[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 14]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 20705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             THE BROWNFIELDS REMEDIATION WASTE ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 5, 1999

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, along with Mr. Towns, the 
distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Finance and 
Hazardous Materials, I am introducing H.R. XX the Brownfields 
Remediation Waste Act of 1999. This Act reflects a bipartisan effort 
that will do a number of things to improve the Nations' cleanup program 
and, most important, remove barriers and disincentives that have been 
problems for Brownfields and voluntary cleanup programs in all States.
  These problems were not fully understood or thought through when 
Congress passed the 1984 Amendments to the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA). We should not let broken legislation stand in the 
way of remediation activities. Overall, the bill will remove barriers 
and disincentives and tap the expertise of EPA and state programs to 
tailor effective solutions without the straightjacket that has 
inhibited actions for 15 years. We have worked on this bill with the 
input of State agencies and the cleanup contractors, both of whom want 
to see more remediation activity.
  The brownfields problems has many sources and many proposals to help 
bring new life to these areas. Brownfields, loosely defined as 
abandoned or underutilized former industrial properties where actual or 
potential environmental contamination hinders redevelopment or prevents 
it altogether. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') 
estimates that there may be as many as 450,000 such sites nationwide.
  This epidemic poses continuing risks to human health and the 
environment, erodes States and local tax bases, hinders job growth, and 
allows existing infrastructure to go to waste. Moreover, the reluctance 
to redevelop brownfields has led developers to undeveloped 
``greenfields,'' which do not pose any risk of liability. Development 
in these areas contributes to suburban sprawl, and eliminates future 
recreation and agricultural uses.
  In the view of many, Federal law itself can be a culprit. The 
fundamental flaw in RCRA that hinders cleanup is that the law was 
primarily designed to regulate process wastes, not cleanup wastes. As a 
result, the law requires stringent treatment standards, usually based 
on combustion, for most wastestreams; establishes lengthy permit 
requirements; and otherwise presumes that process wastes are 
continuously generated and disposed of at an ongoing manufacturing 
facility. RCRA's requirements are awkward, expensive, and hinder and 
prevent cleanup.
  EPA has stated: ``. . . EPA has long believed that changes in the 
application of certain RCRA requirements to remediation waste are 
appropriate. While the Agency has not endorsed any specific legislative 
proposal, we continue to believe reform to application of RCRA 
requirements to remediation waste, especially RCRA land disposal 
restrictions, minimum technology, and permitting requirement if 
accomplished appropriately, could significantly accelerate cleanup 
actions at Superfund, Brownfield, and RCRA Corrective Action sites 
without sacrificing protection of human health and the environment.''--
Letter from Michael Shapiro, Director, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA 
to Doug MacMillan, Executive Director, Environmental Technology Council 
dated January 27, 1997.

  ``Perhaps the largest expense of RCRA is the enormous cleanup costs 
associated with the corrective action program. Although the RCRA 
corrective action cleanups could have been limited to address failures 
of the RCRA prevention program for as-generated wastes, Congress 
drafted the statute more broadly to capture old, historic wastes as 
well. RCRA corrective action and closures, state cleanups, CERCLA 
actions and voluntary cleanups often involve one-time management of 
large quantities of wastes. Under RCRA, management of these wastes may 
trigger obligations to comply with RCRA procedural and substantive 
requirements. For example, RCRA permits may be required for voluntary 
cleanups or state cleanups. Obviously this could seriously delay 
cleanups and dramatically increase their costs.
  In addition, RCRA substantive standards are designed primarily for 
wastes generated from ongoing industrial processes and may not fit well 
in remedial situations. For example, requirements for pretreatment of 
cleanup wastes may foreclose other cost-effective yet protective 
cleanup options. . . .''--Don Clay, Assistant Administrator U.S. EPA 
before the House Committee on Transportation, March 10, 1992.
  State cleanup agencies have also noted these problems: ``At some 
voluntary sites, onsite management of contaminated soils triggers the 
application of RCRA management requirements. While volunteers should 
use best management practices and comply with RCRA for offsite 
management of soil, meeting RCRA requirements onsite only serves to 
increase costs without providing any commensurate benefits to the 
cleanup.''--Don Schregardus, Director Ohio, EPA, February 14, 1997.
  ``. . . The objectives for site cleanups versus ongoing hazardous 
waste management differ markedly. The RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste 
regulatory framework is designed to ensure the long-term safe 
management and disposal of as-generated hazardous wastes (sometimes 
termed ``Process wastes''). RCRA Subtitle C is a prevention-oriented 
program containing many detailed procedural (permitting) and 
substantive requirements (land disposal restrictions and minimum 
technology requirements). Conversely, the objective of site cleanups is 
to achieve an effective, environmentally protective solution to 
existing contaminated sites. For this reason, application of RCRA 
Subtitle C requirements to wastes that have already been released to 
the environment (i.e. contaminated media) can, in many cases, increase 
costs and delay site remediation efforts without significant 
environmental benefit.''--Catherine Sharp, Environmental Programs 
Administrator, Waste Management Division, Oklahoma department of 
Environmental Quality, on behalf of the Association of State and 
Territorial Waste Management Officials before the House Committee on 
Commerce Transportation and Hazardous Materials on, July 20, 1995.
  Indeed, State cleanup agencies have asked to make this legislation a 
priority and the legislation builds and principles adopted by the 
National Governors Association.
  Cleanup contractors have also asked us to pursue this legislation: 
``The Hazardous Waste Action Coalition (HWAC) the association of 
leading engineering, science and construction firms practicing in 
multimedia environmental management and remediation, strongly 
encourages [Congress] to make RCRA legislative reform a top priority . 
. . to [produce] a sound bipartisan approach to removing impediments 
under RCRA. . . . For example, RCRA's land disposal restriction 
requirements can completely eliminate many technically practicable 
remedies from even being considered. HWAC strongly believes that only 
legislative reform of RCRA [will] remove this and other disincentives 
to cleanup of RCRA contaminated waste sites.''--Letter from the 
Hazardous Waste Action Coalition dated January 6, 1998.
  Clearly the Brownfields Remediation Waste Act of 1999 addresses a 
real set of problems. The bill is tailored to do a number of things to 
address these problems. First, the bill provides EPA new authority to 
tailor regulations for the management of remediation wastes from 
brownfields, voluntary, State and other site cleanups without applying 
the often rigid and inappropriate regulations designed for newly 
generated process waste--thus, allowing EPA to remove barriers to fast 
and efficient cleanups. Second, the Act shields EPA's recent common-
sense regulations concerning remediation wastes from unnecessary and 
disruptive litigation. Third, the bill will provide needed flexibility 
for offsite remediation waste management units. Finally, the Act allows 
State programs, subject to EPA review and approval, to run protective 
remediation waste programs tailored to their brownfields, voluntary 
response or other programs.


  Mr. Towns and I are interested in all bipartisan suggestions for 
improvement and seek your support.

                          ____________________