[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 8, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2134-E2135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          A BILL OF COMPROMISE

                                 ______


                        HON. MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, November 8, 1995

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, on November 2, I introduced legislation to 
require the EPA to consider the interests of a city in my district when 
placing a thermal destruction facility at a Superfund site.
  This legislation, H.R. 2583, is intended to accomplish the same goals 
as a bill I introduced earlier in this session, H.R. 2267.
  However, I have revised the original version to more accurately 
depict the true intent of my efforts.
  As a former member of the California solid waste management board, I 
have an excellent understanding of this situation.
  Over the history of operating industries Superfund site, EPA has 
consistently ignored 

[[Page E 2135]]
the concerns of Monterey Park, CA, on the placement of cleanup 
facilities.
  In fact, I was the board member who made the motion to place the 
southern parcel of OII on the national priorities list.
  Against the wishes of the board, the California Health Department, 
and the citizens of Monterey Park, however, EPA also included the 
northern parcel as part of the site.
  This was done despite the fact that the northern parcel did not 
qualify for NPL listing by itself and EPA had failed to justify its 
inclusion.
  The disregard I mentioned was first displayed with the placement of a 
leacheate treatment plant in the middle of the relatively 
contamination-free northern parcel.
  Despite numerous allegations that the leacheate facility is a white 
elephant, the EPA now wants to place a thermal destruction facility in 
this same northern parcel.
  To make matters worse, this portion of the site has excellent 
redevelopment opportunities.
  Unfortunately, the placement of this facility at the proposed EPA 
location would negatively affect the value of the parcel and 
drastically alter the city's future development plans.
  The original version of this legislation was not worded to accomplish 
a responsive attitude from EPA nor did it reflect our intention which 
was to make sure the best solution to a problem EPA region IX created 
was reached, both for the environment and the community of Monterey 
Park.
  However, H.R. 2583 reemphasizes the true nature of the bill--one of 
compromise.
  My legislation would block funds for the construction and operation 
of a thermal destruction facility unless the city and EPA agree upon 
its location somewhere on the northern parcel that still will allow for 
the highest and best use of the property in conjunction with the intent 
of the Brownfields Act.
  Throughout my involvement with this site, I have always desired a 
quick and efficient cleanup.
  This can be done while still allowing the economic interests of 
Monterey Park to be fulfilled, especially when other placement 
locations are readily available.
  The reason there has sometimes been extreme criticism of the EPA are 
cases such as this, where the EPA has been totalitarian in its dealing 
with local citizens and their local government.
  I urge all Members to join me in opposition to this obvious affront 
to local interests and inappropriate Federal intrusion in the long-term 
economic viability of this city.

                          ____________________