[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 153 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1852-E1853]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                THE RCRA

                                 ______


                          HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 27, 1995

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, on September 14, I introduced a bill to 
correct a problem which has caused great difficulty for industry in 
general, and the wood preserving industry in particular. Wood 
preserving is an important industry in my home State of Georgia, as 
well as in the home States of many of the bill's co-sponsors.
  Under current Federal regulations, many industries, including the 
wood preserving industry are required to report as generated hazardous 
wastes, large quantities of reused materials. These materials are never 
disposed, yet are considered wastes. This bill provides a balanced, 
reasonable, and fair solution by amending the statutory definition of 
solid waste--under the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act 
[RCRA]--to clearly exempt material that is maintained and reused within 
the manufacturing process.
  RCRA was designed to encourage recycling and conservation. My bill 
would do this by reorganizing industry's extensive efforts to reuse 
materials. Any regulation promulgated under this act that discourages 
recycling should be eliminated.
  Only materials that are discarded should be regulated as wastes. My 
bill exempts recycled material from the definition of solid waste. 
These materials would only be subject to the solid waste regulations, 
and thus the hazardous waste regulations, only if they are discarded. 
In the wood treating industry, materials not completely reused on site 
are either treated and discharged under stringent Clean Water Act 
standards, or are removed from the process and appropriately managed 
under RCRA. However, materials that are not intended for disposal, and 
do not become part of the waste disposal problem, should not be 
considered a hazardous waste.
  The hazardous waste designation creates a two-fold problem. First, it 
presents an incorrect picture of the waste generation trend of 
manufacturers, such as wood preservers. In public documents, it appears 
as if small plants generate millions of gallons of hazardous waste 
when, in fact, the majority of the material is recycled and reused in 
the production process. Second, some States repeatedly tax the recycled 
preservative solution as hazardous waste each time it is reused, 
resulting in large tax liabilities that do not reflect the true 
generation of hazardous waste.

[[Page E 1853]]

  My bill would ease the administrative burden on wood preserving 
facilities in my district and around the country, on the EPA, and on 
the States. It would also recognize the extensive environmental 
recycling efforts of not only the wood preserving industry, but of all 
affected industries. I hope to have sufficient support to bring this 
legislation to the House floor under the Regulatory Corrections Day 
process.

                          ____________________