[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 138 (Wednesday, September 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      REAUTHORIZATION OF SUPERFUND

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as the number of days left in this 103d 
Congress dwindle, so does the opportunity to pass legislation to fix 
the Superfund, a law which almost everyone agrees is broken and is in 
dire need of repair.
  The legislation reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works to reauthorize the Superfund law is obviously not perfect 
and not totally agreeable to everyone. Even many of its strongest 
supporters can think of areas in which they would like improvement. I 
believe we could probably improve upon this bill, but I am firmly 
convinced that the legislation is both needed and a great improvement 
over present law and should be passed this year.
  After months and months of hard work on the part of this 
administration and various interested groups, I am truly disappointed 
that it now seems more likely than not that the Senate will miss this 
opportunity to take up and to pass legislation to fix what primarily is 
broken with the Superfund.
  Earlier this year, I joined with a bipartisan group of Senators in 
sending a letter to the chairman and ranking Republican on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee urging the enactment of 
legislation to reform Superfund during the 103d Congress. I signed this 
letter because I was encouraged by the results of the bipartisan 
efforts of the administration and others to craft a strong coalition of 
interested parties to reform the current Superfund law.
  Mr. President, the administration deserves a great deal of credit for 
bringing together environmentalists, industry groups, other business 
groups, insurance companies, cities, and others to work through a 
myriad of complex and important issues and to produce a good piece of 
proposed legislation.
  I believe the following to be true: When the administration works 
from the beginning in a bipartisan effort, the end result is often a 
good one. For example, the North American Free Trade Agreement passed 
by an impressive margin because it had the support not only of the 
administration but of large numbers of members of both parties. I 
supported the administration on the North American Free Trade Agreement 
and worked hard to see that it was passed.
  Another example of the good results the administration finds when it 
works with both parties is perhaps the proposed reauthorization of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act. Legislation to reauthorize the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, which passed the Senate last May, was the result of the hard 
work of a bipartisan group of Senators, a broad coalition of State, 
local and national groups and the willingness of the administration to 
listen to the concerns of the people who have to deal with this law on 
a daily basis. The end result of these bipartisan efforts was a bill 
that passed the Senate by a huge margin and had the strong support of 
this Senator and his constituents.
  Whether that is true with the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments 
which have passed the House of Representatives, I am uncertain at this 
point. But at least we have the opportunity to do a strong bipartisan 
job.
  I hope the administration will learn from its past bipartisan 
successes. I encourage the administration to reach out to members of 
both political parties and to work with affected groups to produce 
legislation not developed in a vacuum but which, instead, reflects the 
careful balance of competing ideas and points of view.
  The administration's Superfund bill perhaps will not reach the Senate 
floor before we adjourn in spite of strong support on the part of this 
Senator and many of his colleagues in both parties. That will be a 
great disappointment, because the bill does address many of the 
problems which plague the current statute.

  In particular, the bill will allow for faster cleanup of Superfund 
sites by establishing a national risk protocol. The bill will also 
transform the current system of looking for the deepest pockets at a 
given site, to one which seeks to assign cleanup liability in a fair 
and equitable manner.


                            risk assessment

  S. 1834 would provide a mechanism for the faster cleanup of Superfund 
sites, which, after all, is the ultimate goal. This would be 
accomplished by the establishment of a national risk protocol and 
formula. According to the Senate report accompanying S. 1834,

       [The] methods EPA currently uses for conducting risk 
     assessments under the Superfund program have been criticized 
     for inconsistency and for over-estimating the actual risks 
     associated with such sites.

  I have had countless meetings with big and small business owners on 
the issue of Superfund and they tell me that risk assessment is one of 
the most frustrating aspects of the current law. How clean is clean? 
How clean should a site be if it will continue to be used for 
industrial purposes? How clean should a site be if it will be used for 
residential purposes? Simple questions, and questions which deserve 
careful answers given the future use, and the contamination of, a given 
site. These are the questions which will be answered with a greater 
degree of certainty and flexibility than is currently provided by the 
law at the present time.
  S. 1834 would require that the Administrator develop and promulgate a 
national risk protocol to govern the methods and application of all 
Superfund risk assessments, thereby establishing a more reasonable and 
standardized process for conducting risk assessments. The risk protocol 
will put forward both standardized exposure scenarios and a formula for 
assessing public health and environmental risks.
  The legislation does include risk assessment flexibility if the 
prescribe protective concentration level is too costly or 
technologically infeasible to achieve.


                          liability allocation

  S. 1834 will also provide for the more equitable distribution of 
remedial costs at sites. S. 1834 will put an end to the nightmares of 
small business owners and other potentially responsible parties [PRP's] 
who fear being listed on the national priority list of Superfund sites. 
The bill would change the way in which liability amongst PRP's is 
allocated.
  According to the committee report,

       An estimated 25-30 percent of all Superfund-related 
     expenses go toward litigation. That litigation is divided 
     between insurer/policyholder litigation, and suits by the 
     government, or suits by PRP's against other PRP's to 
     adjudicate and apportion liability.

  S. 1834 seeks to put an end to the finger-pointing and endless legal 
expenses by using an out of court settlement in which a neutral 
allocator can be used to assign liability shares at a site. Each of the 
PRP's at a site would come to the table, and a neutral allocator would 
assign shares or responsibility based on available information about 
each PRP's contribution to that site.
  The bill would also address the concerns of hundreds of thousands of 
small business owners across the United States by allowing for the 
exemption of parties which contributed small amounts of waste and 
capping the liability of those determined to have had little to do with 
contamination at a site or have a limited ability to pay. The bill 
would also give small businesses and small contributors the opportunity 
to settle quickly.
  Payments of an orphan share from the Superfund will go to those PRP's 
which are unable to pay for their clean up costs because it is defunct 
or qualifies for an exemption under the bill.
  And lastly, the bill also establishes the Environmental Insurance 
Resolution Fund to resolve disputes over Superfund liability between 
insurance companies and their policyholders.
  Mr. President, the current Superfund process is one filled with 
uncertainty and fear for many small business owners, finger-pointing, 
and inaction. The current law has resulted in the listing of hundreds 
of sites, but has resulted in the clean up of very few sites. This 
Senator is greatly disappointed that it appears as if the status quo 
will prevail for yet another year.
  I hope that I am wrong. I hope that in the last week of this session 
we will have the opportunity to pass such a bill.
  But, in any event, I look forward to working with the administration 
and my colleagues to promptly solve a very serious problem for many 
people and many places in the United States.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized 
as if in morning business.

                          ____________________