admittedly. each Superfund site is different from every other site and it is difficult to prescribe uniform standards that make sense in every case. However. we felt that it was important to require all cleanups to comply with uniform minimum requirements of "how clean is clean." For the most part. we have built in language from the House bill that was originally developed through EPAs regulatory process. We would require that in almost all cases. cleanups comply with legally applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal or State standards or criteria. The bill contains specific exemptions from this basic requirement for limited situations where the application of Federal or State standards might frustrate the goals of the act or would be clearly inappropriate. In all cases. however. EPA must select remedial actions which are protective of human health and the environment. are cost effective and. to the extent practicable. utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment or resource recovery technologies. The bill makes major improvements intended to stimulate settlements under which those responsible for placing hazardous waste at Superfund sites would agree to undertake cleanups. These improvements were absolutely essential to halt the unconscionable drain on resources being consumed by litigation. They were also essential because of the gradual disappearance of liability insurance coverage for Superfund related environmental risks. To achieve these ends. the conference report contains authorization for a settlement process under which EPA can employ an enforcement moratorium coupled with a nonbinding allocation of responsibility to facilitate settlements. In addition. the conference report specifically authorizes EPA to issue covenants not to sue to limit in specified circumstances. the liability of a party who enters into a settlement agreement. One of the major new initiatives of this bill is the comprehensive new program to ensure that communities are given the information they need to react to the environmental risks posed by toxic and hazardous chemicals. These provisions call for creation of State and local emergency planning organizations which would be provided with essential information concerning the amount and location of hazardous substances in their area. This information would be used to develop emergency plans to allow quick and effective response to environmental threats. This is an extremely ambitious new program and one that I believe should have been initiated on a somewhat more limited basis. It is a program. however. that all of us recognize needs to be started as quickly as possible. If we have to live in a society where hazardous chemicals are routintely manufactured and transported. we should all be apprised of the risks those chemicals may pose. Another bold initiative included in the bill is an expanded program for cleanup of leaking underground storage tanks. The 1984 amendments to the Solid Waste Disposal Act authorized a regulatory program to address the problem of leaking underground storage tanks. including petroleum tanks which are not covered by Superfund. Under the amendments included in the conference report. the existing regulatory program is expanded upon to authorize EPA to require the owner of an underground petroleum tank to undertake cleanup if the tank should fail or allow EPA to undertake the work if the tank owner or operator cant or wont clean up the leak. A new $500 million fund would be established through a one tenth of a penny per gallon tax on motor fuels to pay for cleanups undertaken by EPA. This is a significant new program that will greatly enhance societys ability to react to a growing national problem. These are but the most significant aspects of the bill we bring before the House today. Major achievements in other areas include new initiatives in the area of research. development and training. public health authorities. cleanups at Department of Defense and other Federal facilities. reform of State procedural laws and change affecting methane recovery and ocean incineration activities. With respect to this last point. I note that the statement of managers accompanying the conference report comments on EPAs recent decision to promulgate revised ocean incineration regulations prior to issuing any research or operational permits. The conference report directs that these regulations be issued promptly. After three environmental impact statements. a fivevolume environmental study. nine research burns and eight public hearings. there is no reason for EPA to delay issuing the final regulations. The regulations should be issued immediately. without reproposal and without any further regulatory negotiation process. The statement of managers accompanying the conference report also states that the administrator shall establish evidence of financial responsibility for ocean incineration commensurate with that appropriate for activities with similar risks. In this regard. the Congress has established appropriate levels of financial responsibility for land incineration and for the ocean transportation of hazardous chemicals. If these activities -are. in fact. similar to ocean incineration. then there should be no further question concerning the appropriate level of financial responsibility. I realize that in a bill as lengthy and as complex as this there will be much that individual Members can find fault with. There are provisions in this conference report which I am not happy with myself. I also am sympathetic to the views expressed by those who argue that this bill may be a bit of a reaction to the sins of the pastthat we should have kept.a little more of EPAs discretion in the program. However. I realize that cleaning up this countrys toxic waste is the most important environmental task with which we in Congress are confronted. We must move forward with vision to seek the solutions that will allow our children to live and play in a safe and healthy environment. while at the same time ensuring that the engine of American industry is not stifled by burdensome restriction and unnecessary costs.