[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 106 (Friday, July 29, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9531-S9533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 1607. A bill to amend section 10501 of title 49, United States 
Code, to exclude solid waste disposal from the jurisdiction of the 
Surface Transportation Board; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mr LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to 
address a serious problem in New Jersey and across the nation--the 
unregulated sorting and processing of garbage at rail facilities in our 
communities.
  A conflict in Federal laws and policy has resulted in certain solid 
waste-handling facilities located on railroad property being 
unregulated. Environmental laws such as the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
should apply to the operation of these facilities. However, a broad-
reaching Federal railroad law forbids environmental regulatory agencies 
from overseeing the safe handling of trash or solid waste at these 
sites.
  These unintended consequences require our attention, and are the 
reason

[[Page S9532]]

for the Solid Waste Environmental Regulation Clarification Affecting 
Railroads Act of 2005.
  The Federal railroad law in question was enacted most recently in the 
Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 to protect the 
operation of interstate rail service. The law gives `exclusive' 
jurisdiction over rail transportation--and activities incident to such 
transportation--to the Federal Surface Transportation Board.
  I realize this law is necessary for the efficient operation of 
commerce in our modern economy. I serve on the Committee on Commerce, 
Science and Transportation, as well as the Subcommittee on Merchant 
Marine and Surface Transportation, which oversees the Surface 
Transportation Board and considers nominations of its members. The 
board's reputation and expertise in rail regulation is second to none.
  However, the Board is limited to only a passive role in ensuring that 
rail facilities are operated with minimal detriment to the public 
health and safety. These sites require active environmental regulation, 
just like other solid waste handling facilities.
  The recent proliferation of solid waste rail transfer facilities has 
affected the ability of State and local governments to engage in long-
term waste management planning. These agencies also are responsible for 
responding to accidents and incidents occurring at these facilities.
  Although transporting solid waste by rail can reduce the number of 
trucks hauling solid waste on public roads, handling this waste without 
careful planning and management presents a danger to human health and 
the environment.
  These transfer operations create thick dust, which is potentially 
hazardous and is breathed in by local residents and business owners.
  Some transfer facilities don't have proper drainage on site, leading 
to the potential contamination of surface and groundwater and nearby 
wetlands.
  In addition, these facilities raise serious concerns about the safety 
of their workers and the exemptions they claim from strong State worker 
protection laws.
  As a result of these chilling reports, I asked state agencies in New 
Jersey, railroads, and other interested groups to provide input into 
possible legislation to address this problem.
  Many experts in New Jersey, including the Department of Environmental 
Protection, the Meadowlands Commission, the Pinelands Commission, and 
the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, provided excellent suggestions. I 
look forward to working with them throughout the process to find a 
solution to this problem.
  I have also met with railroad interests, who are concerned about 
their ability to continue hauling solid waste. Some operators of these 
rail facilities have voluntarily complied with State environmental 
laws, even though they could claim that Federal railroad law preempts 
any enforcement action States could take. I would like to thank members 
of the solid waste handling industry for their concern and input as 
well.
  One reason this legislation is needed is that the Surface 
Transportation Board has never clarified whether it even has 
jurisdiction over the processing and sorting of solid waste at a rail 
facility.
  This bill would make it clear that Congress' intent was not to 
subvert the policies of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and other 
environmental laws covering the handling of garbage.
  The bill will clarify the intent of Congress in passing these two 
important laws, and ensure that they work together to provide for a 
robust, environmentally responsible rail system.
  Some have suggested that perhaps this clarification should not be 
limited to the processing and sorting of solid waste. But these are the 
activities that require the greatest environmental oversight, because 
they pose the greatest environmental risk.
  Many towns across the country are beginning to understand the problem 
of having an unregulated polluting neighbor, and having nowhere to turn 
for help. Many influential organizations support this effort, 
including: United States Conference of Mayors, National Governors 
Association, Solid Waste Association of North America, Mass Municipal 
Association, National Solid Wastes Management Association, Integrated 
Waste Services Association, and Construction Material Recyclers 
Association.
  These garbage transfer facilities should not be able to circumvent 
and ignore our environmental and. safety laws. I realize that the 
Surface Transportation Board must have broad jurisdiction over rail 
transportation, but that jurisdiction should not be interpreted in a 
way that puts our environment at risk.
  Railroading has a bright future in New Jersey and throughout our 
country, as freight loads have increased to levels we have not seen in 
some time. I have fought for many years to ensure that our freight 
transportation system, the backbone of our national economy, continues 
to flourish. But we need this legislation to ensure that these solid 
waste rail transfer facilities are run in the same environmentally 
responsible manner as other solid waste sites.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1607

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Solid Waste Environmental 
     Regulation Clarification Affecting Railroads Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO EXCLUDE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FROM THE 
                   JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD.

       Section 10501 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``except solid waste 
     management facilities (as defined in section 1004 of the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903)),'' after 
     ``facilities,''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``over mass'' and inserting the following: 
     ``over--
       ``(A) mass''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``; or
       ``(B) the processing or sorting of solid waste.''.

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation being 
introduced today by my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg. 
This legislation, the Solid Waste Environmental Regulation 
Clarification Affecting Railroads Act of 2005, would deal with a 
growing problem in my state: the problem of railroads avoiding strict 
environmental standards by constructing waste transfer facilities next 
to rail lines. I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation.
  I first became aware of this problem when constituents contacted me 
about a waste transfer facility proposed to be built by a railroad in 
Mullica Township, New Jersey. There could not be a worse place for such 
a facility. Mullica Township is located in the Pinelands National 
Reserve, which encompasses more than 1.1 million acres of ecologically 
sensitive land. The Pinelands was designated as our nation's first 
national reserve in order to protect its streams, bogs,and cedar and 
hardwood swamps, as well as the many species that live there. Yet many 
of these protections could be circumvented if this proposed facility is 
built. The railroad argues that federal statute provides a shield from 
all environmental standards for any trash facility built adjacent to a 
rail line. This same argument has been used by railroads in the case of 
5 similar facilities that are already in operation in North Bergen. 
These facilities lie near New Jersey's Meadowlands, another 
environmental treasure.
  The statute being used by the railroads establishes the Surface 
Transportation Board, STB, as the reulatory agency for the nation's 
railroads, title 49 of the United States Code. Under section 10501, the 
STB has exclusive jurisdiction over the ``construction, acquisition, or 
operation'' of ``facilities'' located adjacent to a rail line. The 
railroads argue that facility means any facility, including a trash 
transfer station. They argue that because of this statute, federal law 
preempts all other state and local protections.
  I cannot believe that Congress intended these types of facilities to 
be exempt from State and local environmental standards. The risk to the 
surrounding communities from the air pollution and groundwater 
contamination that could occur when open rail cars carrying solid waste 
are allowed

[[Page S9533]]

to load and off-load is too great. However, I believe that we must take 
steps to clarify the law's intent. The ``Solid Waste Environmental 
Regulation Clarification Affecting Railroads Act of 2005 will do this. 
The Act makes it clear that all state and local environmental laws and 
restrictions apply to these facilities.
  This is a commonsense measure that insures that the public remains 
fully involved in decisions relating to these facilities, regardless of 
where they are built. I urge its enactment.
                                 ______