[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 27, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1031-S1032]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        RCRA REFORM LEGISLATION

 Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for years the Administration has 
expressed a need for targeted legislation which will provide necessary, 
regulatory flexibility for successful clean up goals of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) has unsuccessfully tried several times to address those 
needs through regulatory reform. While those efforts have attempted to 
speed cleanup and make more rational requirements, these attempts have 
repeatedly been met with legal challenges. These challenges severely 
limit the Agency's ability to effectively address this concern. 
Furthermore, a General Accounting Office (GAO) study concluded that EPA 
cannot achieve comprehensive reform through the regulatory process. GAO 
also believes that such reform can best be achieved by revising the 
underlying law.
  Indeed, my colleagues and I have been working with the Administration 
and stakeholders for several years to try to give EPA the flexibility 
it needs. We recognize that Americans are fed up with ineffective 
environmental programs that do little for cleanup. Americans want their 
hard-earned dollars used wisely and effectively.
  RCRA's goals are very important. RCRA involves cleanup of properties 
contaminated with hazardous waste, at more than the 5000 sites. 
Therefore, the barriers to cleanup are a great concern. The GAO report 
echoes these concerns, noting that EPA believes that current RCRA 
requirements can lead parties to select cleanup remedies that are 
either too stringent or not stringent enough--given the risks posed by 
the wastes. Ultimately these requirements can discourage the cleanup of 
sites.
  The current RCRA cleanup program potentially affects all state 
cleanups, including the cleanup of ``brownfield sites.'' Brownfields 
are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial 
facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or 
perceived environmental contamination. As Brownfield redevelopment 
activities have increased, it has come to our attention that the 
hazardous waste management and permitting requirements under RCRA 
either preclude the redevelopment of these properties all together or 
significantly add to the cost and time of their redevelopment.
  Late last year, EPA attempted once more to address the need for 
regulatory flexibility to speed effective RCRA cleanups. This new rule, 
called the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule, addresses several of 
the disincentives to clean up. We applaud the Agency for its efforts. 
Nonetheless, EPA notes with certainty that additional reform is needed.
  The Administration is sending a clear message. RCRA reforms are 
desired. EPA will do what it can, and should be commended for their 
most recent effort. However, legislative reforms are needed this year.
  I commend Senators Chafee, Smith, Lautenberg, Baucus, and Breaux for 
their past efforts to address this problem. I have given them my full 
support in their plans to definitively fix the problem and given 
certainty to recent agency actions. Thank you for your leadership in 
recognizing the need for action. This effort addresses a real need, 
focusing on expediting clean ups. This need can be readily met if we 
continue to work in a bipartisan manner.
 Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, there are over 6000 contaminated 
sites across the country waiting to be cleaned up under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These sites include active 
industrial facilities, unused urban lots well suited for redevelopment, 
and many other sites that have contaminated soil or groundwater. No one 
disputes that these sites should be cleaned up. But RCRA itself, and 
certain regulations implementing RCRA, are making it difficult--and 
unnecessarily costly--to get these sites cleaned up. As a result, 
cleanups at many sites are delayed for years and, in a number of cases, 
not performed at all. The waste remains in place, untreated and 
untouched.
  This is an issue where legislative action can both improve the 
environment and save money. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) 
issued a report in late 1997 that identified three key requirements 
under RCRA that pose barriers to cleanups. The GAO concluded EPA's land 
disposal restrictions, minimum technological requirements for disposal 
facilities, and permitting requirements, when applied to remediation 
waste, can significantly increase the cost of a cleanup action and even 
act as an incentive for parties to abandon cleanups altogether. 
Tailoring these requirements to address the specific characteristics of 
remediation waste would eliminate this incentive, facilitating the 
actual cleanup of thousands of sites, and, according to GAO's estimate, 
save up $2 billion a year without negatively impacting human health or 
the environment.
  This is an environmental problem that we can and should address. And 
it is one that we can resolve in a bipartisan manner.
  During the 105th Congress, the Majority Leader, Senator Bob Smith, 
and I worked with our colleagues on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, the Administration, and interested parties to reform RCRA to 
remove the major regulatory obstacles that currently impede the timely 
remediation of many contaminated sites. There was a broad consensus 
that changes needed to be made to make RCRA work better to clean up 
sites in an environmentally protective manner more quickly and more 
cost effectively. Unfortunately, we ran out of time before we were able 
to reach agreement on specific legislation.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has issued regulations, including 
the recently finalized ``Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for 
Contaminated Media,'' to address some of the regulatory burdens that we 
sought to eliminate through legislation. I applaud the Agency for its 
efforts. I believe, however, that there is still a need for legislation 
in this area to complete the reform the EPA has started. Therefore, I 
intend to make RCRA remediation waste legislation a priority for the 
Environment and Public Works Committee this year. Building on the 
progress

[[Page S1032]]

that we made in the last Congress, I believe we can draft a bill early 
this year that will address the remaining regulatory obstacles that 
exist to achieving environmentally protective and cost effective 
remediations.
  I look forward to working, under Senator Lott's leadership, on a 
bipartisan basis, with all parties interested in RCRA reform. I know 
that Senator Smith, Chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment, shares my 
commitment to reforming RCRA. This is an issue on which everyone 
agrees--reform is necessary, and it can be done in a way that will save 
money without posing a threat to human health or the 
environment.
 Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am here today to 
join my colleagues, Majority Leader Trent Lott and Environment 
Committee Chairman John Chafee, in expressing support for enacting 
legislation this year to reform the remediation waste provisions of the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
  As many of my colleagues know, since I assumed the chairmanship of 
the Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment Subcommittee, which 
has jurisdiction over RCRA, I have worked to bring some rational 
reforms to this hazardous waste law. It is well known that hazardous 
waste cleanups in this country take too long, are too costly, and 
inhibit the redevelopment of industrial brownfield sites.
  Since I first introduced RCRA remediation legislation in the 104th 
Congress, I have worked with Senators Lott, Chafee, Breaux, Baucus, and 
Lautenberg, with the Clinton Administration, state governments and 
members of the industrial and environmental communities to achieve a 
bipartisan fix to this confusing and burdensome law. Despite our best 
efforts, we were not able to come to an agreement before the close of 
the 105th Congress.
  However, I am eager to press forward and reach a bipartisan agreement 
this year. There is simply too much time and money being wasted under 
the current regulatory process for Congress not to take action on this 
important issue. In fact, according to a GAO report, as much as $2 
billion per year could be saved by making certain common sense 
legislative fixes to RCRA. In addition to cost savings, cleanups would 
be accelerated by removing bureaucratic roadblocks. Such reforms mean a 
win for the economy and a win for the environment.
  In closing, I want to reiterate my pledge to working with Senators 
Lott, Chafee, Baucus, and Lautenberg to reach consensus on much needed 
reforms to the RCRA program this year. It will certainly be one of my 
subcommittee's top priorities.

                          ____________________