[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 110 (Wednesday, September 7, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1781-E1782]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. JOE BARTON

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 28, 2005

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, one of the features of H.R. 6 that 
will make a material difference in the protection of groundwater are 
the provisions making key reforms to the Leaking Underground Storage 
Tank (LUST) program. The lack of serious attention to leaking tanks has 
been one of the main causes of groundwater and drinking water 
contamination by fuel and fuel additives. I applaud our Subcommittee 
Chairman, Paul Gillmor, who authored the LUST provisions in H.R. 6 and 
that I have enthusiastically included in this legislation. In addition, 
I agree with and support his interpretation of these provisions, as 
outlined in his Extension of Remarks that appeared in the Congressional 
Record on July 28, 2005, on pages H6964-H6966. There are two specific 
provisions that deserve special mention.
  First, in order to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates, the 
reference to Section 9508(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code in the 
newly created section 9014(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act should be 
considered to mean Section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code in 
order to reflect changes made to Title XIII, Subtitle F, Section 1362. 
This Section of H.R. 6 creates a new Section 6430 at the end of 
Subchapter B of Chapter 65. It amends Section 9508(c) by striking the 
existing subsection 9508(c)(2) and renumbering subsection 9508(c)(1) as 
subsection 9508(c). As the chief author of this bill, it was never my 
intent to see LUST defunded and this instance should not be interpreted 
nor construed as nothing more than a drafting error since the 
historical construct and intent of the provisions in section 9014(2) of 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act are consistent with past versions 
addressing authorizations of appropriations under Subtitle I of the 
Solid Waste Disposal Act. Should it be necessary, I intend to 
immediately pursue statutory changes necessary to ensure proper use of 
collected transportation fuel taxes in the LUST program under the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act.
  Second, Section 1530 on Title XV addresses additional methods to 
protect groundwater, including state requirements on the use of 
secondarily contained underground storage tank systems or conversely 
requiring states to use installer and manufacturer requirements. If a 
state chooses secondary containment, then any new installation of an 
underground storage tank that is within 1,000 feet of community water 
system or potable water well must be secondarily contained. In 
addition, any tank or piping that is replaced on an underground storage 
tank that is within 1,000 feet of a community water system or potable 
water well must be secondarily contained. Repairs to an underground 
storage tank system, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), do not trigger any secondary containment requirements and 
gasoline dispensers must also be addressed as part of the secondary 
containment strategy. If, however, a state chooses installer and 
manufacturer certification, as well as financial responsibility 
requirements, this section requires tank installers and manufacturers 
to follow professional guidelines for tank products or comply with one 
of the new statutory requirements that are similar to subsections (d) 
and (e) of 40 CFR 280.20. In addition, this section requires installers 
and manufacturers to maintain evidence of financial assurance to help 
pay corrective action costs that are directly relatable to a faulty 
tank part or installation. The lone exception to the financial 
assurance requirement is where a tank owner or operator, who already 
maintains evidence of financial responsibility under Section 9003 of 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, is also the installer or manufacturer of 
the underground storage tank. I want to make clear that with respect to 
the financial responsibility option, the conference report references 
the existing financial responsibility authority contained in section 
9003( d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act that applies to owners and 
operators, and as such, it is the intent of this legislation that all 
of the authorities and flexibilities contained in 9003( d) apply to 
underground storage tank installers and manufacturers in the same way 
that they currently apply to owners and operators of underground 
storage tanks.

  H.R. 6 also adds a new section 3022 to Title XXX of the Energy Policy 
Act of 1992. The new section states: ``It is the sense of Congress that 
Federal agencies conducting assessments of risks to human health and 
the environment from energy technology, production, transport, 
transmission, distribution, storage, use, or conservation activities 
shall use sound and objective scientific practices in assessing such 
risks, shall consider the best available science (including peer 
reviewed studies), and shall include a description of the

[[Page E1782]]

weight of the scientific evidence concerning such risks.''.
  For too long, documents and studies have been produced that do not 
reflect science, but rather a given policy bias mixed with elements of 
science. These documents and studies are then paraded forward as if 
they are risk assessments. This sense of Congress specifically finds 
such an approach unacceptable. I want to note that use of the weight of 
the scientific evidence is a specific recommendation in the 1997 Final 
Report of the Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment 
and Risk Management. On page 4 of that report the Commission states: 
``A good risk management decision . . . is based on a careful analysis 
of the weight of scientific evidence that supports conclusions about a 
problem's potential risks to human health and the environment.'' On 
page 23 of that report the Commission states: ``Making judgments about 
risk on the basis of scientific information is called `evaluating the 
weight of the evidence.' . . . . It is important that risk assessors 
respect the objective scientific basis of risk and procedures for 
making inferences in the absence of adequate data.'' On page 38 of that 
report the Commission states: ``Risk assessors and economists are 
responsible for providing decision-makers with the best technical 
information available or reasonably attainable, including evaluations 
of the weight of the evidence that supports different assumptions and 
conclusions.
  It is important the Federal agencies conform their risk assessment 
practices to these principles.

                          ____________________