[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1280-S1282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             LAND DISPOSAL PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 1995

  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2036 
and, further, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2036) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     and make certain adjustments in the lands disposal program to 
     provide needed flexibility, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3464

   (Purpose: To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act, to make certain 
adjustments in the land disposal program to provide needed flexibility, 
                        and for other purposes)

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senators Chafee, Smith, Dole, Lieberman, Nickles, and Kempthorne.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lotti], for Mr. Chafee, 
     for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Dole, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Nickles, 
     and Mr. Kempthorne, proposes an amendment numbered 3464.

  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 2, beginning line 4, strike all through page 4, 
     line 15, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     ``SEC. 2. LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS.

       ``Section 3004(g) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is 
     amended by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) Solid waste identified as hazardous based solely on 
     one or more characteristics shall not be subject to this 
     subsection, any prohibitions under subsection (d), (e), or 
     (f), or any requirement promulgated under subsection (m) 
     (other than any applicable specific methods of treatment, as 
     provided in paragraph (8)) if the waste--
       ``(A) is treated in a treatment system that subsequently 
     discharges to waters of the United States pursuant to a 
     permit issued under section 402 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the ``Clean Water 
     Act'') (33 U.S.C. 1342), treated for the purposes of the 
     pretreatment requirements of section 307 of the Clean Water 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1317), or treated in a zero discharge system 
     that, prior to any permanent land disposal, engages in 
     treatment that is equivalent to treatment required under 
     section 402 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) for 
     discharges to waters of the United States, as determined by 
     the Administrator; and
       ``(B) no longer exhibits a hazardous characteristic prior 
     to management in any land-based solid waste management unit.
       ``(8) Solid waste that otherwise qualifies under paragraph 
     (7) shall nevertheless be required to meet any applicable 
     specific methods of treatment specified for such waste by the 
     Administrator under subsection (m), including those specified 
     in the rule promulgated by the Administrator June 1, 1990, 
     prior to management in a land-based unit as part of a 
     treatment system specified in paragraph (7)(A). No solid 
     waste may qualify under paragraph (7) that would generate 
     toxic gases, vapors, or fumes due to the presence of cyanide 
     when exposed to pH conditions between 2.0 and 12.5.
       ``(9) Solid waste identified as hazardous based on one or 
     more characteristics alone shall not be subject to this 
     subsection, any prohibitions under subsection (d), (e), or 
     (f), or any requirement promulgated under subsection (m) if 
     the waste no longer exhibits a hazardous characteristic at 
     the point of injection in any Class I injection well 
     permitted under section 1422 of title XIV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300h-1).
       ``(10) Not later than five years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall complete 
     a study of hazardous waste managed pursuant to paragraphs (7) 
     or (9) to characterize the risks to human health or the 
     environment associated with such management. In conducting 
     this study, the Administrator shall evaluate the extent to 
     which risks are adequately addressed under existing State or 
     Federal programs and whether unaddressed risks could be 
     better addressed under such laws or programs. Upon receipt of 
     additional information or upon completion of such study and 
     as necessary to protect human health and the environment, the 
     Administrator may impose additional requirements under 
     existing Federal laws, including subsection (m)(1), or rely 
     on other State or Federal programs or authorities to address 
     such risks. In promulgating any treatment standard pursuant 
     to subsection (m)(1) under the previous sentence, the 
     Administrator shall take into account the extent to which 
     treatment is occurring in land-based units as part of a 
     treatment system specified in paragraph (7)(A).
       ``(11) Nothing in paragraphs (7) or (9) shall be 
     interpreted or applied to restrict any inspection or 
     enforcement authority under the provisions of this Act.''.
       On page 7, after line 12, insert the following:
       ``(5) Alaska native villages.--Upon certification by the 
     Governor of the State of Alaska that application of the 
     requirements described in paragraph (1) to a solid waste 
     landfill unit of a Native village (as defined in 

[[Page S1281]]
     section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (16 U.S.C. 1602)) 
     or unit that is located in or near a small, remote Alaska 
     village would be infeasible, or would not be cost-effective, 
     or is otherwise inappropriate because of the remote location 
     of the unit, the State may exempt the unit from some or all 
     of those requirements. This paragraph shall apply only to 
     solid waste landfill units that dispose of less than 20 tons 
     of municipal solid waste daily, based on an annual average.
       ``(6) Further revisions of guidelines and criteria.--
     Recognizing the unique circumstances of small communities, 
     the Administrator shall, not later than two years after 
     enactment of this provision promulgate revisions to the 
     guidelines and criteria promulgated under this subtitle to 
     provide additional flexibility to approved States to allow 
     landfills that receive 20 tons or less of municipal solid 
     waste per day, based on an annual average, to use alternative 
     frequencies of daily cover application, frequencies of 
     methane gas monitoring, infiltration layers for final cover, 
     and means for demonstrating financial assurance: Provided, 
     That such alternative requirements take into account climatic 
     and hydrogeologic conditions and are protective of human 
     health and environment.''.
       On page 2, line 3 strike ``1995'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``1996''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 
2036, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act. This bill, which on 
January 31, 1996, passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 
402 to 19, amends the so-called land ban provisions of the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act. Senator Nickles introduced a similar bill in the Senate, 
S. 1497, which was cosponsored by Senators Smith, Pryor, Bond, Bumpers, 
Inhofe, Lott, Breaux, Johnston, Abraham, Kempthorne, Lieberman, 
Faircloth, Glenn, and Warner.
  H.R. 2036 and its Senate companion, S. 1497, provide a model for 
moving targeted, commonsense legislation that maintains protection of 
human health and the environment while removing duplicative or 
overlapping layers of regulation. It is proof that we can fix those 
parts of our environmental laws that need to be fixed without gutting, 
repealing, or rolling back environmental protection.
  H.R. 2036 passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming 
margin. The legislation is strongly supported by the Clinton 
administration. A joint letter signed by EPA, CEQ, and OMB stated that 
the bill ``would eliminate a mandate that the Environmental Protection 
Agency'' promulgate stringent and costly treatment standards for 
certain low-risk wastes that already are regulated in Clean Water Act 
or Safe Drinking Water Act units.'' I believe that H.R. 2036, as 
amended today, ensures protection of human health and the environment 
while easing two specific regulatory burdens imposed by the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act. In both instances, EPA tried to reduce these regulatory 
burdens through administrative action but the Agency was rebuffed by 
the courts. That is why this legislation is necessary. Time is of the 
essence because the Agency is under court order to promulgate new rules 
under the current law. If we are going to provide relief, now is the 
time to do it.
  The primary purpose of this bill is to prevent duplicative and 
inconsistent regulation of a specific, limited category of wastes under 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The premise underlying the bill is that 
certain low risk, high volume waste streams that are treated to remove 
any hazardous characteristics and that are subsequently discharged in a 
manner meeting the standards of section 402 of the Clean Water Act or 
are injected in class I wells that have received individual permits 
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, need not be subject to the land 
disposal restrictions under RCRA.
  In 1990 regulations to implement the Solid Waste Disposal Act's land 
ban provisions, EPA reasoned that if low risk, high volume wastes were 
being treated in a manner that protects human health and the 
environment under the Clean Water Act in a treatment system or are 
injected into a Safe Drinking Water Act permitted deep well injection 
system, then there was insufficient justification for imposing 
additional, and perhaps inconsistent land ban treatment standards under 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act. EPA's rule was challenged in court, and 
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned EPA's 
approach.
  This bill will allow EPA to grant some relief from the requirements 
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act while undertaking a study to assure 
that the conclusions the Agency reached in 1990 are still valid. It is 
important to note that this bill retains the Agency's authority to 
impose land ban restrictions and treatment standards under the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act if it is found to be necessary in the future.
  The bill will also allow EPA to reimpose another rule vacated by the 
courts; a rule exempting certain small municipal solid waste landfills 
from groundwater monitoring requirements. This provision in H.R. 2036, 
as added by this amendment, conforms with the language in S. 534, the 
Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act, which passed 
the Senate on May 16, 1995.
  This amendment contains several modifications to the House-passed 
bill that will ensure that risks to human health or the environment 
from decharacterized wastes receiving treatment equivalent to that 
required by section 402 of the Clean Water Act or injected in deep well 
injection units that have received individual permits under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act are minimized. The amendment provides that all of 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act inspection and enforcement authorities are 
preserved and will continue to apply to so-called decharacterized 
wastes even if the waste is not subject to the land disposal ban 
requirements as a result of this bill. The amendment protects against 
potential misuse and the use of ``sham'' treatment systems by requiring 
treatment in Clean Water Act impoundments, not merely holding or 
storing waste in the impoundment while it evaporates or settles or, 
worst of all, leaches into ground water. The amendment also makes it 
clear that the Administrator may act to impose additional requirements 
upon receipt of information regarding the risks posed to human health 
and the environment by the wastes managed under this act. If the 
Administrator decides the imposition of additional requirements is 
warranted, the authority is there to do so. The Administrator does not 
have to wait for the results of the study.
  I want to thank Senator Nickles, Senator Smith, chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works subcommittee with jurisdiction over 
hazardous waste, and the other cosponsors of the bill for bringing 
these issues to the attention of the Senate. I especially want to thank 
my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee for 
agreeing to clear H.R. 2036 for rapid floor action. I urge your support 
for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3464) was agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to urge the 
adoption of H.R. 2036 as modified by an amendment of the Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works. The underlying House 
legislation is virtually the same as S. 1497, the Land Disposal and 
Program Flexibility Act of 1995 that Senator Nickles and I, along with 
a broad bipartisan coalition of our colleagues, introduced on December 
21, 1995.
  Under the current land disposal restrictions [LDR's], individuals are 
generally prohibited from the land disposal of hazardous wastes unless 
these wastes have first been treated to meet EPA standards. In Chemical 
Waste Management versus EPA in 1992, the D.C. Circuit Court determined 
that these LDR's would also be extended to nonhazardous wastes managed 
in wastewater systems that are already regulated under the Clean Water 
Act or the underground injection control [UIC] program of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. The court adopted this position despite the fact 
that the EPA had previously adopted a rule authorizing the appropriate 
treatment and disposal of these materials, and despite the fact that 
the Agency believed that such strict standards are inappropriate.
  Section 2 of H.R. 2036, as modified by the Senate, would counteract 
the court's decision and would restore the EPA's original regulatory 
determination allowing these materials to be safely treated and 
disposed of in permitted treatment units and injection 

[[Page S1282]]
wells. This change represents a very straightforward yet significant 
modification to the Solid Waste Disposal Act that has the potential to 
save our society as much as $800 million in annual compliance costs--an 
expense that the EPA agrees will provide no environmental benefit.

  Another issue that is addressed in the Senate amended version of H.R. 
2036 is the issue of ground water monitoring legislation. In October 
1991, the EPA promulgated regulations to exempt certain categories of 
municipal solid waste landfills from ground water monitoring 
requirements. Specifically, this exemption was intended to provide 
relief for communities that had a daily disposal rate of less than 20 
tons of solid waste and which have very little annual precipitation. 
The EPA's authority to issue these regulations was overturned by the 
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Natural Resources Defense Council 
versus EPA, 1993.
  Section 3 of H.R. 2036, as amended by the Senate amendment, is a 
virtually identical version of ground water monitoring language that 
the Senate passed on May 16, 1995, when it adopted the Interstate 
Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1995. This section will 
provide EPA with the necessary authority to implement the ground water 
monitoring regulations that were struck down in Natural Resources 
Defense Council versus EPA.
  As the chairman of the Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment 
Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation, I believe 
that this bill is a good example of a cooperative, bipartisan effort to 
correct expensive and needless environmental overregulation. I 
appreciate the significant time and effort that were spent by my fellow 
Members, the White House, the EPA, our House colleagues, and staff, 
toward speeding the adoption of this much needed legislation. In 
addition to this support, I would note that H.R. 2036 is also supported 
by the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
Officials, the National Association of Counties, and the Ground Water 
Protection Council.
  We need to act quickly to adopt this legislation. If we fail to act, 
the EPA, due to court order, will be forced to implement additional LDR 
regulations in the next few weeks--regulations that they believe are 
both unnecessary from an environmental standpoint as well as needlessly 
costly for the private sector. Our House colleagues understood this 
urgency and passed H.R. 2036 on January 31 by a vote of 402 to 19. 
Given the level of support for this important legislation, I would urge 
my colleagues to unanimously adopt this legislation as amended so we 
can send it to President Clinton as soon as possible.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the House has sent us a bill, H.R. 2036, to 
amend the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, to prevent the 
duplication of regulation on dischargers of nonhazardous waste and 
thereby save hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary compliance 
costs. It is a laudable bill.
  Unfortunately, the House has yet to send to the Senate another needed 
change to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in this Congress, 
a bill to resolve a matter of great importance to me and to most of the 
80,000 units of local government in this country. I am talking about 
addressing their jeopardized ability to regulate the inflow and outflow 
of solid waste in their jurisdiction.
  As my colleagues know, the Senate passed S. 534, the Interstate 
Transportation of Solid Waste Act of 1995, in May of last year. This 
bill is not perfect but it contains amendments needed to resolve some 
of the interstate waste and flow control issues raised in Supreme Court 
decisions from several years ago.
  Interstate transportation and flow control of solid waste are 
pressing matters, as is H.R. 2036. Despite this, the House has yet to 
act on S. 534 or similar legislation. This concerns me. Last week, I 
sought to add S. 534 as an amendment to H.R. 2036 by unanimous consent, 
but was met with objections.
  Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the 
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee if he would help me in 
insisting that the House promptly address this matter so that we might 
get a swift resolution.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan states the 
situation accurately. It is unfortunate that the House has not yet 
acted on S. 534 or a similar bill. I will certainly work with him to 
ensure that the House understands that enactment of S. 534 is a 
priority for the Senate in this Congress. And, the Senator certainly 
retains his right to offer S. 534 to other vehicles, should he so 
choose. In the meantime, I appreciate his willingness not to stall 
progress on moving H.R. 2036.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. I hope he will work 
with me on other vehicles to which I can attach S. 534 in the very near 
future, if the House fails to act promptly.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be deemed 
read a third time, passed as amended, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be 
placed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the bill (H.R. 2036), as amended, was deemed read the third time 
and passed.

                          ____________________