RCRA Leglislative History Resource Vol. 1


RCRA
Legislative
Hi story
Resource
Volume 1
1984

-------
I
9 5TH CONGRESS TT
1ST SEssioN fj •
(Report No. 98—198, Part I]
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize appropriations for the fiscdl
years 1984 through 1986, and for other p irposes.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
M 3. 1983
Mr. FLORI (for himself, Mr. LEN1’, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. ECKART, Mr. TArzIN.
and Mr RICHARDSON) introduced the following bill, which was referred to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce
L s 17, 1983
Reported with an amendment, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary for a
period ending not later than June 15, 1983, for consideration of such provi-
sions of the hill 2nd arn ndn ents as fall within that committee ’s jur sdicti3n
pursuant to clause 1(m), rule X
[ StrtLe uu: all 3fcer th enactrng clause ar.d insert the part prrnied in italicJ
[ For te,i of introduced b.iI. see copy of bill as introduced on May 3. 1953]
A BILL
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize appropri-
ations for the fiscal years 1984 through 1986, and for other
purposes.
1 Be ii enacted by the Senate and House of Represenla-
2 tires of the United Slates of America in UonQress assembled,

-------
Calendar No. 500
98TH CONGRESS
1ST SEssioN • 7 7
[ Report No. 98—284]
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize funds for fiscal years 1983,
1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987, and for other purposes.
tN TUE SENATE OF TUE UNITED STATES
MARCH 10 (legislative day, MARCH 7), 1983
Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. RANDOLPH) introduced the following bill; which
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works
OCTOBER 28, 1983
Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, with an amendment
[ Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
A BILL
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize funds for
fiscal years 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987, and for
other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the S cii at e and House of Representa-
2 lives of 1/ic United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 eiiowr TITLE
4 SDOTJ0N 4- This Act may be citcd he “ Solid Waato
5 Di po aI Act Amcndmcnt of 1983 !

-------
10/05/84 —— IN THE SENATE
CONFERENCE REPORT SUBMITTED AND CONSIDERED (CR PAGE S-13812)
AGREED TO CONFERENCE REPORT (VOICE VOTE)
10/11/84 —— IN THE HOUSE
RESOLUTION PASSED RELATED TO THIS MEASURE (H.C.R.376)
KEYWORDS:
—ADVISORY AGENCIES AND COMMISSIONS IN
GENERAL
+NATIONAL GROUND WATER COMMISSION
—AIR POLLUTION, QUALITY
+DIOX INS
-AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS
-CATEGORICAL LOANS AND GRANTS
-CHEMICAL MANUFACTUR I NG
-CITY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
—CIVIL PENALTIES
-CLAIMS (SUITS) AGAINST THE
-COAL PRODUCTS AND RESERVES
—CONSULTANTS
—CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
-CRIMINAL PENALTIES
-DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
—DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RELIEF
—ENV I RONMENTAL
—ENV I RONMENTAL
—ENV I RONMENTAL
—ENV I RONMENTAL
-EXPORTS
- EXPORT- I MPORT
STATE S
—FEDERAL FEES AND LICENSES
-FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS
CITATIONS:
-HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, NUCLEAR MATERIALS;
WASTE
PUB.L. 89—272 SEC. 1002—1004, 1006, 2002, 2006, 2007, 3001,
3003—3012, 4001, 4003, 4005, 4008, 5006, 6002, 7002, 7003,
7006, 8004 —— CLEAN AIR ACT, AMENDMENT (10/20/65); SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
PUB.L. 95—510 SEC. 104 —- SMALL BUSINESS ACT, AMENDMENT
(10/24/78)
PUB.L. 96—510 SEC. 104 —— COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,
COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980
SEE ALSO:
S.757
BY CHAFEE CR-RI) —— SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1983
MEASURE FOOTNOTE:
CURRENTLY NONE
+SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS
+LANDFILL SITES
—LABELING AND PACKAGING
—LEGAL FEES
—LIABILITY INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY
-MANUFACTURING IN GENERAL
-OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY
-OIL SPILLS AND OCEAN DUMPING
U.S. -PETROLEUM; OIL AND GAS
—POLLUTION LIABILITY
—PUBLIC HEALTH
-PUBLIC LANDS AND RESOURCES
-REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
—REGULATORY REVIEW AND REFORM
—RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES IN GENERAL
-SALVAGE AND RECYCLING
POLICY AND MANAGEMENT +PAPER MATERIALS
PROTECTION AGENCY -SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
REGULATION -SEWAGE AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT—SMALL BUSINESS
—SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
—STATE GOVERNMENT
—STUDIES AND SURVEYS
-SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
-TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT
-UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
-WATER POLLUTION, QUALITY
+GROUND WATER CONTAM I NAT ION
-WATER RESOURCES
BANK OF THE UNITED

-------
MEASURE PASSED TO THIRD READING (VOICE VOTE)
MEASURE FINALLY PASSED (VOICE VOTE) AS AMENDED
11/09/83 —— IN THE SENATE
RECEIVED IN THE SENATE, AFTER PASSAGE IN THE HOUSE
REFERRED TO SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
07/25/84 —— IN THE SENATE
MOTION TO DISCHARGE, BY CHAFEE (R-RI)
MEASURE DISCHARGED FROM SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
CONSIDERED IN (LAID BEFORE) THE SENATE (CR PAGE S—9200)
MOTION TO STRIKE ALL AFTER ENACTING CLAUSE, BY CHAFEE (R—RI) AND INSERT IN
LIEU THEREOF, S.757, AS AMENDED
AGREED TO MOTION, BY CHAFEE (R-RI) (VOICE VOTE)
ANOTHER MEASURE INCORPORATED INTO THIS MEASURE (S.757)
MEASURE PASSED TO THIRD READING (VOICE VOTE)
MEASURE FINALLY PASSED (VOTE NO. 2196:93—0) AS AMENDED
MOTION TO AMEND TITLE OF MEASURE, BY CHAFEE CR-RI)
TITLE OF MEASURE AMENDED
MOTION TO INSIST ON SENATE AMENDMENT(S) --AND--
MOTION TO REQUEST CONFERENCE, BY CHAFEE CR-RI)
AGREED TO MOTION, BY CHAFEE CR—RI) (VOICE VOTE)
SENT TO CONFERENCE AND CONFEREES APPOINTED (CR PAGE S-9216)
07/30/84 -- IN THE HOUSE
RETURNED TO THE HOUSE FROM THE SENATE, WITH AMENDMENT(S)
08/10/84 -— IN THE HOUSE
CONSIDERED IN (LAID BEFORE) THE HOUSE (CR PAGE H—9029)
MOTION TO DISAGREE TO SENATE AMENDMENT(S --AND--
MOTION TO AGREE TO CONFERENCE, BY DINGELL CD-MI)
08/10/84 —— IN THE HOUSE
AGREED TO MOTION, BY DINGELL (D-MI) (VOICE VOTE)
SENT-TO CONFERENCE AND CONFEREES APPOINTED (CR PAGE H-9029)
09/18/84 —— IN THE HOUSE
PUBLIC MARK—UP HELD BY CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
09/25/84 —— IN THE HOUSE
PUBLIC MARK-UP HELD BY CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
09/26/84 —— IN THE HOUSE
PUBLIC MARK—UP HELD BY CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
09/28/84 -— IN THE HOUSE
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE AGREED TO FILE REPORT IN DISAGREEMENT
10/03/84 -— IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED REPORTED BY CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
REPORT FILED BY CONFERENCE COMMITTEE (H.REPT. 98-1133)
CONFERENCE REPORT SUBMITTED AND CONSIDERED CR PAGE H—11141)
MOTION TO AGREE TO CONFERENCE REPORT, BY FLORIO CD-NJ)
AGREED TO CONFERENCE REPORT (VOICE VOTE)

-------
11/03/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
AGREED TQCOMMI.TTEE AMENDMENT(S) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY WYDEN (D-OR) TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS OF RECOVERED
MATERIALS AND TO REQUIRE MAXIMUM USE OF POST CONSUMER PAPER MATERIALS (
CR PAGE H-9159)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY WYDEN (D-OR) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY ECKART (D-OH) TO REQUIRE EPA TO STUDY THE ADEQUACY OF
GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA IN THE BILL IN TERMS OF PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH
AND THE ENVIRONMENT FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (CR PAGE H-9161)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY ECKART (D-OH) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY LENT (R-NY) TO REQUIRE THAT THE NEEDS OF THE RECYCLING
INDUSTRY ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN DEVELOPING ENERGY FACILITIES THAT
BURN WASTE PRODUCTS (CR PAGE H-9162)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY LENT (R-NY) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY FLORIO (D-NJ) TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL GROUNDWATER
COMMISSION (CR PAGE H-9164)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY FLORIO (D-NJ) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY GORE (D-TN) TO REQUIRE THAT CORRECTIVE ACTION BE TAKEN
BEYOND THE BOUNDARY OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY UNLESS THE OWNER OF
THE PROPERTY DENIES THE OPERATOR OF THE FACILITY PERMISSION TO TAKE
SUCH ACTION (CR PAGE H-9166)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY GORE (D-TN) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY LEVITAS (D-GA) TO PROVIDE A CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW
MECHANISM FOR RULES ISSUED BY THE EPA GOVERNING SMALL QUANTITY
GENERATORS (CR PAGE H-9168)
RECORD VOTE DEMANDED, ‘BY LEVITAS (D—GA)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY LEVITAS (D-GA) (VOTE NO. 1451:198-195)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY TAUZIN (D-LA) TO EXEMPT FACILITIES USED TO DISPOSE OF
MINING WASTES FROM THE DOUBLE-LINER REQUIREMENT PENDING THE COMPLETION
OF A STUDY ON THE TOXICITY OF SUCH WASTES (CR PAGE H-9180)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY TAUZIN (0-LA) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY FLORIO (D-NJ) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT (CR PAGE H-9181)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY FLORIO (D-NJ) (VOICE VOTE)
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE AMENDMENT(S) IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE,
AS AMENDED
AGREED TO COMMITTEE AMENDMENT(S) (VOICE VOTE) AS AMENDED
UNDER THE RULE, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ROSE
REPORTED FAVORABLY, WITH AMENDMENT(S), BY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT(S) FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
SEPARATE VOTE DEMANDED, BY FLORIO (0-NJ) ON THE LEVITAS AMENDMENT CONCERNING
SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS
RECORD VOTE DEMANDED, BY CAMPBELL (R-SC) ON THE SEPARATE VOTE ON THE LEVITAS
AMENDMENT
REJECTED AMENDMENT, BY LEVITAS (0-GA) (VOTE NO. 1452:189-204)
MOTION TO ADOPT ALL AMENDMENTS FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BY FOLEY (D-WA)
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LEVITAS AMENDMENT
AGREED TO AMENDMENT(S) FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (VOICE VOTE)
MEASURE PASSED TO THIRD READING (VOICE VOTE)
MEASURE FINALLY PASSED (VOICE VOTE) AS AMENDED
11/09/83 -- IN THE SENATE
RECEIVED IN THE SENATE, AFTER PASSAGE IN THE HOUSE
REFERRED TO SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

-------
RECORD VOTE—DEI4AtIDED --AND--
POINT OF ORDER THAT QUORUM NOT PRESENT, BY DINGELL (0-MI)
QUORUM CALL (VOTE NO. 1433:378 PRESENT) (FIRST JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT)
MOTION THAT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RISE, BY FLORIO CD-NJ)
AGREED TO MOTION, BY FLORIO (0—NJ) (VOICE VOTE)
REPORTED, WITHOUT RESOLUTION, BY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
11/03/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
CONSIDERED IN (LAID BEFORE) THE HOUSE (CR PAGE H-9133)
MOTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BY MINISH (D-NJ)
AGREED TO MOTION, BY MINISH (0-NJ) (VOICE VOTE)
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE AMENDMENT(S) (SECOND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT,
CR PAGE H-9133)
AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT) OFFERED, BY HUGHES (0-NJ) A PERFECTING AMENDMENT TO
THE SECOND COMMITTEE AMENDMENT, TO DIRECT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
DEPUTIZE EMPLOYEES OF THE EPA AS SPECIAL DEPUTY U.S. MARSHALS IN
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE BILL (CR PAGE H-9144)
DIVISION (STANDING) VOTE DEMANDED, BY HUGHES (0-NJ) ON HIS PERFECTING
AMENDMENT -
REJECTED AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT), BY HUGHES CD—NJ) (DIVISION: 6—9)
RECORD VOTE DEMANDED --AND--
POINT OF ORDER THAT QUORUM NOT PRESENT, BY HUGHES CD-NJ)
QUORUM CALL (VOTE Np. 1449:404 PRESENT)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT), BY HUGHES (D-NJ) (VOTE NO. 1450:292-125)
UNDER THE RULE, THE SECOND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT FALLS AND IS NOT
VOTED ON
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE AMENDMENT(S) (JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT 3-8,
CR PAGE H-9147)
AGREED TO COMMITTEE AMENDMENT(S) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY PANETTA (D-CA) TO REQUIRE EPA TO NOTIFY LOCAL OFFICIALS
IF IT FINDS THE IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE POSES AN IMMEDIATE
THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND TO REQUIRE SUCH NOTICE TO BE PROMPTLY
POSTED (CR PAGE H—9147)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY PANETTA (D-CA) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY MOLINARI (R—NY) TO REQUIRE THE EPA TO REPORT ON THE
DUMPING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES INTO PUBLIC SEWERS (CR PAGE 11-9149)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY MOLINARI CR-NY) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY FLORIO (0-NJ) TO MAKE IT AN OBJECTIVE OF THE SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL ACT TO GIVE PRIORITY TO ASSISTING AND COOPERATING WITH
SITES IN CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT (CR PAGE H-9154)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY FLORIO (D-NJ) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY BREAUX (D-LA) A CLARIFYING AMENDMENT (CR PAGE H-9155)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY BREAUX CD-LA) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY LENT (R-NY) TO REQUIRE THE ADMINISTRATOR TO SET A DATE
FOR THE EXPIRATION OF INTERIM AUTHORIZATIONS AND PROVIDES FOR
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN STATES AND THE EPA IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF NEW
PROVISIONS IMPOSED BY THIS BILL (CR PAGE H—9156)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY LENT (R-NY) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY TRAXLER (0-MI) TO PERMIT THE WAIVING, UNDER CERTAIN
CONDITIONS, OF THE DOUBLE-LINER REQUIREMENT FOR ANY MONOFILL CONTAINING
FOUNDRY WASTES (CR PAGE H-9157)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY TRAXLER CD-MI) (VOICE VOTE)
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE AMENDMENT(S) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT (CR PAGE 11-9158)

-------
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY LENT (R-NY) TO PERMIT STATES TO USE EXPENDITURES FOR
CLEAN{N&UPHAZARDOUS WASTE SITES AS CREDIT TOWARD THE REQUIRED STATE
MATCH UNDER SUPERFUND (CR PAGE H-8162)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY LENT CR-NY) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY MIKULSKI (D-MD) TO PROHIBIT THE EXPORT OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE UNLESS THE RECEIVING COUNTRY CERTIFIES IT IS AWARE OF THE
HAZARDOUS NATURE OF THE WASTE AND THAT IT IS WILLING TO RECEIVE IT (CR
PAGE H-8163)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY MIKULSKI (D—MD) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY SKELTON (0-MO) TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF SUPERFUND FOR
COMMUNITY RELOCATION (CR PAGE H-8164)
POINT OF ORDER, BY FLORIO (D-NJ) THAT THE SKELTON AMENDMENT IS NOT GERMANE
10/06/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
CHAIR SUSTAINED POINT OF ORDER, BY FLORIO (D-NJ) AND THE AMENDMENT IS OUT
OF ORDER
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE AMENDMENT(S) (FIRST JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT,
CR PAGE H—8167)
MOTION THAT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RISE, BY FLORIO (D-NJ)
AGREED TO MOTION, BY FLORIO (D-NJ) (VOICE VOTE)
REPORTED, WITHOUT RESOLUTION, BY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
10/17/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY LENT (R-NY) TO DEFINE THE TERM RECOVERABLE
MATERIAL AS WASTEPAPER OR RECOVERABLE PAPER (CR PAGE H-8245)
10/19/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY GORE (0-TN) TO REQUIRE THAT CORRECTIVE
ACTION BE TAKEN BEYOND THE BOUNDARY OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY IN
ORDER TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT (CR PAGE H-8379)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY MOLINARI (R-NY) TO REQUIRE THAT ANY
CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF LAND OWNED BY THE U.S. ON WHICH HAZARDOUS
WASTE WAS DISPOSED OF SHALL INCLUDE NOTICE OF THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF
THE WASTE AND THE TIME OF DISPOSAL (CR PAGE H-8379)
10/28/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY GORE (0-TN) TO REQUIRE THAT CORRECTIVE
ACTION BE TAKEN BEYOND THE BOUNDARY OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY WHERE
NECESSARY TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT (CR PAGE H-8850)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY TRAXLER (0-MI) TO PROVIDE FOR THE WAIVING
OF THE DOUBLE-LINER REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES
CR PAGE H-8850)
10/31/83 -— IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY EDGAR (0-PA) TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL
GROUND WATER COMMISSION (CR PAGE H-89O7)
CONSIDERED IN (LAID BEFORE) THE HOUSE (CR PAGE H-8889)
MOTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BY MINISH (D-NJ)
AGREED TO MOTION, BY MINISH (D-NJ) (VOICE VOTE)
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE AMENDMENT(S). FROM JUDICIARY COMMITTEE,
TO STRIKE PROVISIONS EMPOWERING EPA TO LITIGATE CASES IF THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT FAILS TO ACT WITHIN 150 DAYS (CR PAGE H-8889)
DIVISION (STANDING) VOTE DEMANDED, BY HUGHES (D-NJ) ON ADOPTION OF THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
AGREED TO COMMITTEE AMENDMENT(S) (DIVISION: 8-7)

-------
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS OF DIOXIN (CR PAGE H-8O81)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY SKELTON CD-MO) TO ISSUE A RESEARCH,
DEVEtOPIIEI4T, AND DEMONSTRATION PERMIT TO ANY HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY
WHICH UTILIZES AN EXPERIMENT WASTE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY (CR PAGE
H—8082)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY VOLKMER (D-MO) TO PROHIBIT LAND DISPOSAL
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AT ANY TIME THE EPA DETERMINES ANOTHER FEASIBLE
MEANS OF WASTE TREATMENT EXISTS (CR PAGE H-8082)
10/06/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
CONSIDERED IN (LAID BEFORE) THE HOUSE (CR PAGE H-8133)
MOTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BY MITCHELL, PARREN CD-MD)
AGREED TO MOTION, BY MITCHELL, PARREN CD-MD) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY FLORIO (D-NJ) TO CHANGE THE SCHEDULE FOR EPA TO
DETERMINE WHICH OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTES SHOULD BE BANNED FROM LAND
DISPOSAL (CR PAGE H-8134)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY FLORIO (D-NJ) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY BREAUX CD—LA) TO BAN THE DISPOSAL OF LIQUID HAZARDOUS
WASTE IN SALT DOMES, CAVES, OR MINES UNLESS THE EPA AND CONGRESS
APPROVES SUCH ACTIONS AND A FINAL PERMIT IS OBTAINED (CR PAGE H-8135)
AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT) OFFERED, BY HANCE (0-TX) TO ADD SALT BEDS TO THE
LIST OF REGULATED SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS (CR PAGE H—8145)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT), BY HANCE (D-TX) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT) OFFERED, BY TAUZIN (0-LA) TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN
EXEMPTIONS FOR FACILITIES USED TO DISPOSE OF MINING WASTES (CR PAGE
H-8147)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT), BY TAUZIN (D-LA) (VOICE VOTE)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY BREAUX (0-LA) (VOICE VOTE) AS AMENDED
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY TAUZIN (D-LA) TO REQUIRE THE EPA TO PROMULGATE
STANDARDS REQUIRING THE UTILIZATION OF EARLY LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS FOR
LAND DISPOSAL UNITS (CR PAGE H—8150) -
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY TAUZIN (0-LA) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY VOLKMER CD-MO) TO REQUIRE THE ADMINISTRATOR TO PROHIBIT
LAND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT A
TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE EXISTS (CR PAGE H-8151)
REJECTED AMENDMENT, BY VOLKMER (0-MO) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY FROST (D—TX) TO PROHIBIT THE BURNING OF FUEL CONTAINING
HAZARDOUS WASTE IN CEMENT KILNS IN AREAS WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN
500,000 UNLESS SUCH KILN COMPLIES WITH INCINERATOR REGULATIONS (CR PAGE
H-8153)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY FROST (D-TX) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY TORRES (0-CA) TO REQUIRE HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL
OPERATORS TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS ON THE
SURROUNDING COMMUNITY (CR PAGE H-8155)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY TORRES (0-CA) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY SKELTON (D-MO) TO AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ISSUE
A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ANY HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT
FACILITY WHICH PROPOSES TO USE AN INNOVATIVE AND EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT
PROCESS (CR PAGE 11-8158)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY SKELTON (0-MO) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY MOLINARI (R—NY) TO REQUIRE RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES
TO COMPLY WITH THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY FOR THE CONTROL OF
EMISSIONS OF DIOXIN INTO THE AMBIENT AIR (CR PAGE H-8161)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY MOLINARI (R-NY) (VOICE VOTE)

-------
MOTION THAT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RISE, BY FLORIO (0-NJ)
AGREED TO MOTION, BY FLORIO (0-NJ) (VOICE VOTE)
REPORTED, WiTHQ11J RESOLUTION, BY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
09/27/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY ECKART (0-OH) TO PROVIDE FOR A STUDY OF
THE EXTENT TO WHICH GUIDELINES UNDER THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT ARE
ADEQUATE TO PROTECT UNDERGROUND SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER (CR PAGE
H—7553)
09/28/83 —- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY EDGAR (D-PA) TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL
GROUND WATER COMMISSION (CR PAGE H-7649)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY TAUZIN (0-LA) TO REQUIRE THAT ALL
FACILITIES CONNECTED WITH THE STORAGE, TREATMENT, OR DISPOSAL OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE UTILIZE APPROVED LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS (CR PAGE
H- 7650 )
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY TORRES (0-CA) TO REQUIRE EACH LANDFILL TO
CONDUCT A HEALTH EFFECTS STUDY OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE ASSOCIATED WITH
SUCH LANDFILL (CR PAGE H—7650)
09/29/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY ECKART (0—OH) TO STUDY THE ADEQUACY OF
CERTAIN GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA APPLIED TO SOLID WASTE FACILITIES FOR
THE PREVENTION OF CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER (CR PAGE H-7765)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY MARKEY CD-MA) TO PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON THE
DISPOSAL OF HAZP RDOUS WASTE ON FEDERAL LANDS (CR PAGE 11-7766)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY MOLINARI (R-NY) To REVISE REGULATIONS TO
ENSURE THAT SUBSTANCES WHICH PASS THROUGH A PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM ARE
ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT (CR
PAGE H-7766)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY SPRATT CD—SC) TO GIVE SPECIAL EMPHASIS TO
THE AMOUNT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES DISPOSED OF IN EACH STATE IN DEVELOPING
AN ASSISTANCE ALLOCATION FORMULA (CR PAGE H-7766)
10/03/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY MIKULSKI (0-MD) TO REGULATE THE
EXPORTATION OF ANY HAZARDOUS WASTE (CR PAGE 11—7883)
10/04/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY SKELTON (D-MO) TO ISSUE A RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PERMIT FOR ANY HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT FACILITY WHICH PROPOSED TO UTILIZE AN EXPERIMENTAL WASTE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY (CR PAGE H-7972)
10/05/83 - - IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY GORE (D—TN) TO REQUIRE ANY HAZARDOUS WASTE
FACILITY TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS BEYOND THE FACILITY BOUNDARY WHERE
NECESSARY TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT (CR PAGE H-8O80)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY LEVITAS (D-GA) TO PROVIDE FOR
CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF EPA RULES REGARDING SMALL QUANTITY WASTE
GENERATORS (CR PAGE H-8O81)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY MOLINARI (R-NY) TO REQUIRE RESOURCE
RECOVERY FACILITIES TO COMPLY WITH THE BEST PRACTICAL TECHNOLOGY FOR

-------
DOLLARS FOR THE EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR SMALL GENERATORS (CR PAGE
H—6355)
ORDERED PRINTTNGbF AMENDMENT(S), BY SKELTON (0-MO) TO REQUIRE THE EPA TO STUDY
THE MANIFEST SYSTEM FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES AS IT APPLIES TO SMALL
QUANTITY GENERATORS (CR PAGE H-6355)
08/03/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY TAUZIN (D-LA) TO REQUIRE THE MONITORING OF
GROUNDWATER NEAR EACH LANDFILL OR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT CONTAINING
HAZARDOUS SOLID WASTES (CR PAGE H-6475)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY TORRES (0—CA) TO REQUIRE EACH LANDFILL TO
CONDUCT A HEALTH RISK STUDY FOR THE AFFECTED COMMUNITY OF THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH LANDFILL (CR PAGE H-6475)
08/04/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY TAUZIN (0-LA) TO REQUIRE THAT FACILITIES
USED FOR THE STORAGE OR DISPOSAL OF LIQUID HAZARDOUS WASTE UTILIZE
APPROVED LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS (CR PAGE H—6611)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY WALKER CR-PA) (VOICE VOTE)
RESOLUTION PASSED RELATED TO THIS MEASURE (H.RES.274)
CONSIDERED IN (LAID BEFORE) THE HOUSE (CR PAGE H-6500)
MOTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BY MURTHA (0-PA)
AGREED TO MOTION, BY MURTHA (D-PA) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY BONIOR (D—MI) TO INCREASE THE AUTHORIZATION FOR STATE
IMPLEMENTATION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS TO 10 MILLION DOLLARS
CR PAGE H—6513)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY BONIOR (D-MI) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY SHELBY (0-AL) TO ALLOW THE EPA 30 MONTHS TO DEVELOP NEW
REGULATIONS FOR SMALL GENERATORS AND TO PROVIDE AN EDUCATION PROGRAM
FOR SMALL GENERATORS (CR PAGE H-6514)
AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT) OFFERED, BY FLORID (0-NJ) TO PROVIDE NOTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS (CR PAGE H—6517)
RECORD VOTE DEMANDED, BY LENT (R-NY) ON THE FLORIO AMENDMENT TO THE SHELBY
AMENDMENT
AGREED TO AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT), BY FLORIO (D-NJ) (VOTE NO. 1324:236-180)
AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT) OFFERED, BY HILER (R-IN) TO PHASE IN THE
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OVER A 27 MONTH PERIOD (CR PAGE H-6529)
RECORD VOTE DEMANDED, BY HILER (R-IN) ON HIS AMENDMENT TO THE SHELBY AMENDMENT
AGREED TO AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT), BY HILER (R-IN) (VOTE NO. 1325:218—192)
AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT) OFFERED, BY SKELTON (0-MO) TO AUTHORIZE 500, -
000 DOLLARS FOR THE EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR SMALL GENERATORS (CR PAGE
H-6531)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT), BY SKELTON (0-MO) (VOICE VOTE)
AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT) OFFERED, BY SKELTON (0-MO) TO REQUIRE THE EPA TO
STUDY THE MANIFEST SYSTEM FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES AS IT APPLIES TO SMALL
QUANTITY GENERATORS (CR PAGE H-6533)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT (TO AMENDMENT), BY SKELTON (0-MO) (VOICE VOTE)
08/04/83 -— IN THE HOUSE
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY SHELBY (D-AL) (VOICE VOTE), AS AMENDED
AMENDMENT OFFERED, BY COLLINS, CARDISS (D—IL) TO REQUIRE THE EPA TO REPORT TO
CONGRESS ON THE FEASIBILITY OF EASING THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON
SMALL QUANITY GENERATORS, INCREASING COMPLIANCE, AND SIMPLIFYING
ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS (CR PAGE H-6533)
AGREED TO AMENDMENT, BY COLLINS, CARDISS (0-IL) (VOICE VOTE)

-------
CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL BY COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD
ENDING NO LATER THAN JUNE 17, 1983
06/17/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
REPORT FILED BY HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY (H.REPT. 98-198, PT. III)
07/20/83 -— IN THE HOUSE
RESOLUTION SUBMITTED PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THIS MEASURE (H.RES.274)
07/26/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND SAFETY ISSUES AFFECTING SMALL
BUSINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY BONIOR (D—MI) TO INCREASE THE
AUTHORIZATION FOR STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS
TO 10 MILLION DOLLARS (CR PAGE H-5713)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY MIKULSKI CD-MD) TO PROHIBIT THE EXPORT OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS (CR PAGE H-5713)
07/27/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY MARKEY (0-MA) TO ADD PROVISIONS CONCERNING
CITIZEN SUITS AGAINST HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES OWNED BY STATES (CR
PAGE H-5802)
07/28/83 —- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY EDGAR CD-PA) TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL
GROUND WATER COMMISSION (CR PAGE H-5920)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY FROST (0-TX) TO PROHIBIT THE BURNING OF
FUEL CONTAINING HAZARDOUS WASTE IN CERTAIN AREAS UNTIL REGULATIONS ARE
PROMULGATED CONCERNING SUCH INCINERATION (CR PAGE H-5921)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY MIKULSKI (0—MD) TO REQUIRE THE REGULATION
OF EXPORT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE (CR PAGE H-5921)
08/01/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY BREAUX (D-LA) TO PROHIBIT THE DISPOSAL OF
LIQUID HAZARDOUS WASTES IN LANDFILLS OR SALT DOME FORMATIONS (CR PAGE
H—6129)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY TAUZIN (0-LA) TO REQUIRE THE MONITORING OF
GROUNDWATER BY EACH LANDFILL OR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT CONTAINING
HAZARDOUS SOLID WASTES (CR PAGE H-6131)
08/02/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY BREAUX (D-LA) TO PROHIBIT THE PLACEMENT OF
CERTAIN HAZARDOUS WASTES IN MINES, LANDFILLS AND SALT DOME FORMATIONS
CR PAGE H—6353)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY DOWDY (D-MS) TO EXTEND THE IMPLEMENTATION
DEADLINE OF THE EPA UNIFORM HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST FORM (CR PAGE
H-6354)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY HILER CR-IN) TO PHASE IN THE NOTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL GENERATORS OVER A 27 MONTH PERIOD (CR PAGE
H-6354)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY LENT (R-NY) TO ALLOW THE EPA 30 MONTHS TO
DEVELOP NEW REGULATIONS FOR SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR WASTE AND TO
PROVIDE AN EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR SMALL GENERATORS (CR PAGE H-6354)
ORDERED PRINTING OF AMENDMENT(S), BY SKELTON (0-MO) TO AUTHORIZE 500,000

-------
LEGI-SLATE REPORJ fOR 98TH CONGRESS 10:56 AM(EDT), 7/31/84
H.R.2867 BY FLORIO (D-NJ) -- HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF
1983
CAPTION (OFFICIAL TITLE):
A BILL TO AMEND THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT TO AUTHORIZE FUNDS FOR THE
FISCAL YEARS 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 AND 1989, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
INTRODUCED: 05/03/83
COSPONSORS:
CURRENTLY 5 TOTAL (4 DEMOCRATS, 1 REPUBLICAN)
MOST RECENT ADDITION ON 05/03/83
COMMITTEE REFERRALS:
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
SCHEDULE OF HEARINGS, MARK—UP OR BUSINESS MEETINGS:
CURRENTLY NONE
ALL SPECIFIED ACTIONS:
05/03/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
INTRODUCED
REFERRED TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
05/12/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED REPORTED, AS AMENDED, BY HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
05/16/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
MOTION, BY FOLEY (D-WA) FOR THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE TO HAVE
UNTIL 5 P.M., MAY 17, 1983, TO FILE A REPORT ON THE MEASURE
NO OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT, BY FOLEY (D-WA)
05/17/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
REPORT FILED BY HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE (H.REPT. 98-198)
REFERRED TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY WITH INSTRUCTIONS
06/07/83 —- IN THE HOUSE
PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY MONOPOLIES AND COMMERCIAL LAW SUBCOMMITTEE
ORDERED REPORTED, AS AMENDED, BY MONOPOLIES AND COMMERCIAL LAW SUBCOMMITTEE
06/09/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
REPORT FILED BY HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE (H.REPT. 98—198,
PT. II)
06/14/83 -- IN THE HOUSE
ORDERED REPORTED, AS AMENDED, BY HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
06/15/83 -— IN THE HOUSE

-------
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Authorizations for fiscal years 1984 through 1986.
Sec. 3. Small quantity generator waste.
Sec. 4. Interim control of hazardous waste injection.
Sec. 5. Land disposal of hazardous waste.
Sec. 6. Early leak detection system.
Sec. 7. Burning and blending for energy recovery.
Sec. 8. Interim status; permits.
Sec. 9. New and innovative treatment technologies.
Sec. 10. Reuse, recycling, and reclamation.
Sec. 11. Size of certain facilities.
Sec. 12. Hazardous waste facilities owned by States or political subdivisions.
Sec. 13. Export of hazardous waste.
Sec. 14. Enforcement.
Sec. 15. Domestic sewage.
Sec. 16. Findings and objectives of Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Sec. 17. Listing and delisting of hazardous waste.
Sec. 18. Hazardous constituents.
Sec. 19. Recovery and recycling of used oil.
Sec. 20. State authorization.
Sec. 21. Effective date of regulations.
Sec. 22. Prior releases.
Sec. 23. State-operated landfills.
Sec. 24. Availability of information.
Sec. 25. Ombudsman.
Sec. 26. Design and performance standards.
Sec. 27. Management of used oil.
Sec. 28. Use of recovered materials by Federal agencies.
Sec. 29. Mandatory inspections.
Sec. 30. Adequacy of certain guidelines and criteria.
Sec. 31. National Ground Water Commission.
Sec. 32. Corrective action beyond facility boundaries; underground tanks.
Sec. 33. Clerical corrections.
(b) AMENDMENT.—ExCept as otherwise expressly pro-
2 vided in this Act, whenever in this Act an amenthnent or
3 repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of,
4 a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
5 to be a reference to a section or other provision of the Solid
6 Waste Disposal Act.
HR 2867 RFS

-------
U
98TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
IN TIlE SENATE OF TIlE UNITED STATES
NOVEMBER 9 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 7), 1983
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works
AN ACT
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize appropri-
ations for the fiscal years 1984 through 1986, and for other
purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 fives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 SECTION 1. (a) SHORT TITLE.—ThiS Act may be cited
5 as the “Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of
6 1983”.

-------
Calendar No. 500
98m CONGRESS 1 1 R i ’owr
1st Sesswn j SENATE I No. 98-284
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT AMENDMENTS
OF 1983
REPORT
OF ThE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
TO ACCOMPANY
S. 757
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
OCTOBER 28 (legislative day, OCTOBER 24), 1983.—Ordered to be printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFPICE
WASHINGTON: 1983
23-3710

-------
H
Calendar No. 500
98TH CONGRESS
1ST SEssioN
[ Report No. 98—284]
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize funds for fiscal years 1983,
1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987, and for other purposes.
IN TEE SENATE OF TEE UNITED STATES
MARCH 10 (legislative day, MARCH 7), 1983
Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. RANDOLPH) introduced the following bill; which
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works
OCTOBER 28, 1983
Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, with an amendment
[ Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
A BILL
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize funds for
fiscal years 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987, and for
other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 lives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 OHOBT TITLI3
4 SECTIoN 4 Thi3 Aet may he citod a the Solid Waato
5 Diopooal Aet Amcndmont9 of 1983” .

-------
‘1) MA
/
In the Senate of the United States,
July 25 (legislative day, July 23), 1984.
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representa-
tives (H.R. 2867) entitled “An Act to amend the Solid Waste
Disposal Act to authorize appropriations for the fiscal years
1984 through 1986, and for other purposes”, do pass with the
following
AMENDMENTS:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SHORT TITLE
SEcTioN 1. This Act may be cited as the “Solid
Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984 ‘
AUTHORIZATION
SEc. 2. Section 2007(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act is amended by striking “and” immediately following
“1981,” and by inserting immediately before the period at
the end thereof “, $70,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1985, and $80,000,000 per fiscal year for
fiscal years ending September 30, 1986, September 30,
1987, September 30, 1988, and September 30, 1989’
SEC. 3. Section 3011(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act is amended by striking “and” immediately following
“1981,” and by inserting immediately following “1982”the
following: “, $55,000,000 for the fiscal year 1985, and

-------
2
Sec. 10. Hazardous waste facilities owned by States or political subdivisions.
Sec. 11. Enforcement.
Sec. 12. Findings and objectives of Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Sec. 13. Listing and delisting of hazardous waste.
Sec. 14. Recovery and recycling of used oil.
Sec. 15. State authorization.
Sec. 16. Effective date of regulations.
Sec. 17. Prior releases.
Sec. 18. State operated landfills
Sec. 19. Availability of information.
Sec. 20. Ombudsman.
Sec. 21. Design and performance standards.
Sec. 22. Management of used oil.
Sec. 23. Use of recovered materials by Federal agencies.
Sec. 24. Mandatory inspections.
Sec. 25. Clerical corrections.
(b) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, whenever in this Act an
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a sec-
tion or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be a reference to a sec-
lion or other provision of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
AUThORIZATIONS FOE FISCAL YEARS 1984 THEOUGH 1986
Sec. 2. (a) Ggi ,xp.*i. AumoRxz&’rIoN.—Section 2007(a) is amended by striking out
“and $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982” and substituting
“$80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, $57,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1984, $61,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1985, and $61,000,000 for the fiscal year 1986.”.
(b) STATE H*z anous WASTE Pnocw s.—Section 3011(a) is amended by striking
out “and $40,000,000 for the fiscal year 1982” and substituting “$40,000,000 for the
fiscal year 1982, $50,000,000 for the fiscal year 1984, $55,000,000 for the fiscal year
1985, and $60,000,000 for the fiscal year 1986”.
(c) HazARDous WASTE Srm INvzriroaY.—Section 3012 (relating to the hazardous
waste inventory) is amended by— ___
(1) redesignating such section (and the corresponding reference thereto in the
table of contents) as “Section 3012A.”; and
(2) by striking out “$20,000,000” in subsection (cX2) and inserting in lieu
thereof “$25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1984 through 1986”.
Cd) DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION AsSWTANcE.—Section 40Q8(aXl) is amend-
ed by striking out “and $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1982” and substituting
“$20,000,000 for the fiscal year 1982, and $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
1984 through 1986”.
Ce) IMPLEMENTATION AZSI5TANCE.—SeCtiOn 4008 (aX2XC) is amended by striking out
“and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1982” and substituting “$10,000,000 for fiscal year
1982, and $2,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1984 through 1986”.
(f) Spxcui. Coswuwrrtga.—Section 4008(eX2) is amended by striking out “and
$1,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1981 and 1982” and substituting “, $1,500,000
for each of the fiscal years 1981 and 1982, and $500,000 for each of the fiscal years
1984 through 1986”.
ASSISTANCE TO STATSS FOR Racycizn OIL PROGRAMs—Section 4008 is amend-
(1) by redesignating the second subsection (f) (relating to assistance to munici-
palities for energy and materials conservation and recovery planning activities)
as subsection (g); and
(2) in paragraph (4) of subsection (0 (relating to assistance to States for discre-
tionary programs for recycled oil) by striking out “and $5,000,000 for fiscal year
1983” and substituting “, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1983, and $5,000,000 for each
of the fiscal years 1984 through 1986”.
(h) DEPARTMENT OF Co rnntt FUNCTION5.—Section b006 is amended by inserting
after “1982” the following “and $1,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 19S4 through
1986”.
(i) CRIMINAL INvTSTIGA’roRs.—Section 2007 is amended by adding the following
new subsection at the end thereof:
“(e) CRIMINAL INVesTIGATORS-—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Ad-
ministrator $3.246,000 for the fiscal year 1984, $2,408,300 for the fiscaj year 1985,
and $2,529,000 for the fiscal year 1986 to be used—

-------
98m CONGRYsS ‘ HOtL5E OF REPRESENTATIVES R p r. 98-198
1st Session J Part 1
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT ACF OF
1983
MAY 17. 1983.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. DINGEU., from the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
LT0 accompany H.R. 2867]
(Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 2867) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to au-
thorize appropriations for the fiscal years 1984 through 1986, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting lause and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
SHORT TFItE AND TASLE OF CONTENTS
SECTIoN 1. (a) This Act may be cited as the “Hazardous Waste Control and En-
forcement Act of 1983”.
TABLE OF CONT S
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Authorization for fiscal years 1984 through 1986.
Sec. 3. Small quantity generator waste.
Sec. 4. Interim control of hazardous waste injection.
Sec. 5. Land disposal of hazardous waste.
Sec. 6. Burning and blending for energy recovery.
Sec. 7. Interim status; permits.
Sec. 8. Reuse, recycling, and reclamation.
Sec. 9. Size of certmn facilities.
11-0060

-------
2
Sec. 8. Reuse, recycling, and reclamation.
Sec. 9. Size of certain facilities.
Sec. 10. Demonstration project.
Sec. 11. Hazardous waste facilities owned and operated by states or political subdi-
visions.
Sec. 12. Enforcement.
Sec. 13. Findings and objectives of Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Sec. 14. Listing and delisting of hazardous waste.
Sec. 15. Re-refining of used oil.
Sec. 16. State authorization.
Sec. 17. Effective date of regulations.
Sec. 18. Prior releases.
Sec. 19. State operated landfills
Sec. 20. Availability of information.
See. 21. Ombudsman.
Sec. 22. Best available technology.
Sec. 23. Recycling of used oil.
Sec. 24. Use of recovered materials by Federal agencies.
Sec. 25. Clerical corrections.
1 AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1984 THROUGH
2 1986
3 SEC. 2. (a) GENERAL AUTH0RIzATION.—Section
4 2007(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by strik-
5 ing out “and $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending Septem-
6 ber 30, 1982” and substituting “$80,000,000 for the fiscal
7 year ending September 30, 1982, $57,000,000 for the fiscal
8 year ending September 30, 1984, $61,000,000 for the fiscal
9 year ending September 30, 1985, and $61,000,000 for the
10 fiscal year 1986.
11 (b) STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE PRoom u zs.—Section
12 3011(a) of such Act is amended by striking out “and
13 $40,000,000 for the fiscal year 1982” and substituting
14 “$40,000,000 for the fiscal year 1982, $50,000,000 for the
15 fiscal year 1984, $55,000,000 for the fiscal year 1985, and
16 $60,000,000 for the fiscal year 1986”.
HR 2867 IH

-------
EPA - CL L!: Any .
OFFICIAL F LE J\(
98TH CONGRESS
1ST SEssioN . 2867
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize appropriations for the fiscal
years 1984 through 1986, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 3, 1983
Mr. FL0RI0 (for himself, Mr. LENT, Ms. MHCULSKI, Mr. Eci i ’r, Mr. TATJZIN,
and Mr. RICHARDSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce
A BILL
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize appropri-
ations for the fiscal years 1984 through 1986, and for other
purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresenla-
2 tives of the United Stales of America in Congress assembled,
3 - SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 SEcTIoN 1. This Act may be cited as the “Hazardous
5 Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983”.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Authorization for fiscal years 1984 through 1986.
Sec. 3. Small quantity generator waste.
Sec. 4. Interim control of hazardous waste injection.
Sec. 5. Liquids in landfills.
Sec. 6. Burning and blending for energy recovery.
Sec. 7. Interim status; permits.

-------
2
1 SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 SECTION 1. (a) This Act may be cited as the “Hazard.
3 ous Waste control and Enforcement Act of 1983 ‘
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Authori:aiion for fiscal years 1984 through 2986.
Sec. 3. Small quantity generator waste.
Sec. 4. Interim control of hazardous waste injection.
Sec. 5. Land disposal of hazardous waste.
.Sec. 6. Burning and blending for energy Tecovery.
Sec. 7. Interim status; permits.
Sec. 8. Reuse, recycling, and reclamation..
Sec. 9. Size of certain facilthes.
Sec. 10. Ha:ardous waste facilities owned by States or poliIica s’. bthti.,ions
Sec. 11. Enforeement.
Sec. 12. Findings and objectives of Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Sec. 13. Listing and delrstin 2 of hazcrdou .s waste.
Sec. 14. Recot’ery and recycling of used oil.
Sec. 15. State aLlthori:ation.
Sec. 16. E/fective date of regulations.
Sec. 17. Prior releases.
Sec. 18. State operated landfills.
Sec. 19. Availability of infor’n ation.
Sec. 20. Ombudsman.
Sec. 21. Design and performance standards.
Sec. 22. Management of used oil.
Sec. 23. Use of recovered material., by Federal agencies.
Sec 24. .Vondatory inspections.
Sec. 25. Clerical co ections.
4 (b) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,
5 whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in
6 terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
7 provision, the reference shall be considered to be a reference
8 to a section or other provision of the Solid Waste Disposal
9 Act.
10 AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1984 THROUGH 1986
11 SEC. 2. (a) GENER.4L A UTHORIZATION.—Section
12 2007(a) is amended by striking out “and $80,000,000 for
13 the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982” and substituting
HR 2867 RH

-------
I
9STH CONGRESS T T .
1ST SESSION fl • 2867
(Report No. 98—198, Part I] -
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize appropriations for the fiscal
years 19 4 through 1986, and for other purposes.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
L r 3, 1983
Mr FLORIO (for himself, Mr. LENT, Ms. MIKULsKI, Mr. ECKART, Mr. TArzIN,
and Mr RICHARDSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce
M 17, 19S3
Reported with an amendment, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary for a
period ending not later than June 15, 1983, for consideration of such provi.
sions of the bill and amendments as fall within that committee’s jurisdicti on
pursuant to clause 1(m), rule X
(SirtLe uu: all .ifter ih. enacting clause and insert the part printed in icalicJ
(For te I of introduced b.lI. see copy of bill as introduced on May 3, 19S3]
A BILL
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize appropri-
ations for the fiscal years 1984 through 1986. and for other
purposes.
1 Be ii enacted by She Senate and House of Representa-
2 ti ’es of the United States of America in congress a3sernbled,

-------
2
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 Lives of the United Stales of A nerica in Congress assembled,
3 SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 SECTioN 1. (a) This Act may be cited as the “Hazard-
5 ous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983”.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Authorzza4ion for fiscal years 1984 through 1986.
Sec. 3. Small quantity generator waste.
Sec. 4. Interim control of hazardous waste inject ion.
Sec. 5. Land disposal of hazardous waste.
Sec. 6. Burning and blending for energy recovery.
Sec. 7. Interim status; permits.
Sec. 8. Reuse, recycling, and reclamation.
Sec. 9. Size of certain facilities.
iSec. 10. Hazardous waste facilities owned by States or political subdivisions.
Sec. 11. Enforcement.
Sec. 12. Findings and objectives of Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Sec. 13. Listing and delisting of hazardous waste.
Sec. 14. Recovery and recycling of used oiL
Sec. 15. State authorization.
Sec. 16. Effective date of regulations.
Sec. 17. Prior releases.
Sec. 18. Stale operated landfills.
Sec. 19. Availability of i-nforrnation.
Sec. 20. Ombudsman.
Sec. 21. Design and performance slandard .
Sec. 22. Management of used oil.
Sec. 23. Use of recovered materials by Federal agencies.
Sec. 24. Mandatory inspections.
See. 25. Clerical corrections.
6 (b) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,
7 whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in
8 terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
9 provision, the reference shall be considered to be a reference
10 to a section or other provision of the Solid Waste Disposal
11 Act.
HR 2867 RH

-------
EPA OL LiLJ j
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
Union Calendar No. 165
98TH CONGRESS
1sT SEssioN . 2867
[ Report No. 98—198, Parts I, II, and Ill]
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize appropriations for the fiscal
years 1984 through 1986, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 3, 1983
Mr. FL0RI0 (for himself, Mr. LENT, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. ECKART, Mr. TAUZIN,
and Mr. RICHARDSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce
MAY 17, 1983
Reported with an amendment, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary for a
period ending not later than June 15, 1983, for consideration of such provi-
sions of the bill and amendments as fall within that committee’s jurisdiction
pursuant to clause 1(m), rule X
[ Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
JUNE 17, 1983
Reported from the Committee on the Judiciary with amendments, and ordered to
be printed
[ Oniit the part printed in italic and struck through and insert the part printed in boldface roman]
[ For test of introduced hill, see cops of hill as introduced on May 3, 1983]
A BILL
To amend the Solid Waste .Disposal Act to authorize appropri-
ations for the fiscal years 1984 through 1986, and for other
purposes.

-------
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sec. I. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Authorizations for fiscal years 1984 through 1986.
Sec. 3. Small quantity generator waste. -
Sec. 4. Interim control of hazardous waste injection.
Sec. 5. Land disposal of hazardous waste.
Sec. 6. Early leak detection system.
Sec. 7. Burning and blending for energy recovery.
Sec. 8. Interim status; permits.
Sec. 9. New and innovative treatment technologies.
Sec. 10. Reuse, recycling, and reclamation.
Sec. 11. Size of certain facilities.
Sec. 12. Hazardous waste facilities owned by States or political subdivisions.
Sec. 13. Export of hazardous waste.
Sec. 14. Enforcement.
Sec. 15. Domestic sewage.
Sec. 16. Findings and objectives of Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Sec. 17. Listing and delisting of hazardous waste.
Sec. 18. Hazardous constituents.
Sec. 19. Recovery and recycling of used oil.
Sec. 20. State authorization.
Sec. 21. Effective date of regulations.
Sec. 22. Prior releases.
Sec. 23. State-operated landfills.
Sec. 24. Availability of information.
Sec. 25. Ombudsman.
Sec. 26. Design and performance standards.
Sec. 27. Management of used oil.
Sec. 28. Use of recovered materials by Federal agencies.
Sec. 29. Mandatory inspections.
Sec. 30. Adequacy of certain guidelines and criteria.
Sec. 31. National Ground Water Commission.
Sec. 32. Corrective action beyond facility boundaries; underground tanks.
Sec. 33. Clerical corrections.
(b) AMENDMENT.—EXCOpt as otherwise expressly pro-
2 vided in this Act, whenever in this Act an amendment or
3 repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of,
4 a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
5 to be a reference to a section or other provision of the Solid
6 Waste Disposal Act.
HR 2867 RFS

-------
11
98TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
IN THE SENATE OF TIlE UNITED STATES
NOVEMBER 9 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 7), 1983
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works
AN ACT
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize appropri-
ations for the fiscal years 1984 through 1986, and for other
purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tiDes of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 SECTION 1. (a) SHORT TI’rLE.—This Act may be cited
5 as the “Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of
6 1983”.

-------
2
Sec 201 Minimum tech nolopical requirements
.Sec. 10.1 Ground water monitoring
Sec 104 Burninu and blending of hazardous waste
Sec 20,) Direct action
Sec 206 Continuing releases at permitted facilities
Sec 207. Corrective action beyond facility boundaries, underground tanks
Sec 208 hnancial responsibility for corrective action.
Sec. 209. Mining waste and other special wastes
Subtitle B—A nrendnie,i is Pnmartlv to Secizo, 2005
Sec 211. Authority to construct hazardous waste treatment, ttorage. or disposal (a-
ciIi t ies
Sec. 212 Permit life
Sec. 213. Interim Status
Sec. 214 New and innovative treatment technologies
Sec 215 Existing surface impoundments
Subtitle C—Amendments Primarily to Other Sections in Subtitle C
Sec. 221 Small quantity generator waste
Sec 222 Listing and dehsting of hazardous waste
Sec. 228 Clarification of household waste exclusion.
Sec. 224 Waste minimization
Sec 225. Basis of authorization.
Sec 226 Auatlabtlity of information.
Sec. 227 Interim authorization of State programs.
Sec. 228. Application of amendments to authorized Slates.
Sec 229 Federal facilities
Sec 220 State.operaied facilities
Sec. 211 Mandatory inspections
Sec 122 Federal enforcement.
See 2.1.1 interim status corrective action orders
See 224 Effective (late of regulatwns
Subtitle D—Neu’ Secti9ns in Subtitle C
, •( )3 I lanagvnu’nl uz..ed oil
.‘ii’i 1 h’ri iui’i ’ iiiiil i’t ‘.c Illil,! tif U ,I ’(i in!
. ..‘i .3 1 ’.rpan ..iiiii dursn interim .%tatu.
.‘ ‘i .‘ 3 hi ii’,i nra .‘f l’ederri I u , ’em ha:cirdous waste facilities
.•. 1’.x .irt ,,I hii:cirilou.a U cj.ste’
“ Wa .‘ I. I kinii— ti Ui, i.
. ‘i J’.ipur.iari’ tn lJrrnatwn and health a.ssessments.
TI TLI t : Il1—i’R() I’ISIOXS RELA TING PRIMARILY TO SUBTITLE D OF THE
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
.101 .Si:r of u s1e.to.encrgv facilities
. “wi .10..’ Subtitle B improvements.
TITLE I V—PROVISIONS RELA rING PRIMA RII.. Y TO SUBTITLE 0 OF THE
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
Sec. 401 Citizen suits.
Sec 402 Imminent hazard
Sec 402 Enforcement
Sec 404 Public participation in settlements
Sec. 40a. Interim control of hazardous waste injection
TiTLE V—PROVISIONS RELA TING TO SEVERAL SUBTITLES OF THE SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
Sec 501 Use of recovered materials by Federal agencies
Sec. . ,02 Technical and clerical amendments
TITLE VI—UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Sec. 601 Underground storage tank regulation
TITLE VH—OTHER PRO WSIONS
Sec.. 701.. Report to ’ Congres& on ’ injection o hazardous waste .

-------
3
Sec. 702. Extending the useful life of sanitary Landfills.
Sec. .Z03. Urwuwn nuU lathngs.
‘Sec. 704 National Gruund Water Commission.
AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1985 THROUGH 1988
SEC. 2. (a) Section 2007(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (relat-
ing to general authorization) is amended by striking out “and
$80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982” and sub-
stituting “$80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982,
$70,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1985,
$80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986,
$80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987, and
$80,000,000 for the fiscal year 1988. “.
(b) Section 3011(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (relating to
State hazardous waste programs) is amended by striking out “and
$40,000,000 for the fiscal year 1982” and substituting “$40,000,000
for the fiscal year 1982, $55,000,000 for the fiscal year 1985,
$60,000,000 for the fiscal year 1986, $60,000,000 for the fiscal year
1987, and $60,000,000 for the fiscal year 1988’
(c) Section 3012 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (relating to the
hazardous waste inventory) is amended by sin king out
“$20,000,000” in subsection (cX2) and inserting in lieu thereof
“$25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1985 through 1988’
(d) Section 4008(a)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (relating to
development and implementation assistance) is amended by striking
out “and $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1982” and substituting
“$20,000,000 for the fiscal year 1982, and $10,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 1,985 through 1988’
(e) Section 4008 (aA2)(C) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (relating
to implementation assistance) is amended by striking out “and
$10,000,000 for fiscal year 1982” and substituting “$10,000,000 for
fiscal year 1982, and $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1985
through 1988’
(/2 Section 4008(e)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (relating to
special communities) is amended by striking out “and $1,500,000 for
each of the fiscal years 1981 and 1982” and substituting “,
$1,500,000 fo’- each of the fiscal years 1981 and 1982, and $500,000
for each of the fiscal years 1985 through 1988’
(g) Section 4008 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (relating to Fed-
eral assistance for certain programs) is amended in paragraph (4) of
subsection (f) (relating to assistance to States for discretionary pro-
grams for recycled oil) by striking out “and $5,000,000 for fiscal year
1983” and substituting “, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1983, and
$5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1985 through 1988’
(h) Section 5006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (relating to De-
partment of Commerce functions) is amended by inserting after
“1982” the following “and $1,500,000 for each of the fiscal years
1985 through 1988’
(V Section 2007 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (relating to crimi-
nal investigators) is amended by adding the following new subsec-
tions at the end thereof
“(e) CRIMINAL INvESTIGATORS—There is authorized to be appro-
priated to the Administrator $3,246,000 for the fiscal year 1985,

-------
98TH GRFSS J HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES I
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
OcroBEa 3. 1984 —Ordered to be printed
Mr. Ft.oRIo, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[ To accompany HR. 2867]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2867) to
amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize appropriations for
the fiscal years 1985 through 1988, and for other purposes, having
met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and
do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following:
SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as “The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 198.4 ‘
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Authorizations for fiscal yea1 1385 through 1988
TITLE 1—PROVISIONS RELATING PRIMARILY TO SUBTITLES A AND B OF
THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
Sec. 101. Findings and objectives of Solid Waste Disposal AcL
Sec. 102. Dioxins from resource recovery facilities.
Sec. 108. Ombudsman.
TITLE H—PRO VISIONS RELATING PRiMARILY TO SUBTITLE C OF THE
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
Subtitle A—Amendments Primarily to Section 3004
Sec 20L Land disposal of hazardous waste.
38—9930

-------
H. R. 2867—2
Sec. 234. Effective date of regulations.
Subtitle D—.New Sections in Subtitle C
Sec. 241. Management of used oil.
Sec. 242. Recovery and recycling of used oil.
Sec. 243. Expansion during interim status.
Sec. 244. Inventory of Federal agency hazardous waste facilities.
Sec. 245. Export of hazardous waste.
Sec. 246 Domestic sewage.
Sec. 247. Exposure information and health aseesmenta.
TiTLE 1 11—PROVISIONS RELATING PRIMARILY TO SUBTITLE D OF TIlE
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACI’
Sec. 301. Size f waste.to.energy facilities.
Sec. 302. Subtitle D improvements.
TITLE [ V—PROVISIONS RELATING PRiMARILY TO SUBTITLE C OF THE
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AC’l’
Sec. 401 Citizen suits
Sec. 402 Imminent hazard.
Sec. 403. Enforcement.
Sec. 404. Public participation in settlements.
Sec. 405. Interim control of hazardous waste injection.
TITLE V—PROVISIONS RELATING TO SEVERAL SUB ’flTL OF THE SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL ACF
Sec. 501 Use of recovered materials by Federal agencies
Sec. 502 Technical and clerical amendments.
TITLE VT—UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Sec. 601. Underground storage tank regulation.
TITLE VU—OTHER PROVISIONS
Sec 701 Report to Congress on Injection of hazardous waste.
Sec 702 Extending the useful life of sanitary landfills
Sec 703. Uranium mill tailings
Sec 704 National Ground Water Commission.
AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1985 THROUGH 1988
SEC. 2. (a) Section 2007(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (reLating
to general authorization is amended by striking out “and
$80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982” and
substituting “$80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1982, $70,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1985,
$80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986,
$80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987, and
$80,000,000 for the f ca1 year 1988”.
(b) Section 3011(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (relating to
State hazardous waste programs) is amended by striking out “and
$40,000,000 for fiscal year 1982” and substituting “$40,000,000
for the f cal year 1982, $55,000,000 fo the fiscal year 1985,
$60,000,000 for the fiscal year 1986, $60,00O,000 for the fiscal year
1987, and $60,000,000 for the fiscal year 1988”.
(C) Section 3012 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (relating to the
hazardous waste inventory) is amended by striking out
“$20,000,000” in subsection (cX2) and inserting in lieu thereof
“$25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1985 through 1988”.
(d) Section 4008(aXl) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (relating to
development and implementation assistance) is amended by striking
out “and $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1982” and substituting

-------
Lj L P Y 4
PL o,’jc-c I(
H. R. 2867
Binet ci hth ôn rtss of th 1E1nit d 0 %tauz of m ri
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the twenty.third day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and eighty-four
n ct
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize appropriations for the fiscal
years L9 5 through 19S8. and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States ofArr.erica in Congress assemb1ed
SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as “The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984”.
TABLE or CONltrrrs
Sec I Short title and table of contents.
Sec 2 Authorizations for fiscal years 1985 through 1988.
TITLE I—PROVISIONS RELATING PRIMARILY TO SUBTITLES A AND B OF
THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
SEC. 101 Findings and objectives of Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Sec (02 Dioxiris from resource recovery facilities.
Sec. 103. Ombudsman
TITLE Il—PROVISIONS RELATING PRIMARILY TO SUBTITLE C OF THE
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
Subtitle A—Amendments Primarily to Section 3004
Sec 201 Land duposal of hazardous waste
Sec. 202 Minimum technological requirements.
Sec 203 Ground v ater monitoring
Sec 204 Burning and blending of hazardous waste.
Sec 205 Direct action
Sec .!0 Continuing releases at permitted facilities
Sec 207 Corrective action beyond facility boundaries, underground tanks.
Sec 208 Financial responsibility for corrective action.
Sec. 209 Mining ‘haste and other special wastes.
Subtitle B—Amendments Primarily to Section 3005
Sec. 211. Authority to construct hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal fa.
cilities
Sec. 212. Permit life
Sec. 213 Interim status.
Sec. 214 New and innovative treatment technologies.
Sec. 215 Existing surface impoundments.
Subtitle C—Amendments Prmar’Jy to Other Sections in Subtitle C
Sec 221. Small quantity generator waste.
Sec. 222. Listing and deliswig of hazardous waste
Sec. 223. Clarification of household waste exclusion.
Sec. 224. Waste minimization.
Sec. 225. Basis of authorization.
Sec. 226. Availability of information.
Sec. 227. Interim authorization of State programs.
Sec. 222. Application of amendments to authorized States.
Sec. 229. Federal facilities.
Sec. 230. Stase.operated facilities.
See. 231. Mandatory inspections.
Sec. 232. Federal enforcement.
Sec. 233. Interim status osrrective action orders.

-------
/ f , 4.U1i c 4J i) 1
TITLE I—PROVISIONS RELATING PRIMARILY TO SUBTITLES
A AND B OF THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AC T
FINDINGS AND OBJECtIVES OF SOUD WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
SEC. 101. (a) Section 1002(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
amended by—
(1) striking out paragraph (5) and substituting:
“(5) the placement of inadequate controls on hazardous waste
management will result in substantial risks to human health
and the environment;
“(6) if hazardous waste management is improperly performed
in the first instance, corrective action is likely to be expensive,
complex, and time consuming;
“(7) certain classes of land disposal facilities are not capable of
assuring long-term containment of certain hazardous wastes,
and to avoid substantial risk to human health and the environ-
ment, reliance on land disposal should be minimized or elimi-
nated. and land disposal, particularly landfill and surface
impoundment. should be the least favored method for managing
hazardous wastes; and’;
(2) redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (8): and
(3) striking out the semicolon in redesignated paragraph (8)
and substituting a period.
b Section 1003 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by—
(1) adding “AND NATIONAL PoLicy” to the title, inserting “(a)
OBJECTIVES.—” after “SEc. 1003.”, and adding the following new
subsection at the end thereof:
“(b) NATIONAL Poucv —The Congress hereby declares it to be the
national policy of the United States that, wherever feasible, the
generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as
expeditiously as possible. Waste that is nevertheless generated
should be treated, stored, or disposed of so as to minimize the
present and future threat to human health and the environment.”;
and
(2) striking out paragraph (4) of subsection (a) (as designated
by paragraph (1) of this subsection), substituting the following
new paragraphs in such subsection (a), nd redesignating para-
graphs (5) through (8) thereof as paragraphs (8) through (11):
“(4) assuring that hazardous waste management practices are
conducted in a manner which protects human health and the
environment;
“(5) requiring that hazardous waste be properly managed in
the first instance thereby reducing the need for corrective
action at a future date;
“(6) minimizing the generation of hazardous waste and the
land disposal of hazardous waste by encouraging pro s aubsti-
H. H. 2867—5
tution, materials recovery, properly conducted recycling and
reuse, and treatment;
“(7) establishing a viable FederaiState partnership to carry
out the purposes of this Act and insuring that the Administra-
tor will, in carrying out the provisions of subtitle C of this Act,
give a high priority to assisting and cooperating with States in
obtaining full authorization of State programs under subtitle

-------
OiJF, TLp 1
SECTION 101—FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVES OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
House bill—The House bill rewrites section 1002(b)(5) regarding
the dangers of inadequate controls on hazardous waste, and adds
two “congressional findings” paragraphs regarding the high cost of
corrective action, and the inability of land disposal facilities to per-
manently contain some waste. It also strikes section 1003(4) and
adds four new objectives: assuring proper management, reducing
the need for corrective action, minimizing generation and land dis-
posal, and establishing a viable “Federal-State” partnership and as-
sisting the States.
Senate amendment.—The Senate amendment declares the nation-
al policy to be the minimization of the generation of hazardous
wastes, and the proper disposal of what wastes are generated. It
also adds a congressional finding that certain classes of land dispos-
al facilities are not capable of assuring long-term containment of
certain hazardous wastes, and that to avoid substantial risk to
human health and the environment, reliance on land disposal, par-
ticularly landfill and surface impoundments, should be the least fa-
vored method for managing hazardous waste.
Conference substitute.—The Conference substitute combines the
House and Senate provisions.
In specifying certain findings and objectives concerning hazard-
ous waste control, the Conferees intend to convey a clear and un-
ambiguous message to the regulated community and the Environ-
mental Protection Agency: reliance on land disposal of hazardous
waste has resulted in an unacceptable risk to human health and
the environment. Consequently, the Conferees intend that through
the vigorous implementation of the objectives of this Act, land dis-
posal will be eliminated for many wastes and minimized for all
others, and that advanced treatment, recycling, incineration and
other hazardous waste control technologies should replace land dis-
posal. In other words, land disposal should be used only as a last
81
resort and only under conditions which are fully protective of
human health and the environment. -
The successful implementation of the 1984 amendments will re-
quire an improved working relationship between the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency and the states. The development of a viable
federal-state partnership is one of the highest priorities of this leg-
islation and the Agency should devote greater effort to assisting
states in achieving authorization of their RCRA programs.
/0/’

-------
Ha _- i c_Porz --r q -i -y ’ c
FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVas OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
Sac. 12. (a) FncoINcs—Section 1002(b) is amended by—
(1) striking opt paragraph (5) and substituting:
“(5) the placement of inadequate controls on hazardous waste management
will result in substantial risks to human health and the environment; I
“(6) if hazardous waste ‘n n gement is improperly performed in the first in-
stance, corrective action is likely to be expensive, complex, and time-consuming:
“(7) land disposal facilities are not capable of ensuring perpetual containment
of certain hazardous waste, therefore, reliance on land disposal should be eluni- I
nated for those wastes; and”; I
(2) redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (8); and I
.p i
(3) striking out the semicolon in redesignated paragraph (8) and substituting a
period.
(b)OEJEcTIvm.—Section 1003 is amended by striking out paragraph (4) substitut-
ing the following new paragraphs, and redesignatizig paragraphs (5) through (8) as
paragraphs (7) through (10):
“(4) ensuring that hazardous waste management practices are conducted in a
manner which protects human health and the environment;
“(5) requiring that hazardous waste be properly managed in the first instance
thereby reducing the need for corrective action at a future date;
“(6) mlnimi7lng the generation of hazardous waste and the land disposal of I
hazardous waste by encouraging process substitution, materials recavery, prop- I
erly conducted recycling and reuse, and treatment;”.
56
Section 12. Findings and objective of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
In specifying certain findings and objectives concerning hazard-
ous waste control, the Committee intends to convey a clear and un-
ambiguous message to the regulated community and the Environ-
mental Protection Agency: reliance on land disposal of hazardous
waste has resulted in an unacceptable risk to human health and
the environment. Consequently, the Committee intends that
through the vigorous implementation of the objectives of this Act, I
land disposal will be minimized (and for some wastes eliminated)
and that advanced treatment, recycling, incineration and other
hazardous waste control technologies will quickly replace land dis- I
posal. In other words, land disposal should be used only as a last
resort and only under conditions which are fully protective of
human health and the environment.
/e’,’

-------
U p
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
The purpose of the Bill is to authorize apprqpriations for the ac-
tivities authorized or retuired in the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(commonly known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act)
and to make certain amendments and modifications in the Act in
order to assure adequate protection of public health and the envi-
ronment.
The Bill authorizes $154 million for Fiscal Year 1984, $162 mil-
lion for Fiscal Year 1985 and $168 million for Fiscal Year 1986. The
bill also amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act and one provision of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Libility Act of 1980. (“Superfund”).
HEARINGS
The committee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation
and Tourism held two days of hearings on the reauthorization of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, prior to the introduc-
tion of H.R. 2867. On March 22, 1983 the Subcommittee heard from
Dr. Frank Traylor, Executive Director of Colorado Department of
Health; Ms. Carol MacLennan, Citizens Against Lowry Landfill;
Mr. Scott Schwarz of Wisner and Schwarz; Dr. Robert Ginsberg,
Staff Toxicologist, Citizens for a Better Environment; Mr. Steven J.
Durham, Regional AdininiRtrator, EPA Region VIII; Mr. Peter
Bibko, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III; Dr. Joel Hirsch-
horn, Project Director, Office of Technology Assessment; Mr.
George S. Kush, Vice-President, Director of Environmental Affairs,
SCA Chemical Services; Ms. Ruth Coates, Public Relations Man-
ager, accompained by Mr. Kenneth Gordon, Vice-President Techni-
cal Services, Safety-Kleen Corporation; Mr. Geoffrey Stengel, Jr.,
President of Envirite Corporation; Mr. Lawrence J. O’Brien, Jr.,
Council, At-Sea-Incineration; and Mr. Jim McBain, Executive Di-
rector, Association of Petroleum Re-refiners. On March 24, 1983 the
Subcommittee heard from Congressmen John Breaux and Don
Sundquist; Mr. Lee Thomas, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA; Mr. Gene Lucero,
Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, EPA; Mrs. Carol
E. Dinkins, Assistant Attorney General, Land and Natural Re-
sources Division, U.S. •Department of Justice; Mr. Anthony Rois-’
man, former Chief of Hazardous Waste Section, Department of Jus-
tice; Mr. David Lennett, Staff Attorney, Environmental Defense
Fund; Ms. Jane Bloom, Staff Attorney, Natural Resources Defense
Council; Ms. Marilyn Reeves, Vice President, Natural Resources!
/0f

-------
Coordinator; Ms. Mary Lyndon, Assistant Attorney General repre-
senting National Association of Attorneys General; Mr. Neal
Potter, Montgomery County, Maryland, representing National Asso-
ciation of Counties; and Mr. Michael O’Lauglin, Mayor, city of Ni-
agara Falls, New York representing U.S. National Conference of
Mayors. Additional material was submitted for the record by nine
organizations.
COMMITrEE CONSIDERATION
On May 12, 1983, the Committee met in open session and ordered
reported the bill H.R. 2867, as amended.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was en-
acted as an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act in 1976.
The amendment established this Nation’s basic hazardous waste
management system under Subtitle C of the Act, and provided
complementary authority to encourage the conservation and recov-
ery of valuable materials and energy.
Since the date of enactment, attention has been focused on the
implementation of the Subtitle C program. The efforts of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) to secure compliance with Sub-
title C have demonstrated that the task of comprehensive hazard-
ous waste management is one of unparalleled scope and complex-
ity.
In May 1980 the Agency published its first major package of reg-
ulations to implement Subtitle C. These regulations, put into place
waste identification, manifesting; transportation and interim status
treatment storage and disposal requirements. While these require-
ments were long in coming, they represented an important step in
bringing the management of hazardous waste under some control.
Since May 1980 a semblance of a hazardous waste regulatory and
enforcement program began to take shape with the promulgation
of several proposed final standards for treatment, storage and dis- I
posal facilities and financial responsibility requirements.
However, despite this progress, it is estimated that an amount of
hazardous waste equal to that which is currently regulated under
RCRA (40 million metric tons per year) is escaping control through
various loopholes.
Boilers that burn hazardous waste for purposes of recovering
energy are not regulated under RCRA despite existing authority
for EPA to do so. While some of the substances being burned in
boilers are being considered for regulation under the Clean Air Act
as hazardous air pollutants, RCRA standards presently fail to ad-
dress substances generated by these facilities. It is estimated that
20 million metric tons of hazardous waste are currently burned in.
boilers each year.
Small quantity generators (those who produce 1,000 kilograms
per month [ kg/mo] or less of hazardous waste) are currently
exempt from most RCRA requirements and may dispose of their
wastes into sanitary landfills and into sewers that are connected to
publicly owned treatment works. Neither of these types of facilities
is suited to the disposal or treatment of toxic organics or metals.
/0/’

-------
1 .0
The Office of Technology Assessment has estimated that up to four!
million metric tons of waste per year are escaping effective control
through this exemption.
Waste oil regulations have not been promulgated and thus EPA
cannot control another four million tons of hazardous and poten-
tially hazardous material. The vast majority of this material is
either being burned in boilers or is being disposed of in sanitary
landfills. Only about ten per cent is recovered and recycled.
Underground injection of hazardous waste (class N wells) into 1
areas above underground sources of drinking water are subject to
only minimal control at best.
Furthermore, many waste streams are neither listed nor identi-
fied under Section 3001.
In addition to these. serious gaps in RCRA’s current regulatory
system, there is a growing body of evidence that land disposal of
hazardous waste is not providing, and in some cases cannot pro-
vide, protection against groundwater contamination and in many
cases poses grave threats to public health and the environment.
This problem is made worse by the slow pace at which permits for
new facilities for treatment and safe disposal of hazardous waste
are being issued.
Equally distressing is the inadequate effort by the Agency with
respect to criminal and civil enforcement actions. Part of this prob-
lem is due to insufficient personnel resources as well as some defi-
ciencies in existing law. However, oversight hearings by the Com-
mittee also indicate that the Agency has not been diligent in vig-
orously pursuing a tough enforcement program.
In conclusion, the Committee believes the RCRA regulatory and
enforcement program must be conducted in a manner that controls
and prevents present and potential endangerment to public health
and the environment. In the absence of that, little more will be
done than to contribute to future burdens on the “Superfund” pro-
gram, which is the remedial program charged to EPA under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Lia-
bility Act.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
Pursuant to clause 2(IX3XA) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, no oversight findings or recommedations have
been made by the Committee. The Committee held numerous over-
sight hearings and made findings that are reflected in the legisla-
tive report.
COMMITT?J ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Pursuant to clause 2(1X3XD) of rule XI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, no oversight findings have been submitted to
the Committee by the Committee on Government Operations.
COMM TI E COST ESTIMATE
In compliance with clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee states that the bill au-
‘b/I

-------
1)11
thorizes $154 million for fiscal year 1984, $162 million for fiscal
year 1985, and $168 million for fiscal year 1986.
Coa iirrax BuDoI-r OFFICE ESTIMATE
U.S. CONGRESS,
CONGRESSIONAL BunoST OFFIcE,
Washington, D.C., May 16 1983.
Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of R pre-
sentatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR Ma. C niswr: Pursuant to Section 403 of the Congres-
sional Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget Office has pre-
pared the attached cost estimate for H.R. 2867, the Hazardous
Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983. -
Should the Committee so desire, we would be pleased to provide
further details on this estimate.
Sincerely,
ALICE M. Rxvu?i, Director.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE—COST ESTIMATE
1. Bill number: H.R. 2867.
2. Bill title: The Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act
of 1983.
3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce, May 12. 1983.
4. Bill purpose: This bill amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act
and authorizes appropriations of $154 million for fiscal year 1984,
$162 million for 1985, and $168 million for 1968 to implement the
provisions of the act.
Section 10 of the bill amends the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA—
which act created the Superfund for cleaning up hazardous waste
sites) by requiring the President to use money from the Superfund
to reimburse states for costs in excess of 10 percent incurred for
remedial actions at state-owned facilities. Current law requires a
state to pay 10 percent of clean-up costs for facilities not owned by
the state, but at least 50 percent of costs for state-owned facilities.
5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The direct spend-
ing authority created by section 10 of the bill would result in
budget authority and outlays as shown in the following table.
(89 Cl 9 L P 5
1984
I llS
1985
1911
L I II
Eslimated widget asthonty
btimated outlays... .
.. . . . .. ._
..
270
01
.__..
60
...
54
.. -
..
40
21
The bill also includes authorizations requiring appropriations
action as shown in the following table.
/0/

-------
(By f )U . m I O
1984
198$
6985
1981
1988
(stimatedoutlays.
154
86
162
130
168.. ....
135
..
14
-.
30
The costs of this bill fall within budget function 800.
Basis of estimate: The direct spending provision requiring reim-
bursement to states for remedial actions at state-owned facilities is
not retroactive. Based on information from the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA), it is estimated that about 30 sites on the na-
tional priority list are state-owned. If states were to raise the 10
percent match and begin cleaning up all 30 sites in 1984, at an
average estimated cost of $10 million per site, the federal share
would be about $270 million spent over 5 years.
The authorization levels are those stated in the bill, and for pur-
poses of this estimate were assumed to be appropriated in full prior
to the start of the fiscal years for which they are authorized. Out-
lays were estimated based on information from the EPA and his-
torical spending patterns for this program.
6. Estimated cost to State and local governments: H.R. 2687
makes available as grants to states $65.5 million in 1984, $70.5 mil-
lion in 1985, and $75.5 mfflion in 1986. Based on historical spending
patterns, it is estimated that these amounts would be disbursed to
states at the rate of $26 million in 1984, $51 million in 1985, $65
million in 1986, $44 million in 1987, and $18 million in 1988. There
are no matching requirements, and the estimated costs of adminis-
tering the grant programs are not significant.
it is widely believed that the current requirement for states to
contribute 50 percent of costs for clean-up activities at state-owned
facilities has prevented most states from f mking action at those
sites. Assuming states would have continued to defer action at
state-owned facilities in the absence of the amendment to CERCLA
lowering the state share to 10 percent, the effect of the amendment
will be to allow state action at state-owned sites sooner and at a
lower cost to states than would otherwise have occurred.
If states raise the 10 percent match and begin remedial action at
the estimated 30 eligible state-owned sites, at an estimated clean-
up cost of $10 million per site, state costs would be $30 million
spent over five years as follows.
(By , t st
LOU 6985 1986 1981 1980 -
Eslunatsi auto to StOtou .. .. ..........__ .._ 1 8 6 4 3
7. Estimate comparison: None.
8. Previous CBO estimate: On May 13, 1983, CBO prepared a cost
estimate for the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984, as
ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Environment andl
Public Works, May 10, 1983. That bill authorized the appropriation:
of $97 million, $50 million for administration and $47 million forf
state grants, for fiscal year 1984. The comparable fiscal year 1984
authorizations in H.R. 2867 are $57 million and $50 million for ad-
ministration and state general program grants, respectively.
9. Estimate prepared by: Anne Hoffman.
10. Estimate approved by: C. G. Nuckols (for James L. Blum, As-
sistant Director, for Budget Analysis).
INFLATIONARY IMPACT STATEMENT
- Pursuant to clause 2(1X4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee makes the following statement
with regard to the inflationary impact of the reported bill:
The Committee is unaware that an inflationary impact on the
economy will result from the p ge of H.R. 2867.
/6/

-------
4f / / ?P 7 Q# /4 7 S ‘
£
/ - -“•
GENERAL STATEMENT
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was en-
acted as an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act (the Act)
in 1976. The amendment established this Nation’s basic hazardous
waste management system under subtitle C of the Act, and pro-
vided complementary authority to encourage the conservation and
recovery of valuable materials and energy.
Since the date of enactment, attention has been focused on the
implementation of the subtitle C program. In May 1980 the Agency
published its first major package of regulations to implement sub-
title C. These regulations put into place waste identification, mani-
festing, transportation and interim status treatment, storage and
disposal requirements. While these requirements were long in
coming, they represented an important step in bringing the man-
agement of hazardous waste under some control. Since May 1980 a
semblance of a hazardous waste regulatory and enforcement pro-
gram has begun to take shape with the promulgation of several
proposed final standards for treatment, storage and disposal facili-
ties, and financial responsibility requirements.
However, despite this progress, the disposal of wastes, epecially
hazardous wastes, is a worsening national problem. The failure of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate neces-
sary regulations and, on occasion in recent years, the promulgation
and revision of some regulations have exacerbated this problem.
Two examples are the decision to exempt from regulation all gener-
ators who produce 1,000 kilograms per month or less of hazardous
waste and the abrupt decision to suspend, on February 25, 1982, a
ban on placing drums of liquid hazardous waste in landfills. The
ban, which had been promulgated on May 19, 1980, and went into
effect on November 19, 1981, was suspended without advance
notice or opportunity for public comment. Fortunately, the Agency
recognized its mistake and quickly reimposed the ban. Unfortu-
nately, damage had already been done to both the environment
and the Agency’s credibility.
Preliminary findings from EPA’s “National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators and Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
Regulated under RCRA in 1981”, published on August 30, 1983,
highlight the need for amendments to the law. The scope of the
problem and the inadequacies of the law and the current regula-
tory program appear to be worse than was originally estimated.
For example, previous estimates stated that approximately 40 mil-
lion metric tons of hazardous waste are produced in the United
States each year. These estimates were among the factors influenc-
ing various regulatory decisions. The new preliminary findings,
however, suggest that the correct figure is roughly 150 million
metric tons of hazardous waste each year, almost four times the
previous estimate. (One hundred fifty million metric tons equals 40
billion gallons.) Furthermore, the study indicates that less than 25
percent of the 60,000 firms that identified themselves to the
Agency as hazardous waste generators were, in fact, subject to
EPA’s subtitle C regulations.
Additional shortcomings in the regulatory system are suggested
by the preliminary estimates which indicate that less than 60 per-
cent of the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities listed with the:
Agency managed hazardous waste in regulated processes during
1981. Approximately 58 million metric tons (15.6 billion gallons) of’
hazardous waste were disposed of in 1981 by the following methods:
underground injection (57 percent); surface impoundment (38 per-

-------
cent); landfill (3 percent); land treatment (1.4 percent); and other
(0.6 percent).
In the 97th Congress, the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollu-
tion conducted two days of hearings on amendments to the Solid
Waste Disposal Act. Testimony was received from more than 40
witnesses on the need to amend the Act. The Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency submitted amendments to the
Solid Waste Disposal Act which were introduced by request. Con-
gress failed to act on the amendments last year.
During this session of Congress, the Subcommittee on Environ-
mental Pollution held two additional hearings on the need to
amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act. One bill, S. 757, provided the
focus for the hearings. The Administrator did not submit proposed
amendments. Testimony was received from more than 30 witnesses
on a variety of subjects. A number of problems were identified and
are addressed in the reported bill.
As the result of an EPA regulatory decision, small quantity gen-
erators (those who produce 1,000 kilograms per month (kg/mo) or
less of hazardous waste) are currently exempt from subtitle C re-
quirements and may dispose of their wastes into sanitary landfills
and into sewers that are connected to publicly owned treatment
works. Neither of these types of facilities is suited to the disposal
or treatment ot toxic organics or metals. In addition, such gener-
ators are not required to package the waste in a safe manner nor
to notify the transporters that the waste being transported is haz-
ardous. In addition to being toxic, many of the wastes are ignitable,
reactive or corrosive and, therefore, create an occupational safety
hazard for the unwitting transporter. Although the unregulated
community may represent less than 10 percent of the universe, the
Office of Technology Assessment has estimated that up to four mil-
lion metric tons (one billion gallons) of hazardous waste per year
are escaping effective control through this exemption.
Delayed promulgation of final regulations to implement subtitle
C and prolonged use of interim status permits by EPA has allowed
some facilities to operate without assurances that design and per-
formance standards will utilize adequate and available control
technology. The application of available technology, at a minimum,
is necessary to minimize hazardous waste releases into the environ-
ment.
Current EPA regulations do not require facilities receiving per-
mits under subtitle C to address all releases of hazardous wastes
from solid waste management units at the facility. A facility which
is causing, for example, groundwater contamination from inactive
units could, therefore, seek a permit under current regulations and
receive the permit without the permit addressing the cGntamina-
tion.
The process for listing hazardous wastes under section 3001 is a
general screening to determine that a kind of waste typically can
cause harm to human health and the environment if mismanaged.
The delisting process set forth in current regulations allows peti-
tioners (usually individual hazardous waste generators or treat-
ment facilities) the opportunity to show that their wastes are sig-
nificantly different—because of treatment, or because they are gen-
erated in a different process—from listed wastes of the same type.

-------
.p (
Consequently, their wastes can be excluded—i.e. delisted—from the
hazardous waste lists. Under the Agency’s regulations, EPA will
delist those wastes which do not, or no longer, meet the criteria for
which the waste was listed.
EPA’s listing regulations do not fully address the fact that
wastes are frequently composed of numerous hazardous constitu- I
ents. In some instances, because listing is a general screening proc.
ess, EPA may not have taken all the hazardous constituents in a
waste into consideration when the waste was originally listed. Al-
though EPA has authority under the Act to reject a delisting peti-
tion based on the presence of these additional constituents, EPA’s
regulations currently do not allow the Agency to do so. This has
resulted in some wastes which are still hazardous being exempted
from the hazardous waste lists and consequently, from all subtitle
C regulation.
Under the Agency’s present regulations, to be a hazardous waste,
a waste must exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste or be
listed by name. None of the characteristics of hazardous waste pro-
mulgated so far—ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction
procedure toxicity—identifies wastes on the basis of organic toxic-
ity. In addition, EPA’s listing process has been virtually stalled for
several years.
Currently, the Agency exempts from regulation facilities that
burn hazardous waste for the primary purpose of energy recovery.
EPA has estimated that 10 to 20 million metric tons of hazardous
wastes are burned each year in boilers; a substantial amount of
hazardous waste generated is burned in facilities not now regulated
under subtitle C. The Agency has acknowledged that burning haz-
ardous wastes for energy recovery is similar to incinerating them
and “could pose a parallel or greater risk of environmental disper-
sal of hazardous waste constituents and products of izncomplete
combustion.”
Fuel blending is one of several areas where EPA’s failure to pro-
mulgate regulations had led to direct threats to human health and
the environment. Hazardous wastes have been blended with heat-
ing oil and sold to unsuspecting customers who burn them under’
conditions which may not protect human health or the environ-
ment. The potential impact of this loophole is even more signifi-
cant as more and more wastes may be burned in boilers, cement
kilns, or other heat recovery units to avoid hazardous waste regula-,
tion and treatment costs.
Current law does not mandate that facilities that treat, store,
and dispose of hazardous wastes be regularly inspected. Although
officers, employees, and representatives of the States and EPA are
authorized by section 3007(a) to enter and inspect any facilities
where hazardous wastes are handled, too few inspections are being
conducted to effectively monitor compliance with subtitle C and ap-
plicable regulations. Inspections that do occur are conducted under
widely varying State formulated criteria regarding the qualifica-
tions of inspectors and the scope of the inspection.
Subtitle C provides criminal penalties for transporting waste to
an unpermitted facility and for submitting false information in doc-
uments required to be filed under the Act. However, the statute
presently does not specifically address the criminal liability of gen-
/O/

-------
erators of hazardous waste who knowingly cause the waste to be
transported to an unpermitted facility. It also does not address ma-
terial omissions or the failure to file required reports. Similarly,
where hazardous waste is knowingly transported without a mani-
fest, there is no criminal liability unless the waste is subsequently
delivered to an unpermitted facility. Although most facilities are
operating under interim status permits, there is currently no crimi-
nal liability for knowing violations of such requirements. Portions
of the current “knowing endangerment” provisions are redundant
and unnecessarily restrictive.
Current regulations allow hazardous wastes to be exported from
the United States with minimal notice to receiving countries.
There is currently no requirement that receiving countries be fully
apprised of the nature of the shipment nor a requirement that they
consent to receipt of the shipment.
Even with the phaseout of the small quantity generator exemp-
tion, sizeable amounts of hazardous materials from such gener-
ators, household wastes, and illegal dumping are disposed of
in municipal landfills. Current criteria for sanitary landfills are
inadequate to deal with these facts. In addition, there is a need to
provide for better implementation of the open dumping ban and
upgraded criteria for sanitary landfills.
There is a need for more complete and reliable data on hazard-
ous wastes facilities, sites, and exposures to and effects from re-
leases.
Section 7003 currently authorizes suits to immediately restrain
any person contributing to handling, storage, treatment, transpor-
tation or disposal of any solid waste or hazardous waste that may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or
the environment. Though the issue of inactive waste sites is not ad-
dressed explicitly in section 7003, the Congress, most courts and
every administration which has administered the Act has con-
strued the section to apply to such sites. Notwithstanding an opin-
ion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and sever-
al district court decisions upholding the government’s position, two
district courts have recently ruled to the contrary. Both cases are
on appeal. The Administration testified that clarifying language
amending section 7003 would be helpful.
The Administrator is authorized by section 7003 to sue to abate
an endangerment whenever the past or present handling, storage,
treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous
waste may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
health or the environment. There is presently no comparable au-
thority for citizen suits. As e”emplied by the Superfund experience,
the number of potential problem sites exceeds the Government’s
ability to take action each time such action is warranted. The prob-
lem is primarily one of inadequate resources.
The reported bill, the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of
1983, authorizes appropriations to carry out the purposes of the
Solid Waste disposal Act. Several amendments with significant
policy implications are included to bring implementation of the Act
closer to the original intent of the Congress. Two new and related
program directions are included in the bill.

-------
6
Land disposal of hazardous wastes has been the least expensive
and, therefore, most widely used method of managing hazardous
waste. It is undisputed that the problems of the present are a
direct result of the disposal practices of the past. Unfortunately,
these practices are continuing. Particularly troublesome are land.
fills and surface impoundments of highly toxic, mobile, persistent
wastes and wastes that have the potential to bioaccumulate. For
many wastes, alternative technologies exist, currently with excess
capacity. Where the capacity does not exist it can be developed if a
viable market can be assured.
These amendments reaffirm the Administrator’s authority to
prohibit land disposal methods that cannot be shown to be protec-
tive of human health and the environment and direct the Admin
trator to use that authority. Reliance on land disposal should be
minimized and land disposal, particularly landfill and surface im
poundments, should be the least favored method for managing haz
ardous wastes.
These amendments also recognize that safe disposal, storage and
treatment opportunities are limited and that the most effective
way to protect human health and the environment is to minimize
the opportunities for exposure by reducing or eliminating the gen-
eration of hazardous waste as expeditiously as possible. Rather
than creating a rigorous regulatory program, provisions are includ-
ed to encourage generators to voluntarily reduce the quantity and
toxicity of all wastes. The amendments do not authorize the EPA
or any other organization or person to intrude into the production-
process or production decisions of individual generators.
Taken as a whole, the reported bill emphasizes two concepts.
First, wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous waste is to be
reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible. Second, waste
that is nevertheless generated should be treated, stored, or disposed
of so as to minimize the present and future threat to human health
and the environment.
/ô/

-------
7”_l, -j ‘ L(
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR HUMPHREY
I was very pleased to be able to vote for Committee passage of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1983, and I commend
the bill to the full Senate for prompt consideration and passage.
This bill represents a substantial and important piece of work by
the Committee, which should close many of the loopholes extant in
current law and provide greater protection of human health and
the environment.
The Committee has properly recognized that while much re-
mains to be done to ensure proper treatment, storage and disposal
of hazardous wastes, the future challenge lies in reducing the total
amount of waste generated. Indeed, two amendments to the bill at-
tempt to address this very point. While I fully intend to support I
these measures on the floor, I am concerned that the Committee I
received no testimony directly on the issue of waste minimization. ii
fear, therefore, that we may be legislating in something of a I
vacuum. It worries me that we may be imposing a substantial pa-I
perwork burden on American industry, but perhaps will have noth- I
ing to show for it. I
By moving from the questions of properly storing, treating and I
disposing of hazardous wastes to the challenge of reducing their I
actual generation, we have taken a bold and important step. But ii
wonder whether our efforts are properly directed. Shortly after thej
Committee reported this bill, the EPA released the preliminary I
findings of a study entitled, “National Survey of Hazardous Wastel
Generators and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities Regu- I
lated under RCRA in 1981.” This survey indicates that Americanl
industry is generating about 150 million metric tons of hazardous
waste per year—nearly four times more than earlier estimates. I
Perhaps more significant is the fact that only one percent of 1
generators produce nearly 90 percent of the total amount of haz-
ardous waste. Just as important, only 4 percent of the 40 billion
gallons of hazardous wastes generated in 1981 were recycled, ac-I
cording to the study. I
These figures suggest that the problem is a very large and impor- I
tant one, and lead me to question whether the best initial approach I
is indeed a mandatory reporting scheme that applies to all gener- I
ators, but that provides precious little guidance for them as tol
what should be reported or what is expected. We run the risk here
of creating a false public impression that we have dealt with the!
problem, when in fact we have not. There is also a danger of a I
backlash from some segments of industry (small companies in par-I
ticular) that may perceive this as another senseless bureaucratic I
and regulatory headache and expense. Needless to say, the effect ofi
such a reaction could be counterproductive to the result the Corn-I
mittee is trying to achieve.
(74)
75
At the very least, I hope the Committee will recognize that we
have only just begun our work on the issue of waste minimization.
An important step will be to find a suitable means by which to
ensure that EPA will use the returned reports to develop a good I
statistical base on which to consider future changes. it is also my
hope that the Committee will hear some testimony from expert
witnesses on the specific issue of waste minimization.
My support for the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of
1983 is in no way lessened by my concerns about the issue of waste
minimization Indeed, I am fully prepared to speak on behalf of
waste minimization provisions on the floor of Senate. However, I do
think it is Important that the members of the Committee spend
substantially more time on this issue in future years. Protection of
human health and the environment is a weighty charge, but in the
area of waste minimization we have only just begun to fulfill our
mandate.
GORDON J. HUMPHREY.
/O/

-------
,qc sgf rA)
TH eL)S
16 FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVES OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
17 ACT
18 SEC. 16. (a) FINIINGS.—Section 1002(b) is am’ nded
19 by—
20 (1) striking out paragraph (5) and substituting:
21 “(5) the placement of inadequate controls on haz-
22 ardous waste management will result in substantial
23 risks to human health and the environment;
HR 2867 RFS
/O/

-------
72
1 “(6) if hazardous waste management is improperly
2 performed in the first instance, corrective action is
3 likely to be expensive, complex, and time consuming;
4 “(7) land disposal facilities are not capable of en-
5 suring perpetual containment of certain hazardous
6 waste, therefore, reliance on land disposal should be
7 eliminated for those wastes; and”;
8 (2) redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (8);
9 and
10 (3) striking out the semicolon in redesignated
11 paragraph (8) and substituting a period.
12 (b) OBJECPIVES.—SCCtiOfl 1003 is amended by striking
13 out paragraph (4), substituting the following new paragraphs,
14 and redesignating paragraphs (5) through (8) as paragraphs
15 (8) through (11):
16 “(4) ensuring that hazardous waste management
17 practices are conducted in a manner which protects
18 human health and the environment;
19 “(5) requiring that hazardous waste be properly
20 managed in the first instance thereby reducing the
21 need for corrective action at a future date;
22 “(6) minimizing the generation of hazardous waste
23 and the land disposal of hazardous waste by encourag-
24 ing process substitution, materials recovery, properly
25 conducted recycling and reuse, and treatment;
HR 2867 RFS
/ /

-------
73
1 “(7) establishing a viable Federal-State partner-
2 ship to carry out the purposes of this Act and insuring
3 that the Administrator will, in carrying out the provi-
4 sions of subtitle C of this Act, give a high priority to
5 assisting and cooperating with States in obtaining full
6 authorization of State programs under subtitle 0;”.
/ôi

-------
Ør EP7 4T ,?°,1 ”7V ‘4-’-
(D#1U 1 1 M4 — A5 -7E-
22 FLVDINGS AND OBJECTiVES OF SOLiD WASTE DISPOSAL
23 ACT
24 SEc. 12. (a) FINDINGS.—SeCtiOfl 1002(b) is amended
25 by— 41
1 (1) strik in9 out paragraph (5) and substituting:
2 “(5) the placement of inadequate controls on haz-
3 ardous waste management will result in substantial
4 risks to human health and the environment;
5 “(6) if hazardous waste management is improper-
6 iy performed in the first instance, corrective action is
7 likely t’o be expensive, complex, and time consuming;
8 “(7) land disposal facilities are not capable of en-
9 sunny perpetual containment of certain hazardous
10 waste, therefore, reliance on land disposal should be
11 eliminated for those was:es; and’
12 (2) redesignaling paragraph i’&. as paragraph (8);
13 and
14 (3,) striking out the semicolon in redesignated
15 paragraph ‘S , ) and substituting a period.
16 OBJEcT! vis.—Seciion 1003 is amended by sink-
17 ing out paragraph (4, , substituting the followiiig new para.
18 graphs, and redesignating paragraphs (‘5.) through (8) as
19 paragraphs (7) through (10):
20 “‘4) ensuring that hazardous waste management
21 practices are conducted in a manner which protects
22 human health and the environment;
23 “(5) requiring that ha:ardous waste be properly
24 managed in the first instance thereby reducing the need
Fm i nr 1,,p fp ’Ipl)J ,il n ,,F,,r. ,b,lo

-------
4
1 “(6) minimizing the generation of 1zazardous
2 waste and the land disposal of hazardous waste by en•
3 couraging process substitution, materials recob’ery,
4 properly conducted recycling and reuse, and treat.
5 men1;’
/1 1

-------
9 FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVES OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
10 ACT
11 Sec. 13. (a) FINDINGs.—Section 1002(b) of the Solid
12 Waste Disposal Act is amended by—
13 (1) striking out paragraph (5) and substituting:
14 “(5) the placement of inadequate controls on haz-
15 ardous waste management will result in substantial
16 risks to human health and the environment;
17 “(6) if hazardous waste management is improperly
18 performed in the first instance, corrective action is
19 likely to be expensive, complex, and time-consuming;
20 “(7) land disposal facilities are not capable of en-
21 suring perpetual containment of certain hazardous
22 waste, therefore, reliance on land disposal should be
23 eliminated for those wastes; and”;
24 (2) redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (8);
25 and
HR 2867 III
/0)

-------
41
1 (3) striking out the semicolon in redesignated
2 paragraph (8) and substituting a period.
3 (b) OBJECTIvEs.—Section 1003 of such Act is amended
4 by striking out paragraph (4), substituting the following new
5 paragraphs, and redesignating paragraphs (5) through (8) as
6 paragraphs (7) through (10):
7 “(4) ensuring that hazardous waste management
8 practices are conducted in a manner which protects
9 human health and the environment;
10 “(5) requiring that hazardous waste be properly
11 managed in the first instance thereby reducing the
12 need for corrective action at a future date;
13 “(6) minimizing the generation of hazardous waste
14 and the land disposal of hazardous waste by encourag-
15 ing process substitution, materials recovery, properly
16 conducted recycling and reuse, and treatment.”.
/ci

-------
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker. I ask
unanimous consent for the Immediate
consideration of the conference report
on the biLl CUR.. 2867) to amend the!
Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize
appropriations for the fIscal years
1984 through 1986. and for other pur.
poses.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. is
there objection to the request of the!
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker. I ask
unanimous consent that the statement
of the managers be read in lieu of the
report.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
Mr. FLORIO (during the reading).
Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent
that the statement be considered as
read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
FLORIO] will be recognized for 30 miri ’
utes and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. BROYIULL3 will be recog-
nized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mt. FLORLO].
(Mr. FLORIO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker. I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(‘i•D’ ( (. - i’
Mr. Speaker, alter nearLy 3 years’
-effort, today’s cclnsideration of HR.
2867 marks the final legislative stage
In the reauthorization of the Resource
Conservauoa and Recovery Act., the
law that governa tl e management and
disposal of hazardous waste.
I would particularly like to recognize
th efforts of the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dnccau.]. the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. Lmrrl. the
gentleman from North Carolina
IMr. BROmIU.i. the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Ms. Mucui..sxzl, the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. ECKART], and the
gentleman New Mexico (Mr. R icitaza-
sow], all members of our committee
who have worked so bard to get to this
point.
Mr. Speaker. It should be empha-
sized that this Is rio ordinary reauthor-
ization. The bill agreed to be ttie -mem-
bets of conference commltte will
launch a dramatic overhaul of j.he way
America manages la” hazardous
wastes. The regulatory rograrn man-
dated by this bill, U eor ler ious1y
Implemented. wW force a ,xi ssive
change In This country Wd(sposal prac-
tices: That is. awaf from land disposal
and toward appropriate recycling,
waste reduction and treatment..
Many of the market Incentives for
treatnien technology already exist.
This bill assures that these incentives
for safe management are strengthened
and that tbe regulatory systeln needed
to guide them will provide long term
protection of human health and the
environment. Moreover, were land dis-
posal continues It will conducted only
under the most stringent cç iditlons.
For example, the bill establishes rigor-
ous technologicaf reqw,ements such
as leak detecti n,, double liners and
leachate collection systems.
Mr. .Speaker, the bill ‘also mandates
that In 68 months, 5½ years from now.
land disposal - of most hazardous
wastes will come to an end. That is a
big task for EPA to accomplish, but it
Is long overdue—and we have given
the Agency all the tools. resources.
and legislative Instructions it needs to
get the job done. Mr. Speaker, this Is a
carefully crafted, thoroughly reviewed
piece of legislation—one which has the
unanimous support of all the confer-
ees. If EPA fails in thls mission to
carry out this legislation, it will only
be the result of Incompetence or a lack
of will.
Mr. Speaker, this bill not only ad-
dresses the defects in the current law
(such as the so-called “small genera-
tor” loophole or the “burning for
energy recovery” loophole) it charts a
dramatic new course for the future.
While I do not minimize the magni-
tude of task that faces both govern.
merit and Industry, I believe that en-
actment and enforcement of this legis-
lation will provide genuine protection
of the public’s health.
I would like to point out, however.
that while the reauthorization of
RCRA will help prevent the creation
of new Superfund sites, Congress has
‘ ),)6rlf( .. . -,jii&. ,
not yet addressed the probleth of
c}eamng up old sltm. While enactment
of HR. 2867 Ia a major achievement, It
Is only half o(the aolutlon. I hope that
the other body will recognme the crit.-
ice ] Importance of a strong Superfund
bill enacted thIs year. Congress cannot
adjourn and assume that. It has fully
dealt with the toxic waste crisis in this
country just by enacting RCRA. To do
the job right, both laws must be
stxengtheped.
Finally, I would like to mention one
provision of the House bill which was
left out of the final bilL In the House
bill, we made clear that all enforce-
ment actions brought by the Govern-
ment could draw upon principles of
c m ,..on law. Thus If, for some reason,
the statute was silent on a particular
point, the court would be free to look
to common law to advance the basic
purpose of RCRA. This right already
elsts in the citizen ault provision of
RCRA (section 7002) and the House
bill merely clarified that the Govern-
ment in enforcing RCRA would have
the same common law rights as the
ordinary citizen. Although the confer-
ence ccsnmltlee did not, at the last
minute, see fit to make this clarifica-
tion. I do not think this omission
should be construed as Congress’
intent to dispense with Federal
common law. On the contrary, the
action of the Conferees amply mdi-
estee that such clarifIcation was not
necessary. Therefore, the Government
in enforcing RCI%& and courts In con-
struing this statute, retain the right to
rely on common law wherever ft is ap-
propnaLe
R. 2W-Tm Hszaznoc, £ D SoLID WASTI
A ’awws or 1.984
reLicT
The overall policy which U reflected in
the RCRA Reauthorization bill (H.R, 2867)
Is that America’s almost total reliance on
land disposal has resulted In az
able risk to human and the environment
and Should be ended. The cenissi purpose of
ILR.. 2867 U that land disposal should be
drastically curtailed and for the most toxic
wastes. eliminated entirely
The proposed legislation Is designed to eli.
courage the development and Implements.
Uon of advanced treatment. waste reducuon
and recycling technologies which wall
tually eliminate the need for massive land
disposaL Where land disposal remains nec-
essary. It should be conducted in compliance
with stringent safeguards in order to pie-
vent groundwater contamination, toxic alt
emissions and other threats to public
- health.
WrD DISPuSAL ,aoaisrno s
HR. 2887 would prohibit land disposal 01
solvents and wastes containing dioxin 5’
months following enactment. In 32 monthi
hazardous wastes on the California list (I.e
heavy concentrations of cyanide, arsenic
lead, mercury etc.) would also be bannec
from land disposal. except where EPA deter
mines that a particular disposal or treat
ment method would be sale.
The legislation also requires EPA to devel
op a specific timet.abie lit order to conduct
thorough review of all remaining hazaIdOU
WUIOL One third of the wastes would hay
to be reviewed withIn 45 monthS, the aecon-
/ô,

-------
third wIthin 55 months end the fisal third
wIthin 68 months. EPA’. statutory mandate
is to prohiolt the land disposal of these
wastes unlesa it find. that one or more
methods. of dlspou.l will not harm public
health or the environment. If EPA fails to
meet either of it. first two deadlines and If
there is no treatment capacity, then the
wastes that have not been reviewed would
have to be sent to land disposal facilities
that are double-lined and have leachate col-
lecuon systems. If EPA falls to meet its
final deadline, then all unrevlewed wastes
would be banned from land disposal, unless
the generator qualities for a limited vari-
ance.
HR. 2867 closes a number of regulatory
loopholes which have allowed the disposal
of significant quantities of hazardous waste
to remain uncontrolled. Among these loop-
holes is the sma1l generator-’ exemption
which permits the disposal of -up to one
metric ton a month (per generator) into so-
called sanitary landf ills or Into sewers—dis-
posal practices which obviously are not pro-
tective of human health or the environ-
ment. The legislation requires regulation of
generators who produce more than 100 kilo-
grams (220 pounds) each month. These gen-
erators wlU be required to send their haz.-
ardous wastes to an appropn.re disposal or
treatment facility.
Another major loophole which is .4-
dressed by this legislaLion concerns the use
of hazardous wastes as fueL Currently, some
of the most dangerous wastes, auth as PCBs
and dioxin, are blended into used oil or
other fuel and burned in residential boilers
which are not capable of destroying the
toxic component of these wastes. This prac-
tice, which has become increasingly preva
lent, particularly in the Northeast, creates a
substantial risk to those citizens whose
health is most vulnerable, especially the eld-
erly, young children and persons with respi-
ratory illnesses. Under the legislation, EPA
must Issue regulations that would allow
burning of hazardous wastes only under cir-
cumstances that would not harm public
health.
secvoac rr -
HR. 2867 contains a number of provisions
designed to promote compliance with the
bill’s regulatory safeguards by Increasing
civil and criminal penalties for violators. For
example, placing another person In danger
of death or serious bodily injury bY UJegal
disposal or management of hazardous waste
carries a maximum 15 year prison sentence
and 1 *250.000 fine. A corporation could be
fined $1 million.
In addition, citizens would be provided the
right to sue responsible parties and compel
them to clean up hazardous Waste sites.
Congress has recognized that leaving all en-
foreement responsibility to PA and the
states has not been .atisfacto , In light of
the widespread non-compliance by hazard-
ous waste facflltt.s. Citizen Involvement, In-
cluding lawsuits, to force abatement of
public health dangers, is designed to law-
sulLs, to force abatement of public health
dangers, is designed to complement the gov-
ernments enforcement efforts and encour-
age greater compliance by the regulated
community.
O SOowOWATca CO MI5S1’UI
HR. 2867 also establishes a 19-member
National Groundwater Commission to inves-
tigate and report on causes of groundwater
contamination and to recommend a national
strategy for addressing threats to the Na-
tions freshwater aquifers.
ISAXINO UNnnICR0U D ITORSOS TAJIXS
HR. 2867 establishes a comprehensive
regulatory program to prevent leaks from
underground storage tanks. There are more
than 2 million underground tanks in the
United States which contain hazardous sub-
stances or gasoline. An estimated 100.000
are presently leaking (potentially contam-
mating groundwater) and another 350.000
are expected to leak in the next five years.
HR. 2867 mandates the use of leak detec-
lion systems, the development of new tank
standards which will protect against COITO-
aba, as well as many other safeguards.
Mr. EDOAR. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FLORIO. I yield to the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania,
Mr. EDGAR. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would Just like to
commend the gentleman on the legis-
lation and point out that the legisla-
tion does Include the establishment of
a National Groundwater Coinmn ’i ls.
alon. which the gentleman and I have
worked on, and I want to congratulate
him for his efforts.
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentle-
man. P
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
C 2140
Mr. BROYBILL Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself 5 mInutes.
I rise in support of H.R. 2867. I be-
lieve It is an important environmental
measure which Is deserving of passage
this year. .. -
My. understanding of this measure is
that It Incorporates a number of com-
promises on important IssUes such as
small quantity generators, PCB’s and
underground storage tanks. -
- The language adopted on small
quantity generatq is virtually Identi-
cal to Ihat aS-. .n agcesnenV reached by
the psiness nd envtronniental corn-
munWy titls ..pear. It provides for a
workable t? gatory program for small
quantity- geaerators of between 100
kilogra!rns ‘ana 1,000 kilograms of haz-’
ardoijs waste per month. Appropriate-
ly, this program is restricted to that
universe of generators—there Is no
regulation below 100 kilograms per
month. In my opinion, regulation of
these small generators should no go
below 100 kilograms per month. I be-
lieve the conferees did well In adopting
this commonsense compromise.
Further, the conferees agreed to
drop a House provision which would
have required the listing of PCB’s
under RCRA. I advocated and com-
pletely support this approach. PCB’s
are already regulated under the ‘Doxlc
Substances Control Act and EPA is in
the process now of reviewing whether
or not supplemental regulation Is ap-
propriate under RCRA. It, Is clear that
PCB’s are now, and will continue to
be, carefully monitored and that a
mandatory listing procedure is lnap-
propriate. -
Further, the conferees adopted a
compromise underground storage tank
proposal. It appears that this proposal
is a commonsense compromise be-
tween the House and Senate verslcns
of the tank regulatory program which
will provide a minimum amount of dis-
ruption to the regulated community.
In light of this sensible compromise
provision, I can support H.R. 2867 and
look forward to the President signing
it Into law this year.
Mr. Speaker. I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lgzrrl.
the ranking minority member of the
subcommittee who has worked so hard
and effectively, with respect to this
program. •
Mr. LENT: Mr. Speaker, I rise In
support of the conference report on
H.R. 2867—the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984. This is a
carefully crafted compromise bill
which has resulted from many years
of hard work by both Members and
staff. I want to particularly commend
the chairman of the full committee on
Energy and Commerce, the gentleman I
from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL), the
gent ema.n from New Jersey (Mr. I
FLORIO). the gentleman from North I
Carolina (Mr. BROYHILL). the gentle-
man from Ohio [ Mr. ECKARTI. and the
entleinan from Pennsylvania (Mr.
RrnnL
In my opinIon, this conference’
report represents a fair compromise
between the provisions of M.R. 2867
and S. 757—its Senate companion
measure. In most instances the differ-
ences between the two bills have been
split almost equally—resulting In an
important new environmental statute.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste En-
forcement Act of 1984 represents a
dramatic new shift In our national
polIcy about hazardous waste disposal.
After this measure is enacted, small
quantity generators of hazardous
waste who are now able to generate
2,209 kilograms or 1 ton of hazardous
waste a month will have to dispose of
their waste In a properly permitted fa-
cility rather than in an unregulated
dump.
FoUowlng enactment, the EPA will
be on a strict timetable for reviewing
and banning hazardous waste from
land disposal. Some of the most toxic
chemicals will be banned by statute
unless EPA determines that is not nec-
essary to protect human health and
the environment. These chemicals In-
dude arsenic, cyanide, and dioxins.
For too many years In this country,
we have permitted the practice of
dumping hazardous wastes in the land
to go virtually unchecked. Even now
that the EPA is requIring landfills to
be lined, I do not feel confident that
these liners will remain secure In the
long term. Therefore. I believe it is ap-
propriate for the Congress to inter-
vene at this time and to establish a
new policy which calls for a review of
known hazardous wastes and a deter-
ininatlon whether these wastes are ap.
propriate for land disposal.
We simply cannot afford to allow
these dangerous and persistent chemi-
-/ gij’
/0/

-------
/4 / 1 / (.#J -
cals to continue to pollute our drink.
big water suppb a—EPA must act
quickly to evaluate them and ban
them where necessary.
Surface impoundments, which are
filled with liquid hazardous wastes, are
also appropriately regulated In this
measure. These facilities which are
generally unlined and located within a
one-quarter mile of underground
sources of drinking water, are required
to be double lined and have leak detec-
tion Installed. Several narrow exemp-
Uons are provided, but on the whole,
HR. 2867 will result in these impound.
ments being appropnately safeguard-
ed.
Dioxin emissions from resource re-
covery facilities are abs addressed In
this legislation. EPA is directed to
submit a report describing the current
data and Infonnation on dioxins from
resource recovery facilities, any signlf.
Icant risks to human health posed by
these emissions and operating prac-
tices appropriate for conLroUuig these
emissions. Based on this report, EPA
may publish advisories on guidelines
regarding the control of dIo n emLa.
sions from resource recoveri facilities,
I strongly endorse this provision be-
cause there Is a resource recovery f a-
cility on Long Island which was forced
to close by public pressure over dioxin
emissions. If EPA had dioxin emission
regulations In place, this closing could
have been avoided. I will, therefore.
work to assure that. EPA prepare this
dioxin report arid guidelines in a
timely fashion so that my facility
might be reopened and dos [ n In
other parts of the country caq be
avoided.
One other important provision in
HR. 2867 should be mentioned—and
that is the new regulatory program for
underground storage tanks. Most f us
here today are aware of the large
number of these tanks which are leak.
big and polluting our precious ground
water supplies. It is iniportdnt that
these tanks be regulated. I believe that
H.R. 2867 does this In an evenhanded
way which will result In increased en-
vironmental protection and a minimal
amount of disruption to the regulated
community.
In sum, Mr. Speaker. I wholeheart.-
ed.ly support H.R. 2867 and urge its ex-
peditious passage today.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr, Speaker, I yield 4
minutes to the chairman of the full
committee, the $entleman from Mithi.
gan (Mr. DrNcIu.l.
(Mr. DINGELL. asked and was given
permission to revise arid extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr, Speaker, I thank
my distinguished friend, the gentle-
man from New Jersey. the able chair-
man of the subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support
of this conference report. We have
worked over this legislation over a
long number of months, and I am con-
fident that it will lead this Nation for-
ward in it s absolutely essential ta.3k of
controlling hazardous waste and pro.
tecting the pubile health and safety (Mr. ECKART asked and was given I
and the environment,. pCTmLSS1t to revise and extend his re’
I WOUld like to take Just a minute to’ I
Commend SOme of my colleagues who Mr. ECKART. Mn Speaker. In I
have worked extremely hard, often March 1983. durIng subcommittee I
with dlff1 ujty and adversity, to come markup of H.R. 2887, 1 offered an I
up with a reasonable and workable amendment—along wtt my friend I
bill. I would like to commend the gen- and distinguished colleague, Jix
tieman from New Jersey (Mr. FLORI01, PLORSO—to prohibit land disposal of I
the subcommittee chairman, as well as the California list 55te5—thftt ii, I
,the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ma, those with heavy concentrations of ar-
,frxvtsxtJ. the gentleman from Lou- senic, cyanide, lead, mercury. PCB’s, et
biana (Mr. TATIZrIVJ. the gentleman cetera. My amendment also required
from Ohio (Mr. Ecaiuivj. the gentle- EPA to Condlict S Ste ’by-WMte!
man from Mississippi (Mr. Dowayl, review’ of all the remaining fisted and I
and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Identified hazardous wastis and to
Sxu,ay). I want also to commend our allow continued land disposal of these
imnorfty members starting with my wastes only under circumstances that
good friend and ranking member, the will be protective of human health
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. and the environment. Under my I
Baoyim,z,]. the ranking member of the arnentiment.. EPA’s failure to review a
subcommittee, the gentleman from waste would mean that, by statue. I
New York (Mr. Lxnrl, and the jentle- that the waste would be prohibited
man from Pennsylvania (Mr. ftzs-rr 3 . from any form of land disposal.
Section 42 of this legislatiodla a pro- Mr. Speaker, with some modifies-
vision whloh states that iothlng La tions, this prevision is contained In the
this action shall affcti or change the—final version of H.R. 2887.
Uranium Mill Talllnjs Act, and In Wa. By enacting this provision, as well as
cussing the matter, t4ie ‘eonferees the other safeguards In this bill. Con-
agreed to accept the pTovisi i” gresa will be sending a clear and nn2m .
The s’ectlon was &Zfd’ed at the behest biguous message to the regulated com-
of the Senato froni Wypming , munlty and the Environmental Protec- I
Szsasoic], and I want to commend tion Agency: reLiance on land disposal I
for his accommodation with respect to of hazardous waste has resulted In an I
the agreement, not only on the statu. unacceptable risk to human health I
tory language but also on the state. and the environment Consequently. I
ment of managers. What we agreed to the Congress intends that through the I
in the conference committee was that vigorous implementation of the objec- I
the statement of managers would con- tlves of this act, land disposal will be I
stitute, for purposes of legislative eliminated for many wastes and mini- I
tory, the sole explanation. For the nilzed for all others, and that ad- I
benefit of my colleagues, I would like vanced treatment, recycling, tnciner. I
to quote that statement at this point atlon, and other hazardous-waste-con-
House bilL—No technologies should quickly re-
Senate amendment—The Senate amend - place land disposaL In other words, I
ment thciudes , land disposal should be used only as a
Solid Waste D posal Mt Amendments of last resort and only under conditions
1984 do not affect, modify, or amend which are fully protective of human
Uraa1uzn Mill TaULnas )tadlatlon Controi health and the environment, I
Act of 1978, as amended (UMTRCA). In additIon, the enactment of this
Conference substltute.—The Conference bifi constitutes a recognition that the I
substitute Is tl ê’same as the Senate amend- successful implementation of the 1984
ment. Nothing In tills section shall be amendments will require an Improved I
deemed to preclude or to require the revi-
sion of existing regulations promulgated working relationship between the En-
under UMTRCA. vironmental Protection Agency and
the States. Congress, In my opinion,
I think this resolution of the matter regards the development of a viable
Is entirely acceptable, and deeply ap- F erai taW partnership to be one of
preciate the cooperation of the other the highest priorities of this legisla.
body and, particularly, of the spor or lion and expects the Agency to devote
of the amendment, the Senator from much greater effort to assisting States.
Wyoming. a In achieving authorization of their
The majority and minority staffs of RCRA programs.
both this body and of the other body piji j y, I would like to mention that
have worked long and hard on this, HR 2387 amends RCRA by adding a
and they had invaluable support, new title—Regulation of Underground
we always do. from the Office of Legts .. Storage Tanks. There are more than 2
Lative Counsel, minion underground tanks In the’
Again, I think this is a superb piece United States which contain hazard-
of legislation, crafted with a great deal ous substances or gasoline. An estirnat.
of care, and I urge my colleagues to ed 100,000 are presenUy leaking_I
Support It. potentially contaminating ground I
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker, I yIeld 4 water—and another 350.000 are cx-
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio pected to leak in the next 5 years,
(Mr. Ecx.iar), $ very valuable member Since half the population of this Coun. i
of the subcommittee who played a try depends on ground water as its
very significant role In the conference. ource of drinking wator. a cont.amlna-

-------
kL LII f
tion threat of this magnitude must be
addressed. Consequenity, H.R. 286T
mandates the use of leak deteetlo. or
comparable systems, the development
of new tank standards which will pro.
tect against corrosion, as weU as many
other safeguards. Implementation of
these safeguards during the next
decade and removal of leaking tanks
will, in my view, go a long way toward
preserving America’s most precious
natural resource. Its freshwater
aquifers.
Finally. I would like to mention that
the statement of managers states that
exclusive reliance on the use of dip.
sticks as a method of inventory control
Is not likely to be a good indicator of
whether a tank has a slow leak. While
that is eatirely true, it should be
stated that EPA should not be pie-
eluded from reviewing mechanical in ’
ventory control systems. Some of
these systems, If they are backed up
with sophisticated computer technolo-
gy. may prove to be a reliable method
af detecting leaks and EPA should cx-
imine these types of systems.
D 2150
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Califor-
nia (Mr. Toasas].
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker. I would
like to thank the gentleman for yield.
Ing. I wish to thank the dlstingwshed
subcommittee chairman as well as the
other members of the conference com-
mittee for their support of language
requiring that health-assessment stud-
ies be conducted at operating land! ilLs.
As the gentleman knows, for nearly 3
months 18 families remain evacuated
from their homes because of danger-
ous gases escaping from the BICK
landfill located In my district. I would
like to ask whether a heaith assess-
ment study wiLl be conducted at the
BXX facility before any other facility
in the Nation.
Mr. FLORIO. Yes: I wish to assure
the gentleman from California that I
aware of the serious situation oc-
curring at the SICK landfill in West
Covina and believe that a health-as-
sessment study should be conducted at
that facility immediately and before
any other study.
Mr. TORRES. I thank the gentle-
man very much .
• Mr. RflLLtt. Mr. Speaker. I rise in
•upport of H.R, 867 and urge its cx-.
peditious passage by the House today.
I have a particular interest in thi3
bill because it will include a tlrst.time
regulatorY program for underground
storage tanks. I believe everyone here
today Is familiar with the alarming
numbers of underground storage tanks
which are leaking nationwide.
This provision is important to me be-
cause of several incidents which have
o urred Lu my district where drinking
water supplies have been contaminat-
ed with gasoline. In one instance, it
has been determined that leaking un.
derground storage tank.s are the cause
of the problem. In the other case, no
one has yet been able to pin down the
source of the contamination.
The tank regulatory program is very
similar to the one contained In H.R.
4985, a measure I introduoed earlier
thIs year In response to this emerging
national environmental problem. How-
ever. my bill included another provi-
sion which I consider essential to cbs
the loophole which now exists for pe-
troleum base,d spills and leaks. Tha
provision ended the petroleum exclu
alon which exists in Superfund now
and which precludes EPA action wheni
the contamination Is petroleum based.
Removing the petroleum exclusion
would enable EPA to spend Superfund
dollars to clean up a petroleum-based
situation even when the source of thei
contamination Is not known, If the re
aponsible parties could be located,
EPA could then pursue the responsi-
ble parties for reimbursement. Thus,:
In situations like that In my district,:
where EPA is now precluded from:
acting, cleanup of dangerous gasoline
contanilnatiori could begin.
I believe this is an essential eI ient
of a comprehensive petroleum’ teak I
program, however, it was not within I
the scope of this conference. But I
plan to continue to fight to ensure its ’
inclusion in any Superfund bill which
is enacted next year,
There are any number of other pro-
visions in this bill which deserve par’
ticular mention, but I will only name a
few. ‘. .
ri ost Importantly. HR. 2867 In-
icludes a new national policy that land
disposal of hazardous waste should be
a method of last resort. In this meas-
ure we have put the EPA on a ached-
tile for de ermlri1ng .whlch hazardous
wastes should D c b ed tro n one or
more mods u land disposal. This is
extrerze y imp ’tant in light of the
dlscoui gwg news .we are receiving
about th Ion4erxn integrity of land.
disposal !kcthttes.
Further, there Is a ban on the injec-
tion of tuzardous wastes into under- I
ground sources of drinking water, and
a ban of bulk liquids into landfills.
Both of these are environmentally
‘unsafe practices which are appropri’
ately restricted by the terms of H.R.
2867.
For all of these reasons, I am i
strong supporter of H.R. 2867 and
hope that we can quickly send it to
the Senate for passage today,•
Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, we have no
further requests.for time,
Mr. FLORIO, Mr. Speaker, I yield
back the balance of my time, ‘and I
move the previous question on the
conference report,
The previous question was ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.

-------
119154
remedy based non general . .-.on
law principles. This approach hi
1 consistent with the Supreme
Court. approach to these questlona in
other areas. I cite, for example. Cleci’-
field Trust Cb v. Clef ted States, 318.
U.S. 363 (1943) and Textile Workers
Vnwn v. Lincoln Mills. 353, U.S. 448
11957).
It is also consistent with $ recent
Pederal district court decision hi U.S
-V. ehem Dgne (SD. OhIo. Oct Ii.
1983). In that ease Judge Rubin held
that under the Superfund legislation.
Pederal common law—as opposed to
State common law—must be applied
because ‘the improper disposal as- re
lease of hazardous substances Is
enormous and complex problem hi-
volving uniquely Federal Interests. I
would only add that although RCRA
Is a Federal-State partnership, there is
a need to develop a unifomi liability
standard under RCRA and one that is
consistent with CERCLA.
yasensa oo o . Law -
A good example of the appropriate
application of Federal common law Ii
Ipparent In litigation to force the
cleanup of a hazardous waste she
owi ed by a corporation. If the compa-
uYs asset. had been systematicafly
drained by a corporate officer or con.
trolling shareholder, the company
might claim that ft was unable to pay
loreleanup because It was broke.
Nothing In RCRA provides for deal-
ing with a situation like that—but
ommon iaw has well established.
early understood precedent for plero-
1 .g the corporate veil and sflowlng a
lalntlff, In this ease the Oovei-ninent,
-O go after the assets of a company
alter they have been transferred to of-
ficer. or stotholders. This remedy
and other features of common law sie
frequently relied upon in many differ-
ent situations. U would be &bsurd to
arbitrarily preclude the Oovernment
from resorting to r n nn law princi-
ples where appropriate.
It should be kept to mind that ico-
tlon 7003. whIch suthorbes lawsuits to
force cleanupa c i hazardous waste
sites, Is founded on longstanding pi-in
dpies of common law nuisance. The
common law Is the ftmrl amental
source of falnreis and equity In ‘ fir-
dieial system. It should not be ban-
ished from RCRA. -
The CHAIRMAN pro Oceepore. Th
question Is on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
The amendment was agi to. -
The Clerk will read ectlon 12.
The Clerk read as Ollows - -
imaisos elm osiecrivas or seam
- -
— . 13. (a) Piepi —R i i l1O2 b) hi
emended by— - -
(1) sUlking out par spb (I) and au i-
Iu unr
(5) the placement of inadequate tzuis
‘ e.zardous waste management will result
hstanUal risks to hm,,.jt sltk
nvtr
If b wdo w s
egly perios d . the
hi Ikofy to to
c . iflP.L and thas eocomihi
17) land J hietilUes are cot capsbla
of rasasfus p - etuaI o itaanment of co.
lain bawdous waste, therefore. reliance we
land diipcusl should be ehssmaled for those
____ -
12) reduigimthig paragraph (6) as pare-
graph (5) arid - - -
(3) ikbtg oat the losi In red t-
naiad sgrsph iB arid uubstituUng a
period. -— -
(b) iwweee—8eeUco 100$ hi mended
by striking out paragraph (4). substituting
the Sollowliw sew paragraphs lad redes-
Igosting paragraphs (5) through (5) as para-
graphs (7) tLrougb (101:
‘(l) ensur ig that hmasdaus waste -
- t _cticca are conducted (a S
nner which protects human health end
the envtroneieat --
(5) requiring t hemz im waste be
properly managed in the first instance
thereby i ” ”ng the weed 1w
aCtion at a future date
(6) minimizing the generation of hazard-
ous waste and the land dlsp l of hazard-
ous waste by encouraging proceos aubatito-
tiot,. materials recovery, property conducted
rerythng sad reuse, and tses en . -
Mr. PLORIO (during the seeding).
Mr. Chairman. I a ,th iota con-
sent that the section be considered as
read and printed In the R ico . i
The CHAIRMAN pro tempole. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey? .
There was no o jecUon.
£MfltbXfliT Cnnm BY L itosso
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. I offer
an amendment . - -
The Cleitread as follows: ,
Amendment offered by Mr. Piosso: Page
41, strike out lIne 18 end substitute: “para-
graphs(S) through (ill”. -
Face 42, lineS, strike out She “ —“w awe-
s and period.
Pge42 ,afler lmeL ln.er 1 -
“(7) establishing a viable Federal-State
partherthlp to carry out . the pw’pcae. of
this Ad and thawing that the Admanistea-
toT will, In carrying out the provisions of
subtitle C of Iha Act. gise a high priority to
sweating and cooperating with States hi oh-
&. 4 &.g lull autbornation of BlaZe programs
iroderaubtitla ‘. . —.
Mr. FLORTO (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask imunfn,nus con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed in the
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
(Mr. FLORIO asked and was given
to ievlue and extend ha
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, this
- amendment Is simply intended to
convey Congress clear and mmiatak .
able to EPA that ft must
make much greeter dforta to sasist
States In obtaining authorization for
RCRA programs. These has been en-
thely too mush emphasis by EPA on’
procedural, even nit-picky matters.
rather than the substance of the
States ’ rogroms. fl’A should temem-
her that R A a partnership and
that a ea should be esmouraged to
November S. 198.?
develop Innovative and more efficient
ways of carrying out this statute.
Mr. BROYI1Ti. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
- Mr. FWRIO. I yield to the gentle-
man from Worth Carolina.
Mr. BROYHILL I thank the gentle-
man for yielding
‘We have examined the amendment.
and we have agreed to wept the
amendment. -
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
from North Carolina.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempove. The
guestion Is on the amendment offered
hi’ the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. ’Fz.ouo). -
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are
there further amendments to section
If not, the Clerk will read section 13.
The Clerk read as follows:
uansc ann we.zsrino or wears
. 11. C i) Grecznc Wuias.—Seetloa
1001 is amended by inserting the following
subsections st the end thereat.
“( I I Brscn’th Wasm.—(1) Not laus than
two months alter the date of enactment of
this subsection. the Mminlatratcr shalL
wbe e appropriate, list imder subsection
(bKl). additional wastes containing eblorul-
ated dloxins or chlorinated-dlbenzofurans.
Not later than ten months after such date
of enacunent, the Administrator shall.
where appropriate, list under subsection
(bXl) additional wastes containing polychlo-
rtnated blphen)is. Not later than one year
*tter the date of ctment of this subsec-
tion, the Administrator shall, where appro-
priate. list under subsection (bIll) aastes
containing remaining balogenated dioxin
and -dibenzofurins. l xi the case of polychlo-
rinated blphenyls. the standards promulgat-
ed under tba act shall be consistent with
the standards promulgated under section
6 (e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
“(2) Not later than fifteen months after
the date of the enactment cd this suheec-
Uon, the Administrator shall make a deter-
mination of whether or not to list under
subsection (b) (1) the following wutes
Cblot-Inated Alxphatles, Dioxin, Dunethjl
Bythaxine. TD1 (toluene dllsocyasate). r-
bamatea. Biomacti. Unurori, Organo-bro
mines, solvents, refining wastes, chlorinated
aremit ca. dyes and pigments. InorganIc
chemical industry wastes, lithium batteries.
coke byproducts, paint production —
sad coal slurry pipeline effl t.
(b) Liarinc ox rus Bu.s dr CO, . .m-.,’
oers,—Section 3001(bXl) is amended by
adding the following at the end thereof:
“The Administrator shall siso Identify or
list those hazardous wastes which shall be
subject to the provisions of this subtitir
solely bemuse they contain hanardogs em-
sutuOus (such Identified arelnogena,
mutagens. or teratagens) ii concentration
levels In ex of levels which adversely
&ffect human besith and the erivbna-
(c Derisrrxc —SectIon 1001
Is amended by adding the following new
Itibsection at the thereof:
“(g) Dn.zmac Pao vam—(1) When
evaluating a petition to exclude a waste gen-
erated at a particular facility from listing
under ihie section, the Admnlgratss’ shall
cosaider beams (betudhw additional em-
it.lluauis) other t th for which Use
waste vu listed U the Adznlitntsutor hias a
reasonable heals to b.&uc that n a I-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE -
/0/

-------
November 3, 198.?
,nal fsetors could es&ae the waste be $
.rdous waste. The Administrator shall
jude notaoe and opportunity for cimiment
/these additional (actees before vialing
,r denying such petition.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply to petitions
filed before, on. or alter the date of the en.
actmeni. of this subsection. In the mae of
petitions submitted alter such date of enact.-
mont. the Administrator shall make a final
decision on each such petition within twelve
months after auth date of enactment. hi the
mae of petitions submitted before such date
at enactment, the Adnunistrator shall make
a final decision on each such peUuon within
eighteen months after granting a temporary
exclusion from regulation for such waste. In
the case of any waste for ahich a petition
has been submitted under this section. no
temporary exclusion may be granted from
listing under this section unless there has
been notiee and opportuzii’y for cornmeal
prior to the beusnes of such temporary ex-
C IUSI0IL”.
Mr. FLORIO (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous con-
aent that section 13 be considered as
read and printed In the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN pro ternpore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
I TWDKD(T OFP in ST R
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman. I offer
in amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bazaux Page
44. alter line 19. insert
BAZASnOCS co i -
c. 13A. Section 3005(hM3). as added by
non 5 of this Act. Is amended by insefl-
g the following immediately alter subpar.
mph (B) thereof “For the purpose of
making any demonstration under subpara-
graph (.01. the t.eTm ‘bazandoim Constiuient
does not include those hazardous consutu.
ents which the owner or operator demon.
strafes to the satisfaction of the Adminis-
trator and the Administrator determines at
the tbne of permitting will not migrate into
ground or surface water in concentrations
which may adversely affect human health
or the environment?’.
Make the necemary omfonming shangas
ththetableofomt a. -
(Mr. BREAUX asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re:
marks.)
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman. I have
discussed my amendment with both
t’ie chairman of the subcommittee and
also the ranking minority member.
The amendment Is simple, in that It
Is a clarifying amendment. As Mem-
bers may remember the last time we
were at this section, 1 offered an
amendment which was adopted by a
voice vote which dealt with surface Im-
poundments. My amendment simply
said that all surface Impoundments.
that have an Interim permit, that
when they went to A to get their
final permit, that they had to be retro-
fitted, and retrofitting would require
that these surface impoundments be
:ible-lined and also have monitoring
to monitor what was In the sur-
Unpoundmenta,
I, FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. will
e gentleman yield?
Lr. BREAUX. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
- ‘Mr. PLORTO. 71hank the gentieman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman. I support the amend-
ment offered b the gentli”masi from
Louisiana.
This amendment clarifies which con-
stituents are of concern in a permit
proceeding where the,,owner or opera-
tor seeks to avoid the retrofit require-
ment on the basis of no migration of
hazardous constituents Into ground or
surface water. The amendment means
the migration of concern is re3 ted to
thcoe constituents which may adverse-
ly affect human health and the envi-
ronrnent. The term “may” Is intention-
ally chosen to avoid the ner- ss1ty of
quantifying precise effects. The poten-
tial or actual presence of constituents
hi certain concentrations In groimd or’
surface water would be sufficient for
the Administrator to conclude an ad-
verse effect may occur. -
The full burden of demonstrating
the concentrations of waste which Is
migrating—or will migrate In the
future—Is on the owner or operator at
the time of permitting. SimIlar y, the
full burden of proving no e.dver e
human health or environmental effect
Is on the owner or operator. Thus, sci-
entific uncertainties are to be resolved
against the attempt to demonstrate no
adverse effect on human health and
the environment. - -
I urge my colleagues to adopt this
annendinent. -
Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I yield to the gentle-
man from North Carolina.
Mr. BROYHILL. 1 t-han the gentle’
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there has been con-
siderable consu.ltat ion on this amend-
ment. and ‘we ‘will agree with the
amendment as presented.
Mr. BREAUX, I thank both sides for
agreeing to the amendment.
As I said, It is basically a clarifying
amendment which tends to track what
I indicated In my initial words on the
floor as to what my first. amendment
was Intended to do, This clarifies It,
and I think the language is an appro-
priate matter, and I ui-ge adoption of
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore, The
Question Is on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Bazavx.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chan-rnzn, the
Committee on the Judiciary also ap-
proved an amendment of a technical
nature to an Energy and Commerce
Committee amendment to section
3008(d) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act. The purpose of - the Judiciary
Committee’s amendment is to make It
clear that there is no congressiona.l m-
tention to change the culpability re-
quirement of present law.
Section 3008(dX2)presently makes ft
• criminal offense ‘tnowmgly” to
neat, store, on’ dispose of hazardous
waste ‘In k:nowing violation” of any
atcz-lal condition of a permit Imued
B 19155
smde ’ section 3005 or 3006 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act or under title I of
the Marme Protection and Sanctuaries
Let, The Energy and Commerce Com-
mittee amendment revises section
3008cdR2) and, In so doing, does not
forward the phrase “In knowing
violation.”
Prom a drafting standpoint, that
phrase Is redundant. If this legislation
were the Initial enactment of section
3008(d)(2), there would be no harm in
dropping the phrase, for the use of the
term “kltowingl” at the beginvilrig of
section 30 id ::2) would modify all
that I ollo ’s, so that any violation of a
material condition would have to be
done knowingly. However, in the
present situation, where there is al-
ieady language on the books, the
dropping of the phrase might be seen
by some as an expression of congres-
sional intent to change present law,
Those who see It that way would
argue that there must have been a
purpose behInd dropping the phrase.
Since the Energy and Commerce Com-
mittee’s report does not indicate what
that purpose Is, they would be able to
argue that the purpose was La change
the culpability requirement of section
300&d)(2. If their argument were ac-
cepted, the result could be a substan-
tial change from present law, for there
could be the imposition of strict crum-
irni liability. Whether there would be
strict criminal liability In any particu-
lar instance would depend upon how
the condition was drafted.
The Judiciary Committee amend-
ment restores the phrase “in knowing
violation’ to section 3008(dX2. The
use of this phrase from present law
will Insure that the culpability provi-
sions of current law are carried for-
ward unchanged.
The CHAIRMAN pm tempore. The
Clerk will z-ea4 ,
The Clerk read as I ollows
aacovray Asia emynawn or yam on.
Sac. 14. Section 3012 (relatIng to restric-
tions on recycled oil) is amended by striking
out the period at the end thereof and substi-
tuting “, consistent with the protection of
human heaith and the environment.”,
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are
there any amendments to section 14?
If not, the Clerk will read. -
The Clerk read as follows:
$TA11 aviwo ma
S 15. SectIon 3006 (b) ii amended by
adding the following at the end thereof “in
authorizing a State program, the Adininis-
ijator may base his findings on the Federal
program in effect one year prior to submis-
sion of a State’s application or hi effect on
Janifary 26, 1983, ahichever Is later. ’,
Mr. FLORIO (during the reading),
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that section 15 be considered as
read, printed In the EwoRri and open
to amendment at any pomt
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. is
there ob ect1on to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was

-------
7-S7ô, ?1f c .,2 t . (N )
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
The purpose of the Bill is to authorize appropriations for the ac-
tivities set out in the Solid Waste Disposal Act and to make certain
amendments and modifications in the Act in order to assure adequate
protection of public health and the environment.
The Bill authorizes $108.5 million for Fiscal 1983 and $111.5 mil-
lion for Fiscal 1984. The Bill also amends the Act to; set deadlines
for issuance of permits to assure more complete coverage of the waste
stream; and create a National Groundwater Commission.
Hz tnINos
The Conmiittee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation, and
Tourism held 3 days of hearings on HR. 6307 on 3/31/82, 4/16/82,
and 4121/82. Testimony was received from 52 witnesses, representing
45 organizations, with additional material submitted by 6 individuals. J
COMMI1TEE CoNsinELtrIoN
On May 11. 1982, the Committee met in open session and ordered
reported the bill H.R. 6307 with amendment by voice vote.
BACKGROUND AND NEm POR TIlE LEGISLATION
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was enacted as an
amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act in 19T6. These amend-
ments established this Nation’s basic hazardous waste management
system under Subtitle C of the Act, and provided complementary
authority to encourage the conservation and recovery of valuable
materials and energy.
Since the (late of enactment and particularly in the present day,
attention and expectation has been focused on the Subtitle C program.
The course of implementation to date has demonstrated that the task
of comprehensive hazardous waste management is one of unparalleled
scope and complexity.
101

-------
8
In May, 1980 the Agency published its first major package of
regulations to implement Subtitle C (Phase I). These regulations.
put into place waste identification, manifesting, transportation and
interim status treatment storage and disposal requirements. Wbile
these requirements have been long in coming. they represent signifi-
cant initial effort to bring the management of hazardous wastes under
some control. Since the May 1980 promulgation, the semblance of a
hazardous waste regulatory and enforcement program began to take
shape with the promulgation of several proposed final standards for
treatment storage and disposal facilities and financial responsibility
requirements.
In recent months, however, several regulatory decisions have
prompted a re-examination of the direction of the present system and
the adequacy of coverage of the regulatory system that has been taken
form since May 1980.
Final standards under Section 3004 of RCRA are a. necessary pre-
requisite for the final permitting of any new or existing treatment
storage or disposal facility (TSDFs—landfills, surface impound-
ments, land treatment facilities, incinerator, boilers, tanks, containers.
piles, underground injection wells). These standards (Phase II ) con-
tain the necessary technical, design and operating standards for
TSDFs for the protection of public health and the environment which
are not contained in the interim status standards. Furthermore, these
standards must be issued and become effective before the Agency,
under Section 3005 or an authorized State under Section 3006, can
issue final operating permits to any new or existing TSDF.
At present, final standards are in place for all new TSDFs (new
facilities are those that came into existence after November 19. 1980).
With regard to the 9,980 existing TSDFs. however, 3004 final stand-
ards are in effect for storage facilities only. To date, a total of 2 final
permits have been issued. Final standards for existing incinerators.
surface impoundments and landfills are either defacto suspended or
have not been issued.
lie problems created by the absence of final standards for most
existing TSDFs has been compounded by several recent decisions to
suspend previously promulgated requirements and standards govern-
ing the operation and monitoring of hazardous waste facilities. Most.
notable among these actions was the Agency’s immediate suspension
on February 25 of the nrohibition on the disposal of containerized
liquid wastes into landfills (which was reimposed on March 22), the
proposed rule to allow 25 percent of future landfill capacity to be
reserved for containerized wastes, the proposed suspension of the
quarterly groundwater report, and proposed suspension of the an-
nual reporting requirement for hazardous waste generators. These
recent actions, when viewed within the context of the present domi-
nance and relative low cost of landfilling, do little more than preserve
the disincentives for alternative forms of hazardous waste treatment
and disposal and represent a departure from policies that are taking
hold in several states. Notably, the State of California is phasing
out the land disposal of many types of hazardous wastes over the
next 2 years.
The need for final TSDF and other management standards and
complementary requirements of sound integrity becomes especially

-------
9
evident when delegating the authority permitting authority to the
States under Section 3006. Many States have amended their laws to
incorporate RCRA requirements as the maximum that can apply to
any TSDF that is permitted in that State. If RCRA requirements
are weakened, many State permitting requirements will follow suit,
and new facility siting will become more difficult.
In addition to the concerns regarding standards and permitting.
it is clear that an amount of hazardous waste equal to that which is
currently regulated under RCRA (40 million metric tons per year)
is escaping control through various loopholes in the regulations and
related statutes.
Boilers that burn hazardous wastes for purposes of recovering
energy are not regulated under RCRA despite existing authority
to do so.
While some of the substances being burned in boilers are being
considered for regulation under the Clean Air Act as hazardous air
pollutants, RCRA standards presentl y fail to address these facilities.
It is estimated that 20 million metric tons of hazardous waste are
current burned in boilers per year.
Small quantity generators (1000 kg/mo or less) are presently
exempt from most RCRA requirements and may dispqse of their
wastes into sanitary landfills and into sewers that are connected
to publicly owned treatment works. Neither of these types of
facilities are suited to the disposal or treatment of toxic organics
or metals that find their way into these facilities. The Office of
Technology Assessment has estimated that up to 4 million metric
tons of waste per year are escaping effective control through this
exemption. Sixty-five of the top 115 “superfLmd” sites are facili-
ties that accepted a combination of solid and hazardous waste.
Mixtures of domestic sewage and hazardous wastes are pres-
ently exempt from regulation so long as the sewer line into which
these wastes are placed is itself connected to a publicly-owned
treatment works. While a segment of this broadly drawn exemp-
tion is intended to be controlled through industrial pretreatment
standards under the Clean Water Act, these standards will not
cover the range of waste streams currently disposed of in domestic
sewers. Preliminary estimates place the size of this exemption at
over 4 million tons per year.
Waste oil regulations are not in place, and thus continue to
exclude from control. another 4 million tons of hazardous and
potentially hazardous material. The vast majority of this mate-
rial is either being burned in boilers or is being disposed of in
sanitary landfills. Only 10 percent is recovered and recycled.
“Beneficial” uses, reuse recycling and or reclamation of hazard-
ous wastes are not controlled under RCRA nor are there any
standards or criteria that apply to these activities. Most impor-
tantlv. the regulatory exclusion fails to address the question of
beneficial to whom and under what circumstances.
Underground injection of hazardous wastes (class IV wells)
- into areas above underground sources of drinking water are sub-
ject to only minimal control, and
Many organic waste streams are neither listed nor identified
under Section 3001 of RCRA. (Appendix I) Assessments of these
H.Rept. 97—S70 ——— 2

-------
10
streams for potential future inclusion under 3001 are scheduled
to be issued in the final quarter of 1982. The size of this exclusion
is difficult to accurately estimate. but may be substantial given
the nature of the waste streams under assessment.
Even with standards in place. permitting underway, and expanded
waste stream coverage and coordination; without a credible enforce-
ment presence, no hazardous waste management ogram can be
meaningf iii. The evidence of recent months has unmistakably identi-
fied an enforcement program that is passive, and lacking results.
Since June, 1981, only one 7003 imminent hazard declaration has been
filed, only one hazaraous waste enforcement action has been referred.
for prosecution from the EPA Regions to EPA Headquarters and
the Justice Department. Only one facility has been closed, and the
EPA Regional enforcement case development process has virtually
halted. Furthermore, constant reorganizations of enforcement person-
nel at the Agency has diverted effort from actual enforcement
activities.
In conclusion, the Committee believes that the RCRA permitting
and enforcement program must be conducted in a manner that con-
trols and prevents present and potential endangerment to public
health and the environment from hazardous wastes. Otherwise, we
are doing little more than contributing to future burdens on the
“superfund” program, and ultimately individual States and taxpayers.
CoMIfirrES OVERsIGHT FINDINGS
Pursuant to clause 2(1) (3) (A) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, no oversight findings or recommendations
have been made by the Committee. The Subcommittee held oversight
hearings and made findings that are reflected in the legislative report.
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Pursuant to clause 2(1) (3) (D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, no oversight findings have been submitted to the
Committee by the Committee on Government Operations.
COMMrFTEE COST ESTIMATE
In compliance with clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee states that the bill author-
izes $108.5 million for fiscal year 1983 and $101.5 for fiscal year 1984.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFIcE—CosT ESTIMATE
MAY 17, 1982.
1. Bill number; H.R. 6307.
2. Bill title: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Reauthoriza-
tion Act of 1982.
3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce, May 11, 1982.
4. Bill purpose: The bill authorizes appropriations in fiscal years
1983 and 1984 of $98.5 million and $101.5 million, respectively to

-------
11
administer the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and extensively amends that
acts regulations. Of these amounts, $44.5 million each year is author-
ized for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and $1.5
million each year for the Commerce Department, for general adminis-
tration of activities mandated by the Solid Waste Disposal Act; the
remainder is for EPA grants to states. The bill also establishes the
National Groundwater Commission and authorizes $10 million to be
used by the commission until its dissolution in October 1986.
5. Cost estimate:
(By fi ca1 yeari. In mUhlon. of dollarsi
Authorization level:
1983 *108. 5
1984 101.5
1985
1986
1087
Estimated outlays:
1983 54.9
1984 84.1
1985 42.6
1986 21.1
1987 7.3
The costs of this bill fall within budget function 300.
6. Basis of estimate: The authorization levels are those stated in the
bill. For purposes of this estimate, it was assumed that the full amounts
authorized will be appropriated prior to the start of each fiscal year.
Authorizations of $10 million annually for fiscal years 1983 and 1984
for hazardous waste site inventory grants were not included in the
above estimate because they replace an existing authorization of $20
million for that program. Outlays were estimated based on informa-
tion from the EPA and on historical spending patterns for these types
of activities.
7. Estimate comparison: None.
8. Previous CBO estimate: A cost estimate was prepared on May 12,
1982. for S. 2432, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works. That bill authorized $88.6 million for
fiscal years 1983 and 1984. Of those authorizations, $45 million each
year was for grants to States, and the remainder of EPA’s general
administration expenses pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act. No
funds were authorized for the Commerce Department, nor was a
National Groundwater Commission created by S. 2432.
9. Estimate prepared by: Anne E. Hoffman.
10. Estimate approved by:
C. G. Nucxoi s
(For James L. Blum,
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis).
INTLATIONART IMPACr STATEMENT
Pursuant to clause 2(1) (4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives the Committee makes he following statement with
regard to the inflationary impact of the reported bill:
1à 1

-------
4 1 ,q7-s-7o ?71 co -i. . 1 ..,2cI
8eo ion
This Section authorizes $108.5 million for fiscal 1983 and $111.5
million for fiscal 1984 to carry out the respcn ibilities under the Solid
Waste Disposal Act.
The Committee authorizes a total 3f 44J20,O00 for fiscal 1983 and
1984 under section 2007 (A) of the Act. The authorization under this
section includes the funds for EPA ’s basic program activities under
the Act, including regulatory functions. permitting, and enforcement.
The Committee believes that EPA’s timetable for permitting haz-
ardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities should be ac-
celerated and has provided a statutory timetable in Section 8 of this
bill. In order to insure that the Agency has adequate resources to carry
out this mandate the Committee has provided an additional $5 million
over the requested sum to cover the salaries and expenses and other
costs incurred to meet these deadlines.
The Committee has also provided an additional $1.9 million to be
used to enhance the enforcement activities in the program office. The
recpiested budget provides only 46 permanent full time work years in
both headc 1 uarters and the regions to accomplish all of the enforce-
ment activities remaining in the program office.
The enforcement program has the responsibility of ensuring corn-
pliance with RCRA requirements through enforcement of Phase I and
Phase II hazardous waste regulations. The program must develop an
overall enforcement strategy and implement a crucial monitoring pro-
gram and inspection program to ensure compliance with Subtitle C
regulations. A GAO report submitted to the Committee in October of
1981 (CED 81—158) found that enforcement resources under interim
status were inadequate to carry out the basic inspection and compli-
ance functions necessary to protect public health and the environment.
The Committee has always believed that an efiective enforcement pro-
gram is absolutely essential to the success of the hazardous waste man-
agement program.
The technical assistance panels authorized under Section 2003 and
2007(b) of the Act are designed to provide Stkte and local govern-
ments with technical assistance on matters of waste management. It is
imperative that EPA be responsive to local community concerns about
the potential dangers presented by waste sites and that it work closely
and cooperatively with the communities by providing as much in-
formation and assistance as is available.
The Committee has continued the authorization for the State Haz-
ardous Waste Site Inventory under Section 30 12(A). Testimony be-
fore the Committee indicated that there continues to be a need to assist
the States in identifying and collecting information about hazardous
waste sites in individual States. EPA is required to carry out this re-
sponsibility where the State does not. This Section when originally
enacted was intended to aid in developing a comprehensive and relia-
ble base of information regarding the scope of the hazardous waste
site problem. In some States, this information is still incomplete and
)0I

-------
these funds will provide the means to complete the necessary data
gathering and monitoring activities.
The Committee believes that the planning and implementation of
the State solid waste management plans is absolutely essential to pro-
tect against further contamination, to provide for a coherent manage-
ment of solid waste and to encourage movement to more advanced and
environmentally safer methods of disposal. Furthermore, there is
frequently little practical distinction between solid and hazardous
waste management as evidenced by the current small quantity gener-
ator exclusion. At the present time, the States are in the middle of the
planning and implementation process. Nineteen states have already
received final review of their plans and arc proceeding to implement
them. Other states are nearing completion of their plans and will
shortly submit them to EPA. for review, while others are still in the
process of formulating their plans. The Committee believes that
proper solid waste management by the States should be encouraged
and has authorized $10 million for grants to States to carry out these
activities. The Committee has also continued State grant authoriza-
tions at a level of $2 million dollars to provide financial assistance to
States, counties, municipalities and State and local public solid waste
management authorities for implementation of programs to provide
solid waste management, resource recovery, and resource conservation
services and hazardous waste management.
The Committee believes that the statutory functions of the Depart-
ment of Commerce are important to encouraging the greater cominer-
cialization of resource recovery. Th development of specifications and
markets, the development of markets for recovered materials are help-
fiil to private industry’s development of resource recovery and the
Committee has continued the authorization at a level of $1,500,000
million for these functions. The Committee believes that recovery of
materials and energy from solid waste that would otherwise be dis-
carded are vital alternatives to land disposal and should be given equal
emphasis in solid and hazardous waste planning and management at
the local, state and national level.

-------
September 8, 1982
U.S. Virgin I lands under temporary
vIsas. .1 urge my colleagues to concur
on this, and I would like to take this
opportunity to thank my coileagues in
the House for their support, and Sena-
tor Awc Smesorc. the chairman of the
Senate Immigration Subcommittee,
for all his support and assistance, Sen.
store DsNrris DECONCEtI. Txn Knnra-
os, and Congressman }kseiuoir Fisn,
and most especially, the chairman of
the House Immigration Subcommittee,
and my friend. Congressman Roit Mar.-
zeal, whose unfailing commitment on
this bill, and whose sympathy and con-
cern for all the people of the U.S.
Virgin Islands, have without a doubt
been a major factor in this success.
Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, the minority
has no objection to the Senate amend-
ment or to concurring therein, and I
withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT REAUTHORI-
ZATION ACT OF 1982
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 545 and ask
for Its Immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fel-
lows:
aRm.545
ResoIve That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order. sections
402 (a) and 401(b)(l) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) to
the contrary notwithstanding, to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill ULR.
6307) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal
Act to authorize appropriations for the
fiscal years 1983 and 1984. and for other
purposes, and the ILrst reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. Al tsr general
debate, which shall be confined to the bill
and shall continue not to exceed one bow’.
thirty minutes to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking mi-
nority member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce and thirty minutes to be
equally divided and controlled by the chair.
man and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Public Works and Transpor-
tation, the bill shall be read for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider the amendment In the
nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Energy and Commerce now
printed in the bill as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the fIve.
minute rule, and all points of order against
said substitute for failure to comply a ith
the provisions of section 401(bXl) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public
Law 93-344) are hereby waived. In lieu 0 !
the amendments recommended b the Corn.
inittee on Public Works and Transportation
to said substitute now printed in boldface
roman In the bill, it shall be in order to con-
aider amendments to said substitute printed
in the Congressional Record of August 3,
1982, by, and if offered by. Representative
‘oe of New Jersey. It shall also be in order
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
to consider en amendment to said substitute
printed in the Congressional Record of
August 2, 1982, and U oflered by, Repre-
sentative Pithian of Indiana, and all points
of order against said amendment for failure
to comply with the provisions of clause 7,
rule XVI are hereby wai ,ed. At the conclu-
sion of the consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and
report the bili to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted, and
any Member may demand a separate vote in
the House on any amendment adopted in
the Committee of the Whole to the bfll or
to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage with-
out intervening motion except one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
M0AKLEY) Is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for
purposes of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Ten-
nessee (Mr. Qun.wc), pending which I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
(Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 545 is the rule providing
for the consideration of E.R. 6307, to
amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
authorize appropriations for the fiscal
years 1983-84, and for other purposes,
This Is an open rule. It provides 1
hour of general debate. 30 mInutes to
be equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce and 30 mInutes to be
equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation. It makes
in order consideration of the amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute rec-
ommended by the Committee on
Energy and Commerce now printed in
the bill as an original bill for the pur-
pose of amendment under the 5-
minute rule, and it also waives section
401(bXt) against said substitute.
Section 401(bXl) bars consideration -
of legislation h1ch provides new enti-
tlement authority to become effective
before the beginning of the next fiscal
year. The committee snbstltute pro-
vides new entitlement authority In the
form of salaries to be paid to members
of the National Groundwater Commis-
sion.
Mr. Speaker. I am advised, however.
that the Committee on Energy and
Commerce Intends to offer an amend-
ment which will change the entitle-
ment authority into an authorization
subject to an appropriations, thereby
curing the violation and making the
waiver technical In nature.
In lieu of the amendments recom-
mended by the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation now print-
ed in the Energy and Commerce Com-
mittee substitute, the rule makes It In
order to consider amendments to the
substitute which are printed in the
116745
CONGRESSIONAL Rrcoan of August 3.
by, and if offered by, Representative
Ros of New Jersey.
An amendment to the substitute
printed in the CoNcazssloieaz. Rscoan
of August 2. by, and if offered by, Rep-
resentative Fn’nxqis of Indiana, is also
in order and points of order against
the amendment for failure to comply
with the provislons of clause 7, rule 16
which prohibits the consideration of
nongerrnane amendments are waived.
Mr. Fimxaz ’s amendment pertains to
hazardous waste facilities owned by
States or political subdivisions.
• Finally, the rule provides one motion
to recommit with or without instruc-
tions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 630’f reauthorizes
and amends the principal law govern-
ing the disposal of solid and hazardous
wastes, the Solid Waste Disposal Act
enacted En 1976, in order to assure ade-
quate protection of public health and
the environment. The bill authorizes
1108.5 mIllion for fiscal year 1983 and
$111.5 million for fIscal year 1984. The
bill also amends the act to set dead-
lines for Issuance of permits for the
coverage of the waste and creates a
National Groundwater Commission.
Mr. Speaker, HR. 6307 addressee
several important and somewhat con-
troversial issues regarding the disposal
and management of hazardous wastea.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this
open rule. House ResolutIon 545, so
that the House may proceed to debate
and consider these important issues.
0 1345
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may use.
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, the rule
has been ably explained; It is an open
rule.
We need to get down to the business
of discussing the measure on the floor
of the House. There are controversial
sections in this bill. There wIll be
amendments offered which will be
hotly debated. But it is time for
action.
H.R. 6307 needs to be considered.
The rule needs to be adopted.
Mr. Spaker, I have no requests for
time and reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker. I
move the pretioUs question on the res-
olution.
The previous question was ordered.
Zhe resolution was agreed to,
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the considera-
tion of the bill (HR. 6307) to amend
the Solid Waste Disposal Act to au-
thorize appropriations for the fiscal
years 1983-84., and for other purposes.

-------
H 6746
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion offered by
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
FL ORI0).
The motion was agreed to.
I T COMMUI ’U OP rss wxoLi
Accordingly the House resolved
it.self into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill,
HR. 6307. with Mr. MOAXLEY in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the
rule, the first reading of the bill Is dIn-
pensed with.
Under the rule, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Fionzo) will be recog-
nized for 15 minutes, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Lx rr) will be rec-
ognlzed for 15 minutes, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. ROE) will be rec-
ognized for 15 minutes, and the gentle-
man from Arkansas (Mr EAEN-
sc iwr) will be recognized for 15 mm-
ute a.
The Chair recognizes the gentlemen
from New Jersey Mr. FLORIO).
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FLORIO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. PWRIO. Mr Chairman, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) was originally enacted In
1976 In response to the need for pro-
tection of public health and the en-
vironment from uncontrolled hazard-
ous waste management practices.
In 1980. Congress established the
Superfund program to initiate and
fund the cleanup of thousands of inac-
tive hazardous waste sites that were
created by the uncontrolled waste
management practices of the past. To-
gether with the Superfund program,
RCRA Is intended to provide compre-
hensive prevention and cleanup of
hazardous waste damage Incidents.
In examining the operation of the
ECRA program and its relationship to
the Superfund and other envlronxnen-
tal statutes, the committee discovered
that the relationship is anything b t
complementary. In fact, the commit-
tee uncovered several major loopholes
In RCRA coverage which allow as
much hazardous waste to escape regu-
lation as is presently covered by
RCRA controls.
These loopholes have several damag-
ing effects:
First, they cause substantial gaps in
protection of public health and the en-
vironment:
Second, they compromise the occu-
pational health of works in the waste
management and related fields; and
Third, they create direct disincen-
tives to investment In alternative
treatment and ultimate disposal tech-
nologies. Without the necessary con-
trols in place, the hazardous waste
marketplace will never function In a
way that Is consistent with protection
of health and the environmenL
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
Furthermore, unless these loopholes
are closed, the RCRA program Itself
and the hazardous wastes It Is sup-
posed to control will be doing little
more than sowing the seeds of future
Superfund sites,
The present BCRA system allows
wastes to escape controls through a
varity of gaps:
• Generators of up to I ton of hazard-
ous wastes per month are virtually
exempt from RCRA coverage and may
dispose of their wastes Into solid waste
facilities and municipal dumps—a
practice which has produced the ma-
Jorlty of our present Superfund sites.
There are virtually no categorical re-
strictions on the placement of wastes
Into domestic sewer a stems, or their
Injection Into the ground near areas
that supply drinking water.
Hazardous waste recycling, Including
the burning of hazardous wastes in
boilers, has been virtually Ignored by
RCRA despite the fact that 13 recy-
cling operations are on the Superfund
list and 20 mIllion tons of waste are In-
efficiently burned In boilers each year.
The placement of liquid wastes Into
landfills must be further restricted.
The legislation addresses all of those
loopholes by prescribing the appropri-
ate restriction, prohibition, or assess-
ment. In addition, the legislation:
Insures that the final permitting
review of major hazardous waste facili-
ties occurs In an expeditious fashion
and that leaking facilities not be
granted a final permit until there Is
some form of commitment to control
the release;
Protects the right of dtlzens and
States to seek redress for hazardous
waste damages and releases under the
existing common law;
Establishes a National Groundwater
Commission to report to the Congress
on the nature and scope of present
and future groundwater pollution and
to issue recommendations on direction
of the future policy and
The bill also provides a generous au-
thorization under sections 3011 and
3012 for State hazardous waste pro-
grams, which are vital to a sound
RCRA program. Equally important to
the RCRA program operation and
oversight are State hazardous waste
management associati ns. In the
RCRA area, this group is the Associ-
ation of State and Territorial Solid
Waste - Management Officials
(ASTSWMO). ASTSWMO has great-
ly contributed to the Congress under-
standing of State RCRA programs and
always with an emphasis on profes-
sionalism and thoroughness. I for one,
speaking for the committee, believe ft
would be both appropriate and highly
beneficial to fund ASTSWMO directly
from the 3011 State grants authoriza-
tion,
This legislation has been drafted
through bipartisan cooperation with
my distinguished colleague from New
York (Mr. LE NT)
Since adoption of HR. 6307 by the
Energy and Commerce Committee, a
September 8, J98fJ
number of concerns have been raised
regarding several provisions of the bill.
Mr. LENT and I have developed a sub-
stitute amendment which amends sev-
eral of the bill’s provisions in a
manner consistent with the legitimate
concerns that have been voiced. Spe-
cifically, the bill changes the present
small generator exemption by explicit-
ly modifying all of the administrative
and managerial requirements prior to
disposal, while maintaining the re-
quirement that hazardous wastes must
go to a hazardous waste facility when
being treated or disposed of not to
unItary landfill municipal dumps.
The substitute bill reflect.s a shared
consenus regarding the necessary
measures for protection of public
health and the need to accommodate
the legitimate concerns of the regulat-
ed community. I strongly urge all of
my colleagues to support H.E. 6307
and to oppose all amendments that
would continue these loopholes,
- Mr. LENT. 1’!’. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. LENT asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, today the
committee has under consideratlon
H.R. 6307, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act Amendments of
1982. This bill makes a number of Im-
portant and necessary changes to
RCRA. the law which governs the dis-
posal of hazardous waste in this coun-
try. However, as reported from com-
mittee, H.R. 6307 was not, in my opin-
ion, an acceptable bill. The minority
views In the committee report reflect-
ed a number of my concerns with H.R.
6307 as reported.
Since that time, I have been working
with my distinguished colleague from
New Jersey, Subcommittee Chairman
FLoaxo, to make what I consider are
necessary changes to H.R. 6307. 1
would indicate to my colleagues that
Mr. Faoiuo and I have been able to
agree on several changes to H.R, 6307
which will be offered today as part of
an amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute to H.R. 6307. This amendment
retains the beneficial provisions of
HR. 6307 while incorporating several
desirable modif. . ations to a number of
other provisions of that measure. Un-
fortunately, we were unable to agree
to delete section 10 of the bill relating
to Federal common law remedies,
Before addressing some of the spe-
cifics of our substitute amendment, I
would like to take a moment to com-
mend the chairman of the subcommit-
tee for his leadership in this area. The
iafe disposal of toxic waste should be
one of this Nation’s primary goals and
the gentleman from New Jersey has
done Yeoman’s duty to insure that
this goal is met, I would also express
my appreciation for the spirit of coop-
eration that Mr. FLoiuo and his staff
have exhibited In working out many of
the troublesome provisions of H.R.
6307. I also want to commend my col-
/0/

-------
September 8, 1982
leagues. Mr. Ros and Mr. E M1 EIt-
SCHMXDT for their contribution as well.
I believe that the substitute that will
be before this committee today Is far
superior to our original committee bilL
If It is adopted along with a number of
other meritorious amendments to be
offered today, such as an amendment
to strike section 10. I believe the Mem.
bers of this body will have produced a
well-considered and much-needed envl-
ronmental measure.
Mr. Chairman. I would now like to
take a moment to highlight what I
consider to be several of the more ha-
portant provisions of the amendment
In the nature of a substitute to H.P..
6307 whIch will be offered shortly.
Section 3 of the substitute brings
into the RCRA regulatory system for
the first time & large number of small
generators of hazardous waste. These
small generators previously had been
exempted from RCRA so the EPA
could concentrate on regulating the
larger generators which are producing
the lions share of hazardous waste in
this country. Now that EPA has corn.
pleted the regulations Implementing
RCRA. I am hopeful that the agency
will have sufficient resources to ade-
quately regulate these small genes-
atom. In addition, since compliance
with RCRA will impose additional
costs on these small businesses, I am
pleased to point out that the substi-
tute makes provision for regulatory
variances for those businesses. For in-
stance. section 3 of the substitute
makes It clear that all the complicated
RCRA testing procedures do not have
to be followed by the small gener-
ators—identification of wastes to the
level of process Involved will be suff I-
dent to satisfy the RCRA require-
ments. This variance provision will
substantially lessen the financial and
regulatory Impacts of RCRA on small
generators.
Another extremely Important provi-
sion of the substitute is section 6. That
section calls for a two-step approach
to regulating the burning and blend-
log of hazardous wastes as fuel, it is
badly needed because the burning of
hazardous wastes for purposes of
energy recovery is totally exempt from
RCRA regulation at this time. Even
though energy recovery Is a laudable
goal and should be an Important na-
tional priority. It should not, In my
opinion, be achieved at the expense of
our national health and environmen-
tal goals. Therefore. section 6 per.
forms an important service in requir-
ing notification to EPA by those who
produce, distribute and burn hazard-
ous waste fuel. EPA is then required
to regulate those production, distribu-
tion, and burning practices which are
determined to be harmful to public
health and the environment. Once
these practices are regulated, a major
gap in the RCRA regulatory program
will be closed.
Mr. Chairman. I do not want to mo-
nopolize the time the minority has
available on this measure but suffice it
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
to say that sectIons 3 and 6 are only
two of many worthwhile • RCRA
amendments contained In the substi-
tute to be offered shortly. I believe It
Is our obligation as Members of Con-
gress to support legislation which con-
tributes to the long-term environmen-
tal well-being of our country. Today
we are being given an opportunity to
fulfill that obligation—I believe each
of us should seize this opportunity and
vote in favor of the bipartisan substi-
tute.
0 1400
Mr. ROE. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. ROE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend hIs re-
marks.)
Mr. ROE. Mr. Chairman. I am
pleased to Join with our colleagues
today and particularly pay my deepest
respect In regard to our chairman of
the committee, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. PL0RI0), the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. Lmiv) and
also the gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. HAMMERSCISMIDT). and’ strongly
support H.R. 6307. to which I know
there will be an amendment In the
nature of a substitute which will incor-
porate the amendments In the nature
of a substitute of the Subcommittee
on Water Resources of the Public
Works Committee to sections 4 and L
In my Judgment, I think It is an ex-
tremely Important environmental bill.
As background, Mr. Chairman, this
bill, after being reported by the Com-
mittee on Energy and Commerce. was
sequentially referred to the Commit
tee on Public Works and Transporta-
tion for consideration of section 4 and
section 9. These sections direct a study
by EPA of mixtures of sewage and
hazardous wastes and establish & Na-
tional Groundaater Commf c ion to
study and report on our ground water
resources.
I might say at this point, Mr. Chair-
man, that the ground water of our
Nation has been really neglected over
the years In most of our legislation. I
think that this bill Is & monumental
step forward In bringing into clear
focus the poucy developments that the
Congress chooses to make to protect
our ground water drinking water
supply.
Our committee amended each of
these provisions and our amendments
will be Incorporated In the substitute.
Section 4 dIrects the Admir.lstrator
of the Environmental ProtecLon
Agency to submit a report to Congress
on mixtures of sewage and hazardous
wastes. These mixtures are presently
regulated under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. EPA would be
directed to Include recommendations
as to whether regulations of these
mixtures would be better accom-
plished under the Solid Waste Dispos-
al Act.
The amendment to section 4 deletes
the reference to the Solid Waste Dts-
posal Act and calls, rather, for recom-
H 6747
mendatlons on whether existing law
applicable to such mixtures Is ade-
quate to protect human health and en- -
vironnient.
The Subcommittee on Water Re-
sources of the Committee on Public
Works now has under review the pre-
treatment requirements under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
which relate directly to this amend-
ment.
Section 9 of H.P.. 6307 establishes a
National Groundwater Commission
composed of four Members of the
House, four from the Senate, four ap-
pointed by the President from lists
submitted by various groups and the
Director of the Office of Technology
Assessment.
The commission Is charged with as-
sessing & number of problems associat-
ed with contamination of ground
water from hazardous wastes, together
with that contamination corning from-
possible solid waste disposal, with a
report to be submitted to Congress by
October 30, 1986. The amendment to
sectIon 9 expand. the scope of the
study, Mr. Chairman, to Include other
aspects of the subject of ground water,
including a general assessment of the
amount, location and quality of the
Nation’s ground water resources: a
general identification of the sources,
extent and types of ground water con-
tamination; an assessment of the rela-
tionship between surface water pollu-
tion and ground water poUution; an as-
sessment of the extent of overdraftlng
of ground water resources and the ade-
quacy of existing mechanisms for pre-
venting such overdrafting an assess-
ment of the engineering and techno-
logical capability to recharge aquifers;
an assessment of the methods for
abatement of ground water contami-
nation and a comparison of cleanup
costs to the costs of substitute water
supply methods; an assessment of the
adequacy of existing standards for
ground water quality under State and
Federal law an assessment of Federal
and State monitoring methodology; an
assessment of the adequacy of existing
ground water research: and, finally, an
assessment of the Federal, State, and
local roles In managing ground water
quality and quantity.
The amendment also changes the
membership of the commission, as I
previously mentioned. Of the four
House Members, two would be from
the Energy and Commerce, and two
from Public Works and Transports.
tion. E1 ltt Members would be ap-
pointed by the President, four from a
list submitted by the National Gover-
nors Association, and four from lists
submitted by other organJzaLio and
groups.
The commission would be directed to
utilize on a reimbursable basis person-
nel from the U.S. Geological Survey
and from the Corps of Engineers.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the date for
submission of the report to Congress
would be changed from October 30.
/1 1

-------
H 6754
I believe this funding level would
allow for an effective hazardous waste
program at the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
In addition. I wholeheartedly ap-
prove of the provisions in the bill that
would tighten the management re-
quirements for hazardous waste gener-
ated in this country.
Existing law has failed to address
some very serious hazardous waste
problems and I believe appropriate ac-
lions must now be taken.
Specifically. I refer to the handling
of hazardous wastes from small gener-
ators, the disposal of hazardous wastes
in municipal land fills, and the use of
fuel that has been combined with haz-
ardous waste materials.
• Oversight activities conducted by
the Subcommittee on Natural Re-
sources, Agriculture Research and En-
vironment. which I have the honor to
chair, confirm the fact that these are
all serious problems, not only in my
State of New York but also In many
other parts of the country.
We cannot ignore these problems
and further jeopardize our environ-
ment and our citizens.
This legislation addresses these
problems responsibly and I. therefore.
strongly urge its adoption by the
House.
• Mr. ZEFER TTI. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of H.R 6307. the Re-.
source Conservation and Recovery Act
reauthorization. -
Hazardous waste management has
become an issue of major national con-
cern and one of great concern for both
New York State and New York City.
Since passage of the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act in 1976, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
has been slow to Implement this im-
portant law. The EPA did not issue Its
first major package of hazardous
waste regulations until May 1980. and
It had barely begun to implement
them before the Reagan administra-
tion took office. Since then, EPA has
been hit with severe budget reduc-
tions.
As approved by the Energy and
Commerce Committee, the bill author-
izes appropriations of $108.5 million in
fiscal year 1983 and £111.5 million iii
fiscal year 1984. These figures are
more than $30 million more than the
President had originally requested for
the Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act (RCRA). In addition, the bill
earmarks $109 million to enhance the
enforcement activities of RCRA. H.R.
6307 all significantly expand the
scope of the hazardous waste law and
will force the EPA to meet new dead-
lines for issuing or denying disposal
permits to the generators of hazardous
wastes. Plus, this legislation will create
a National Groundwater Commission
to recommend ways of protecting
ground water from contamination.
Specifically. Mr. Speaker, I support:
Restricting the disposal of bulk and
containerized liquid hazardous wastes
In landfills. Present EPA regulations
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — I- lOUSE
are Inadequate to protect the environ-
ment from contamination in that
those regulations permit the free dis-
posal of untreated bulk liquid wastes
In landfills. The regulations ignore the
fact that toxic chemicals can migrate
through the ground and Into the
groundwater.
Prohibiting the injection of hazard-
ous wastes into underground sources
of drinking water and restricting the
injections above present and potential
underground water supplies, pending
the development of State programs to
regulate this practice. EPA has vacil-
lattil on whether to regulate under.
ground injectinn wells for the disposal
of hazardous wastes under RCRA of
the Safe Drinking W,iter Act. Thus
the regulation of class IV underground
Injection wells used for the disposal of
toxic and radioactive liquids into and
above underground sources of drink.
ing water has been sorely neglected.
Requiring the EPA to set standards
for industrial boilers that burn haz-
ardous wastes as fuel.
Requiring that interim status facili-
ties wanting to expand by more than
10 percent obtain permits In accord-
ance with the standards that apply to
new facilities.
Establishing a timetable for the EPA
to review permit applications to accel-
erate the Issuance of final permits
which spell out specific environmental
protection measures for existing haz-
ardous waste management facilities.
All of these issues—my concerns, the
concerns of the Nation, the concerns
of my congressional district, and the
people of Staten Island—are addressed
by HR. 6307. The national hazardous
waste problem has reached a crisis
stage in many of our communities. If
we fall to act now, we may very well
lose the opportunity to develop a pre-
ventative approach to future hazard-
ous waste problems. We need a strong
Federal law now more than ever to re-
store public confidence. We need to
put teeth In the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act. We need R.R.
6307. and I call upon my colleagues to
give their wholehearted support to it.•
• Mr. CORRADA. Mr. Chairman, I
rise In support of H.R. 6307, the
RCRA Reauthorization Act of 1982.
This legislation provides a 2-year
reauthorizaticri for a major law that
established our Nation’s basic hazard-
ous waste system.
RCRA represented a milestone in
our efforts to regulate and monitor
the problem posed to the environment
by the increasing amounts of hazardS
otis wastes which are generated annu-
ally. If unchecked, these wastes would
create enormous environmental and
health problems for generations 10
come.
This legislation seeks to provide ad-
ditional guidelines for the implemen-
tation of the law. The establishment
of specific deadlines in the legislation
dealing with the issuance of hazardous
waste disposal permits is an additional
step in the right direction and which
-September 8, 1982
will provide certainty In this complex
regulatory area.
At the same time. I also support the
amendment that will be offered by our
colleague. Congressman PHIL GRap&M,
dealing with small generators of haz-
ardous wastes. I agree that there
should be some consideration given to
the regulation of generators of hazard-
ous wastes In quantities of less than
1,000 kilograms per month. However.
the Immediate applicability of the
RCRA regulations on small gener-
ators, as provided for In section 3 of
the bill, will have a significant eco-
nomic Impact on those generators, the
majority of which are small businesses
such as gas stations, dry cleaners, auto
repair shops, laboratories, and so
forth. I favor the approach taken by
Congressman PHIL GRiMM which di-
rects the Environmental Protection
Agency to conduct a comprehensive
study on small generators to assess the
problem they present and to analyze
the regulatory alternatives available
to deal with these hazards. In this
way, different options can be studied
that will achieve the desired purpose
without being onerous on the small
generators that will be regulated.
I urge my colleagues to vote In favor
of the Gramni amendment and will
also support the prompt enactment of
this bill.• -
• Mr. MOi ’. ri. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in strong support of H.R. 6307.
First, let inc thank Mr. FLoalo and
Mr. Ros for their leadership on this
issue arid congratulate them on this
excellent reauthorization bill.
Over 80 billion pounds of hazardous
wastes are dumped each year. creating
a serious threat to the land, to drink-
ing water supplies, and to the health
and well-being of our citizens. HR.
6307 Is an Important and essential step
in providing a solution to this problem
and in reaching the goal of protecting
the public from significant environ-
mental and health damage. -
In particular, I would like to empha-
size the importance of the creation of
the National Ground Water Cornmis.
sion. The Subcommittee on Environ-
ment, Energy and Natural Resources.
which I chair, undertook a year-long
Investigation into the ground water
problem. Our investigation culminated
In a report of the full Government Op.
eratlons Committee which urged, in
the strongest terms, the development
of a national strategy to protect our
ground water resources.
Over 100 mIllion Americans depend
on ground water. Over 40 percent of
our citizens in my State of Connecti-
cut obtain their water from wells,
Ironically, as the dependence on
ground water is growing, so is the de-
struct ion of precious underground
drtr’Jcing water supplies, In Connecti-
cut alone, some 25 percent of the
towns have suffered from hazardous
waste and toxic chemical contasnina.
lion of ground water.

-------
September 8, 1982
Just last week. I visited the residen-
tial community of Montville, Conn.,
where toxic organic solvents had de-
stroyed 13 private wells arid pose a
threat to dozens more. The problems
faced by the citizens of Montville are
being faced by residents of towns
across the Nation.
Despite my pleasure at seeing the
ground water issue addressed. I am dis-
appointed that EPA’s failure to act in
this vital area has necessitated further
congressional action. The Reagan ad-
ministration has not used its authori-
ties to address this issue and, by fail-
ing to act. is exposing our resources
and our citizens to dangers which
could be mitigated. As Mr. FLORIO
noted in the full committee markup
on this legislation, the establishment
of this Commission should be viewed
by the EPA as a signal that the Con-
gress is not happy with its “go slow”
approach, that Congress is frustrated
by the EPAs meager efforts to pre-
vent the destruction of ground water
supplies. Thus, the creation of the
Commission must be seen as a call to
action.
I would also like to say that I believe
Mr. FITHIAN’S amendment is essential.
Hearings held by my subcommittee in
the field earlier this year clearly tad !-
catcd that this amendment will correct
u asteful and unnecessary ambiguity in
the Superfund legislation. I believe
this amendment clearly expresses the
intent of the Congress that only mu-
nicipally owned and operated sites
should be forced to pay 50 percent of
the cleanup Costs.
I believe that HR. 6307 deserves the
full support of the House. I look for-
%ard to working with my colleagues in
future efforts to protect our essential
and irreplaceable underground drink-
ing water supplies•
• Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In support of H.R. 6307. legislation to
reauthorize the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act. This statute
has been most effective in addressing
the hazardous waste question, and the
protections It affords the public
should be retained.
It is widely accepted that the mis-
management of hazardous wastes is
one of the most serious public health
and environmental problems before
our country today. This fact is under-
scored by the large number of aban-
doned toxic damp sites ‘ittered across
America, and the continued illegal
dumpIng of wastes down sev ers, storm
drains, and In acant lots. It is discon-
certing to realize that the public still
relies on la-id disposal facilities for the
most deadly and persistent chemicals
despite c%erahel’vJng evidence that
most landfIlls e ent’ialiy leak.
The Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act of 1976, which sought to
correct these egregious problems, was
modeled on California’s 1972 hazard-
ous ast.e law. Cal:fornia, with one of
the Nation’s most serious waste prob-
lems and one of the most progressive
programs to combat it, provides an in-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
teresting case to study during our Con-
sideration of RCRA’s reauthorization.
Indeed, my State has assumed an im-
portant role In the debate surrounding
the hazardous waste question, and a
review of the relevant facts concerning
California’s current situation Is appro-
priate. Given the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency’s claims that California
Is the fourth largest producer of haz-
ardous wastes in the country, a discus-
sion of my State’s problems will also
be instructive to other industrial
States faced with similar thluicu .lties.
During the past several years. nearly
100 hazardous waste sites have been
identified throughout California. The
soil and water surrounding these areas
has ‘oeen contaminated with danger-
ous pollutants arid are a profound
threat to human health and the envi-
ronment. Cleanup of these sites repre-
sents a long-term commitment of re-
sources and time, as It will require
hundreds of millions of dollars and
many years to complete the task.
These 100 sites are only the first to be
discovered, and it is expected that nu-
merous other hazardous dump sites
will be located before California’s
county-by-county search is ended.
We cannot shirk our commitment to
the eradication of dangerous wastes,
as many of these sites have coptami-
nated drinking wells with solvents.
pesticides, and other possible carcino-
genic materials. The existence of these
tainted wells poses an unacceptable
hazard to the public’s well-being and
as such, it becomes our responsibility
to pretent such pollution from occur-
ring. Once an aquifer is contaminated,
the process of reclaiming it is a diff i-
cult and expensive one, and the natu-
ral rate of ground water recharge is on
the order of decades. This problem
needs to be’addressed, as over half of
all U.S. citizens rely on ground water
aquifers for their drinking water. We
cannot continue to threaten that
water supply by relying on question-
able land disposal practices.
Hazardous wastes of all types contin-
ue to be churned out at an alarming
rate. In 1982, California discovered
that the actual amount of waste gen-
erated ithin its borders is close to 18
million tons, rather than the 5 million
tons previously estimated. Most re-
cently, we have witnessed the Santa
Clara Valley’s citizens contend with a
critical taste problem. This product: e
BrAn, which is the ca;:’%l of the
State’s electronics industry, has been
plagued by a ser!cs of massive Ie ks In
underground storage tanks containw
toxic solvents. The event’s potential
for damaging the integrity of the
area’s graund water supplies was sig-
nificant arid is indicative of the need
for society’s greater vigilance in the
d zpositIon and long-term management
of haza;dous waste.
NotuithstandLng the numerous haz-
ardous waste problems encountered by
the State, Califcrraa has been in the
vanguard of the battle to reclaim
these-poisoned sites. Our State’s haz-
H 6755
ardous waste laws have been updated
during each of the last 10 years as the
extent of the problem becomes under-
stood more fully. The Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act, on the
other hand, has not been modified to
reflect the new changes in our knowl-
edge about hazardous wastes. It is my
firm belief that the adoption of H.R.
6307, as amended by the committee
proposals, will allow our country to
keep pace with the growing complex-
ity of this problem, I urge my col-
leagues to support this measure.
• Mr. BROWN of California. Mr.
Chairman. I rise In support of H R.
6307, the reauthorization of the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act
and in support of strengthening
amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I commend by col.
leagues on the Energy and Commerce
Committee for the excellent work
they have done In addressing the prob-
lem of hazardous waste management.
In particular, I commend my coiieague
from New Jersey (Mr. FLoalo) for the
leadership he has demonstrated. The
Superfund legislation enacted in 1980.
providing authority for clean up of
abandoned hazardous waste sites, was
guided through the committee by Mr.
Fi.oaio and will benefit communities
across the country suffering the re-
sults of poor or illegal dumping prac-
tices. The Resource Conser ation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) is designed to
Control current waste management
practices so that Ideally, Superfund
would no longer be needed.
The problems of hazardous waste
management describe by my col-
leagues and well known to most Mem-
bers are very real. Tney certainly are
found in my o n SLate of California,
long kno n for Its aggressi e efforts to
protect Its rich environmental re-
sources. In my own district, the Com-
munity of Glen Avon in the Jurupa
hills has suffered years of turmoil and
uncertainty regarding a liquid hazard-
ous waste site leaching toxic chemicals
into underground streams feeding the
community, The St.ringfellow Acid
Pits, as the site is called, is listed as
one of the 100 or so sites on the Feder-
al Superfund list. I appreciate the pro-
visions contained in Superfurid which
can help alleviate the problems of
sites like Str ngfe)io across the coun-
try. But I sin also znterest d in insur-
ing that communities do n have to
face problems like this in the future.
California’s hazardous waste law was
enacted in 1972. It was the first law In
the country arid provided the model
for RCRA. California updated its stat-
ute during each of the last 10 years as
the extcrit of the hazardoi s waste
problem became more fully under-
stood. I belipt’e that a few po, about
California’s program are re1e ant to
our debate today.
NO SMALL W ERATOR EXIMFrION
California has never exempted
smaller generators from hazardous
waste controls. Many of the most pii.
f Of

-------
,1s r) ,1’Q ) c 6 ’JC.M
- • c
,iuA1r( FROM RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITTES
SEC. 102. Section 1006b1 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended
by inserting “II) ” after “INTEGRATION WITH OTHER AcTs.—” and
by adding the following new paragraph at the end thereof:
“(2kA) As promptly as practicable after the date of the enactment
of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the Admin-
istrator shall submit a report describing—
Ii) the current data and information available on emissions
of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins from resource recovery fa-
cilities burning municipal solid waste;
lii) any significant risks to human health posed by these
emissions: and
liii) operating practices appropriate for controlling these
emissions.
“(B) Based on the report under subparagraph (A) and on any
future information on such emissions, the Administrator may pub-
lish advisories or guidelines regarding the controL of dioxin emis-
sions from such facilities. Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed to preempt or otherwise affect the authority of the
Administrator to promulgate any regulations under the Clean Air Act
regarding emissions of polychiorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins.”.
/O2J

-------
ff A) 1LP .
SECTION 102—DIOXINS FROM RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES
House bill. —The House bill provides that EPA must promulgate
regulations requiring new resource recovery facilities to comply
with the best available control technology for emissions of dioxins
into the ambient air. Such regulations would be superseded by any
Clean Air Act regulations governing emissions of dioxins from re-
source recovery facilities. The House bill also authorizes EPA to
promulgate regulations governing the use, reuse, recyling, and rec-
lamation of hazardous waste.
Senate amendment.—The Senate amendment does not contain a
similar provision.
Conference substitute.—The Conference substitute eliminates the
mandate that EPA promulgate a specific type of regulations by a
date certain. Instead, EPA is directed to submit a report on the sit-
uation regarding the emission of dioxins from resource recovery fa-
cilities burning municipal solid waste. Based on this report and any
future information on such emissions, EPA may publish advisories
or guidelines. EPA’s authority to promulgate regulations under, for
example, the Clean Air Act is not affected by this provision.
Operating practices, rather than control technology, may be the
key to minimizing dioxin emissions in these facilities. “Best avail-
able control technology “(BACT) can be difficult to define, and thus
there could be significant delays in promulgating regulations of
this type. In the interim, there could be a virtual halt to resource
recovery progress, since there would be reluctant to design a facili-
ty until EPA’s BACT rules were promulgated. The prospect of such
a moritorium is troublesome in that EPA, in its most recent public
statement on the issue, concluded that present emission levels of
dioxins from the municipal waste combustors they tested do not
present a public health hazard.
The amendment is therefore restructured to require EPA to
report on the available information on the emissions of dioxins re-
source recovery facilities burning municipal solid waste, and the
risks to human health posed by these emissions. This report should
update the previous EPA “Interim Evaluation of Health Risks As-
sociated with Emissions of Tetrachlorinated Dioxins from Munici-
pal Resource Recovery Facilities”, taking into consideration any
new data on dioxin emissions from this type of facility (including
data from other countries), and any information based on improved
risk assessment methodologies. The revised amendment requires
that the report describe operating practices at resource recovery fa-,
cilities that the Administrator judges to be necessary to maintain
dioxin emissions from these facilities at a safe level. The amend-
ment gives EPA the authority to issue any additional advisories, or
82
guidelines that the Agency deems necessary to control dioxin emis-
sions from such facilities.
The Conference substitute does not include the House provision
on the use, reuse, recycling, and reclamation of hazardous waste.
EPA has the authority to regulate such activities and an explicit
mandate is not necessary.

-------
ur2.z% c A SSS.D pr9
‘I L)’TbtC. j Q1 CV
6 (b) DIOXINS FROM RESOURCE RECOVERY FAcILI-
7 TIES.—Section 1006 (b) is amended by inserting “(1)” after
8 “INTEGRATION WITH OTHER ACT.—”and by adding the
9 following new paragraph at the end thereof:
10 “(2) As promptly as practicable after the date of the
11 enactment of the Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement
12 Act of 1983, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations
13 requiring resource recovery facilities to comply with the best
14 available control technology (taking cost into account) for the
15 control of emissions of polychiorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins into
16 the ambient air. Such regulations shall apply to all resource
17 recovery facilities the construction of which commences on or
18 after the date of the enactment of the Hazardous Waste Con-
19 trol and Enforcement Act of 1983. Nothing in this paragraph
20 shall be construed to preempt or otherwise affect the authori-
21 ty of the Administrator to promulgate any regulations under
22 the Clean Air Act regarding emissions of polychlorinated di-
23 benzo-p-dioxins from resource recovery facilities. Any regula-
24 tion promulgated by the Administrator under this paragraph
25 shall cease to apply on the effective date of any regulation
55
1 under the Clean Air Act governing emissions of polychiori-
2 nated dibenzo-p-dioxins from resource recovery facilities.”.
/c2.

-------
. suuer 0 , 198i
bility but would be well below the
scale of most commercial opel)tions.
The 400-kilogram-per-hour limit bould
assure that a short-term, for example,
1 day, experiment at very large scale
could not be conducted. Sucb an ex-
periment could pose unnecessary risks.
The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Missouri (Mr. S roie).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to section 7? If not, the
Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
BIUSI. I YCLZNO. MiD R LAMATZO1i
Szc. 8. SecUon 3001 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is amended by adding the fol-
lowing at the end thereof:
“(C) Ransa, Racycuwo. aim Rscusas-
TION.—The Administrator shall promulgate
such regulations as may be necessary to pro-
tect human health and environment ensur-
ing that the use, reuse, recycling, and recla-
mation of hazardous waste Identified or
lsted under this section Is conducted in a
manner consistent with such protection.
Such regulations shall be applicable to a re-
coverable metal waste material only If the
Administrator has Identified or listed that
material as a hazardous waste under this
section. Regulations Implementing this pro-
vision shall not contain a definition of solid
waste that makes such regulations apply, di-
rectly or by implication, to nonhazudous
wastes being recycled (such as non QP.
dous metals, paper, textiles, or rubber used
or reused for beneficial reclamation).”.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there are any
amendments to section 8?
£ D T O R BY ML UOLTNARI
Mr. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mouwsal:
‘age 28. line 24, after “8.” Insert: “Ca) Rxc-
OLArIOwS Rec aznwo Rauss, Rzcycuiqo. AND
Rxci.s sasrxow.—”.
Page 29. after lIne 14, insert:
(b) Dioxiws PsoN Rasocaca Rscovzav
FACILXTXES.—SCCUOn 1006(b) is amended by
inserting ‘(1)” after “INTySRATIoN Wrrx
O’rwga AcT.—” and by adding the following
new paragraph at the end thereof:
“(2) As promptly as practicable after the
date of the enactment of the Hazardous
Waste Control and D lorcement Act of
1983. the Administrator shall promulgate
regulations requiring resource recovery
facilities to comply with the best available
control technology. (taking cost into ac-
count) for the control of emissions of poly.
chlorinated diberizo-p-dioxlns into the ambi-
ent air. Such regulations shall apply to all
resource recovery facilities ihe construction
of which commences on or alter the date of
the enactment of the Hazardous Waste Con-
trol and Enforcement Act of 1983 Nothing
in this paragraph shall be construed to pre-
empt or otherwise affect the authority of
the AdminisLrator to promulgate any regu-
lations under the Clean Air Act regarding
emissions of polychlorlziated dibenzo-p.dlox-
Ins from resource recovery facilities. Any
regulation promulgated by the Administra-
tor under this paragraph shall cease to
apply on the effective date of any regula.
tion under the Clean Air Act governing
emissions of polychloruiated dibenzo-p-diox-
Ins from resource recovery facilities.”.
Mr. MOLINARI (during the read-
ing). Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be con.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
aldered as read and printed In the
Racoap,
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman,
today we are confronted with a gigan-
tic dilemma—where to dispose of our
garbage. Approximately 90 percent of
American waste is disposed of on land
and new dumping sites are Increasing-
ly difficult to find. As early as 1990,
America may run out of space for all
the garbage it generates. Indeed, the
No. 2 probLem confr nUng cities and
local govenments, behind crime and
before education, Is the disposal of
garbage. In order to remedy this, we
are accelerating construction of new
resource recovery plants. Resource re-
covery, that is, recovery of material or
energy from solid wastes, can achieve
significant volume reduction. Further-
more, rising costs of landfills and
other forms of disposal, along with
dwindling energy supplies, make re-
source recovery increa lngly attrac-
tive.
However, new proposals for addition-
al resource recovery plants have been
blocked because of the fear of dioxin
emissions. The Hempstead. Long
Island, resource recovery facility for
example, was closed after EPA tests
found traces of dioxin from inciner-
ator emissions. Consequently, con-
struction of new plants In New York
has been obstructed. My amendment
will allay public fears and allow re-
source recovery plants to move for-
ward. It directs the Administrator of
EPA to promulgate regulation requir-
ing resource recovery facilities to
- comply with the best practicable tech-
nology for control of dioxins into the
air. These regulations shall only apply
until new regulations governing diox-
Ins from resource recovery facilities
are promulgated under the Clean Air
Act.
The commissioners of the depart-
ments of conservation of New York,
New Jersey. and Connecticut also rec-
ognized the problem of dioxin emis-
sions from resource recovery plants
and wrote to Administrator Ruckel-
shaus urging him to issue standards
for dioxin emissions from resource re-
covery facilities. This problem is not
confined to the New York region.
Within the United States there are
cunently lIsted 97 facilities across a
span of 36 States. Thirty States have
104 planned resource recovery plants.
As we enter a new phase of resource
recovery technology, we cannot begin
construction in the absence of a stand.
ard. We may discover later, when a
standard Is finally issued, that many
operating resource recovery plants are
in violation of that standard and emit-
ting dangerous levels of dioxin.
My amendment will not usurp any
authority from the Clean AIr Act. It
will merely provide an interim meas-
ure with the purpose of protecting
public health and permitting contin-
H816 1
ued development and operation of re-
source recovery plants. Once new regu-
lations are promulgated under section
112 of the Clean Air Act, the regula-
tions Issued under this amendment
wlU cease tO apply.
0 1610
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLINARI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New Jersey.
Mr. fl ORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to
accept the gentleman’s amendment.
Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLINARI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman. I want to especially
commend my colleague, the gentleman.
from New York, for his leadership
here. This is an area that has been
very, very troubling, particularly to
those municipalities where they are
endeavoring now to have resource re-
cycling plants In operation and are
prevented from doing so because there
are no standards for dioxin.
I want to commend the gentleman
and urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. MOLINARI. I thank the gentle
man from New York and I thank the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Chairman, I would Just like to
close by saying that the gentleman
from New York Is correct. A number
of States have requested some assist-
ance because they simply do not know
what technology should be used in
coping with the problem of dioxin
emissions. This is one way of trying to
help them.
The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. MOLINARI).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to section 8’
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SIU OF C (TA1N ?ACIUTIES
Sec. 9. (a) Pin’uxz Ncrns.—Section 4001 Is
amended by adding the following at the end
thereof: “In developing such comprehensive
plans, It is the intention of this Act that m
determining the size of a waste-to-energy fa-
cfflt3r, adequate provision shall be given to
the present and reasonably anticipated
future needs of the recycling and resource
recovery Interest within the area encom-
passed by the planning process.’.
b AMLWDMENT or Sscriow 4003 —Section
4003 I a amended by redesignating the
second gubsection (b) as (ci and by adding
the following new subsection Cd) at the end
thereof:
“Cd) Sins OF WASTI-TO-ENERCY PACILI-
vza.—Notwithstanding any of the above re-
quirements, it is the Intention of this Act
and the planning process developed pursu-
ant to this Act that in determining the sizc
of a waste.to-energy facility, adequate pro l
slon shall be given to the present and rea-
sonably anticipated future needs of the re-
cycling and resource reco cry Interesi
/Oz

-------
LL f.b f N6’ ’
OMBUDSMAN
SEC 103. (a) Subtitle B of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended
by inserting the following new section after section 2007:
“OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN
“SEC. 2008. (a) ESTABLISHMENT; FUNCTIONS.—The Administrator
shall establish an Office of Ombudsman, to be directed by an
Ombudsman. It shall be the function of the Office of Ombudsman to
receive individual complaints, grievances, requests for information
submitted by any person with respect to any program or require-
ment under this Act.
“03) Aumornrv To RENDER ASSISTANCE.—The Ombudsman shall
render assistance with respect to the complaints, grievances, and
requests submitted to the Office of Ombudsman, and shall make
appropriate recommendations to the Administrator.
“(C) EFFECT ON PROCEDURES FOR GRIEvANCES, APPEALS, OR ADMIN-
ISTRATIVE MAmas.—The establishment of the Office of Ombuds-
man shall not affect any procedures for grievances, appeals, or
administrative matters in any other provision of this Act, any other
provision of law, or any Federal regulation.
“(d) TsaMINArzoN.—The Office of the Ombudsman shall cease to
exist 4 years after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984.”.
H. R. 2867—6
(b) The table of contents for such Act is amended by inserting the
following new item after the item relating to section 2007:
“Sec. 2008. Office of Ombudsman.

-------
OQ P L
SECTION 103—OMBUDSMAN
House bill.—The House bill establishes an office of Ombudsman
at the Environmental Protection Agency to assist the public in
matters relating to the implementation and enforcement of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Senate arnendment.—No provision.
Conference substUute.—The conference substitute adopts the
House provision, except that the authorization for the office of Om-
budsman expires at the end of fiscal year 1988.
The Conferees expect the Administrator to promptly appoint an
Ombudsman who is genuinely dedicated to answering citizen in-
quiries regarding RCRA programs and responding to complaints
and requests for assistance. The individual appointed to this posi-
tion should be of sufficient stature within the Agency that citizens
will be able to secure meaningful assistance as quickly as possible.
Fulfilling this important function will require staff resources at
EPA headq uarters in Washington and at each of the regional of-
fices.

-------
4o SL w cvr
OMBUDSMAN
SEc 20. (a) Ovnca.—Subtitle B is amended by inserting the following new section 1
after section 2006 and by redesignating section 007 as 2008: I
“OPTIC! 0? OMBUDSMAN
“Sac. 2006A. (a) F2rABLISHMENT FUNCTIONs—The Administrator shall establish I
an Office of Ombudsman, to be directed by an Ombudsman. It shall be the function I
of the Office of Ombudsman to receive individual complaints, grievances, requests I
for information submitted by any person with respect to any program or require-i
meat under this Act.
“(b) AUm0PJTY To Rwnu AssISTANCE—The Ombudsman shall render assistance I
with respect to the complaints, grievances, and requests submitted to the Office of I
Ombudsman, and shall make appropriate recommendations to the Administrator.
“(C) Errac’r ON Pi ocwuam FOR GRIEVANCas. APPEALS OR ADMINISTRATIVE MAT•
ims.—The establishment of the Office of Ombudsman shall not affect any proce- I
dures for grievances, appeals, or administrative matters in any other provision of
this Act, any other provision of law, or any Federal regulation.”.
(b) TABI.E O Cori rg rm.—The table of contents for such Act is amended by insert.
ing the following new item after the item relating to section 2006:
“Sec. 2006A. Office of Ombudsman.”.
62
Section 20. Ombudsman
The American public, particularly those communities located
close to hazardous waste facilities, have often been frustrated in
their attempts to obtain information concerning the health danger!
posed by improperly disposed hazardous waste. EPA has been ham- I
pered in its ability to communicate with the public by not having a I
single office whose essential purpose is to respond to citizen inquir- I
ies and complaints. The Committee recognizes this important need I
and has adopted a provision establishing, within the Agency, the I
Office of Ombudsman. I
The Committee expects the Administrator to promptly appoint!
an Ombudsman who is genuinely dedicated to answering citizen in- i
quiries regarding RCRA programs and responding to complaints 1
and requests for assistance. The Committee expects that the mdi-
vidual appointed to this position will be of sufficient stature within!
the Agency that citizens will be able to secure meaningful assist-I
ance as quickly as possible. The Committee anticipates that fulfill-I
ing this important function will require staff resources at EPA I
headquarters in Washington and at each of the regional offices.

-------
J .72 J #1 p45 C ‘ r
/ iit . Ho L
:20 OMBUDSMAN
21 SEC. 25. (a) OFFICE.—Subtitle B is amended by insert-
22 ing the following new section after section 2006 and by
23 redesignating section 2007 as 2008:
?FO
1 “OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN
2 “SEc. 2006A. (a) ESTABLISHMENT; FUNCTIONS.—
3 The Administrator shall establish an Office of Ombudsman,
4 to be directed by an Ombudsman. It shall be the function of
5 the Office of Ombudsman to receive individual complaints,
6 grievances, requests for information submitted by any person
7 with respect to any program or requirement under this Act.
8 “(b) AUTHORITY To RENDER ASSISTANCE.—The Om-
9 budsman shall render assistance with respect to the corn-
10 plaints, grievances, and requests submitted to the Office of
11 Ombudsman, and shall make appropriate recommendations to
12 the Administrator.
13 “(c) EFFECT ON PROCEDURES FOR GRIEVANCES, AP-
14 PEALS, OR ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.—The establish-
15 ment of the Office of Ombudsman shall not affect any proce-
16 dures for grievances, appeals, or administrative matters in
17 any other provision of this Act, any other provision of law, or
18 any Federal regulation.”.
19 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for’
20 such Act is amended by inserting the following new item’
21 after the item relating to section 2006:
“Sec. 2006A. Office of Ombudsman.”.

-------
-r?S Lji(1k 1L1 —l? J
4
8 OMBUDSMAN
9 SEc. 20. (a) OFFICE.—Sublitle B is amended by in.
10 serting the following new section after section 2006 and by
11 redesignating section 2007 as 2008:
12 “OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN
13 “SEc. 2006A. (a ESTABL1SHMENT FI’xcTIoYs.—
14 The .4dmini.strator shall establish an Office of Ombudsman,
15 to be directed by an Ombudsman. it shall be the function of
16 the Office of Ombudsman to receive individual complaints,
17 grietances, requests for information submitted by any persc
18 with respect to any program or requirement under this Act.
19 “ (‘b,) AUTHORITY To RENDER ASSISTANCE.—The
20 Ombudsman shall render a.ssistance with respect to the corn-
21 plaints, grievances, and requests submitted to the Office of
22 Ombudsman, and shall make appropriate recommendations
23 to the Administrator.
24 “ ‘c) EFFECT ON PROCEDURES FOR GR!EV.-INCES,
25 ..4PPE.4LS, OR ADMiNISTRATIVE MATTERS.—The establish-
HR 2S67 RH
48
1 men! of the Office of Ombudsman shall not affect any proce-
2 dures for grievances, appeals, or administrative matters in
3 any other provision of this Act, any other provision of law, or
4 any Federal regulation. “.
S (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for
6 such Act is amended by inserting the following new item
7 after the item relating to section 2006.
“Sec. 2006.4 Office of Ombudsman. ‘

-------
H t. 4 p A .. .. ¶3
21 OMBUDSMAN
22 SEc. 21. (a) Subtitle B of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
23 is amended by inserting the following new section after sec-
24 tion 2006 and by redesignating section 2007 as 2008:
HR 2867 I I I
/03

-------
47
1 “OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN
2 “SEC. 2007. (a) ESTABLISHMENT; FUNCTIONS.—The
3 Administrator shall establish an Office of Ombudsman, to be
4 directed by an Ombudsman. It shall be the function of the
5 Office of Ombudsman to receive individual complaints, griev-
6 ances, requests for information submitted by any person with
7 respect to any program or requirement under this Act.
8 “(b) AUTHORITY To RENDER ASSISTANCE.—The Om-
9 budsman shall render assistance with respect to the corn-
10 plaints, grievances, and requests submitted to the Office of
11 Ombudsman, and shall make appropriate recommendations to
12 the Administrator.
13 “(c) EFFECT ON PROCEDURES FOR GRIEVANCES, Ày-
14 PEALS, OR ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.—The establish-
15 ment of the Office of Ombudsman shall not affect any proce-
16 dures for grievances, appeals, or administrative matters in
17 any other provision of this Act, any other provision of law, or
18 any Federal regulation.”.
19 (b) The table of contents for such Act is amended by
20 redesignating the item relating to section 2007 as 2008 and
21 by inserting the following new item immediately after the
22 item relating to section 2006:
“Sec. 2007. Office of Ombudsman.”.
HR 2867 10

-------
4c’ Mrz0 #c b 6
TiTLE LI—PROVISIONS RELATING PRIMARILY TO SUBTITLE
C OF THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
Subtitle A—Amendments Primarily to Section 3004
LAND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SEC. 201. (a) LAND DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN HAZARDOUS WASTES.—
Section 2004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by insert.
ing “(a) IN GENERAL.—” after “3004.” and by adding the following at
the end thereof:
“(b) SALT DOME FORMATIONS, SALT BED FORMATIONS, UNDER-
GROUND MINEs AND CAVES—Il) Effective on the date of the enact-
ment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the
placement of any noncontainerized or bulk liquid hazardous waste
in any salt dome formation, salt bed formation, underground mine,
or cave is prohibited until such time as—
“(A) the Administrator has determined, after notice and op-
portunity for hearings on the record in the affected areas, that
such placement is protective of human health and the environ-
ment;
“(B) the Administrator has promulgated performance and
permitting standards for such facilities under this subtitle, and;
“(C) a permit has been issued under section 3005 (c) for the
facility concerned.
“(2) Effective oh the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984. the placement of any hazardous waste
other than a hazardous waste referred to in paragraph (1) in a salt
dome formation, salt bed formation, underground mine, or cave is
prohibited until such time as a permit has been issued under section
3005 (c) for the facility concerned.
“(3) No determination made by the Administrator under subsec-
tion (d), (e), or (g) of this section regarding any hazardous waste to
which such subsection Id ). el, or (g) applies shall affect the prohibi-
tion contained in paragraph ii or 2) of this subsection.
“(4) Nothing in this subsection shall apply to the Department of
Energy Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico. -
“(C) LIQUIDS IN LANDFILL5.— 1) Effective 6 months after the date of
the enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984, the placement of bulk or noncontainerized liquid hazardous
waste or free liquids contained in hazardous waste (whether or not
absorbents have been added) in any landfill is prohibited. Prior to
such date the requirements (as in effect qn April 30, 1983) promul-
gated under this section by the Administrator regarding liquid
hazardous waste shall remain in force and effect to the extent such
requirements are applicable to the placement of bulk or noncontain-
erized liquid hazardous waste, or free liquids contained in hazardous
waste, in landfills.
“(2) Not later than fifteen months after the date of the enactment
of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the Admin-
istrator shall promulgate final regulations which—

-------
H. R. 2867—?
“(A) minimize the disposal of containerized liquid hazardous
waste in landfills, and
“(B) minimize the presence of free liquids in containerized
hazardous waste to be disposed of in landfills.
Such regulations shall also prohibit the disposal in landfills of
liquids that have been absorbed in materials that biodegrade or that
release liquids when compressed as might occur during routine
landfill operations. Prior to the date on which such final regulations
take effect, the requirements (as in effect on April 30, 1983) promul-
gated under this section by the Administrator shall remain in force
and effect to the extent such requirements are applicable to the
disposal of containerized liquid hazardous waste, or free liquids
contained in hazardous waste, in landfills.
“(3) Effective twelve months after the date of the enactment of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the placement of
any liquid which is not a hazardous waste in a landfill for which a
permit is required under section 3005(c) or which is operating
pursuant to interim status granted under section 3005(e) is prohib-
ited unless the owner or operator of such landfill demonstrates to
the Administrator, or the Administrator determines, that—
“(A) the only reasonably available alternative to the place-
ment in such landfill is placement in a landfill or unlined
surface impoundment, whether or not permitted under section
3005(c) or operating pursuant to interim status under section
3005(e), which contains, or may reasonably be anticipated to
contain, hazardous waste; and
“(B) placement in such owner or operator’s landfill will not
present a risk of contamination of any underground source of
drinking water.
As used in subparagraph (B), the term ‘underground source of
drinking water’ has the same meaning as provided in regulations
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (title XIV of the Public Health
Service Act).
“(4) No determination made by the Administrator under subsec-
tion d). (el, or cgi of this section regarding any hazardous waste to
which such subsection (di, 1e, or (g) applies shall affect the prohibi-
tion contained in paragraph l) of this subsection.
“(d) PROMIBITIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL OF SPECIFIED WASTES.— 1.)
Effective 3’ months after the enactment of the Haza:dous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 19S4 (except as provided in subsection (f)
with respect to underground injection into deep injection wells), the
land disposal of the hazardous wastes referred to in paragraph (2) is
prohibited unless the Administrator determines the prohibition on
one or more methods of land disposal of such waste is not required
in order to protect human health and the environment for as long as
the waste remains hazardous, taking into account—
“(A) the long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal.
“(B) the goal of managing hazardous waste in an appropriate
manner in the first instance, and
“(C) the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to
bioaccumulate of such hazardous wastes and their hazardous
constituents.
For the purposes of this paragraph, a method of land disposal may
not be determined to be protective of human health and the environ.
ment for a hazardous waste referred to in paragraph (2) (other than
a hazardous waste which has complied with the pretreatment regu-

-------
H. R. 2867—8
lations promulgated under subsection (m)), unless, upon application
by an interested person, it has been demonstrated to the Adminis-
trator, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no
migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit or injec-
tion zone for as long as the wastes remain hazardous.
“(2) Paragraph (1) applies to the following hazardous wastes listed
or identified under section 3001:
“(A) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liquids asso-
ciated with any solid or sludge. containing free cyanides at
concentrations greater than or equal to 1.000 mg/I.
“(B) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liquids associated
with any solid or sludge, containing the following metals or
elements) or compounds of these metals (or elements) at concen-
trations greater than or equal to those specified below:
“(i) arsenic and/or compounds (as As) 500 mg/I;
“(ii) cadmium and/or compounds as Cd) 100 mg/I:
“(iii) chromium iVI and/or compounds las Cr VI)) 500
mg/i;
“(iv) lead and/or compounds (as Pb) 500 mg/I:
“(VI mercury and/or compounds (as Hg) 20 mg/I;
“(v-i) nickel and/or compounds as Ni 134 mg/I;
“(vii) selenium and/or compounds as Se 100 mg/I. and
“(viii) thallium and/or compounds (as Th 130 mg/I.
“(C) Liquid hazardous waste having a pH less than or equal to
two (2.0).
“(D) Liquid hazardous wastes containing polychlorinated bi-
phenyls at Concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm.
“1 E) Hazardous wastes containing halogenated organic com-
pounds in total concentration greater than or equal to 1.1k ”)
mg/kg.
When necessary to protect human health and the environment, the
Administrator shall substitute more stringent conceuration levels
than the levels specified in subparagraphs IA through tE
“t:3 During the period ending forty-eight months after the djte of
the enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984, this subsection shall not apply to any disposal of contaminated
soil or debris resulting from a response action taken under section
104 or 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compen-
sation, and Liability Act of 1980 or a corrective action required
under this subtitle.
“(e) SOLVENTS AND DIoxINs.—(1) Effective twenty-four months
after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (except as provided in subsection (f) with
respect to underground injection into deep injection wells), the land
disposal of the hazardous wastes referred to in paragraph 12) is
prohibited unless the Administrator determines the prohibition of
one or more methods of land disposal of such waste is not required
in order to protect human health and the nvironment for as long as
the waste remains hazardous, taking into account the factors re-
ferred to in subparagraph (A) through (C) of subsection (d)( 1). For
the purposes of this paragraph, a method of land disposal may not
be determined to be protective of human health and the environ-
ment for a hazardous waste referred to in paragraph (2) (other than
a hazardous waste which has complied with the pretreatment regu-
lations promulgated under subsection (ml). unless upon application
by an interested person it has been demonstrated to the Administra-
tor, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no

-------
H. R. 2867—9
migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit or injec-
tion zone for as long as the wastes remain hazardous.
“(2) The hazardous wastes to which the prohibition under para-
graph (1) applies are as follows—
“(A) dioxin-containing hazardous wastes numbered F020,
F021. F022. and F023 (as referred to in the proposed rule
published by the Administrator in the Federal Register for
April 4. 1983). and
“(B) those hazardous wastes numbered FOOl, F002, F003,
F004. and F005 in regulations promulgated by the Administra-
tor under section 3001 (40 C.F.R. 261 31 (July 1, 1983)), as those
regulations are Lfl effect on July 1, 1983.
“(3) During the period ending forty-eight months after the date of
the enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984. this subsection shall not apply to any disposal of contaminated
soil or debris resulting from a response action taken under section
104 or 106 of the Comprehenisve Environmental Response. Compen-
sation, and Liability Act of 1980 or a corrective action required
under this subtitle.
“f) DISPOSAL INTO DEEP INJECTION WEu.s; SPECIFIED SuasEcrioN
(di WASTES: SOLVENTS AND DIOXINS —1 ) Not later than forty-five
months after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984. the Administrator shall complete a
review of the disposal of all hazardous wastes referred to in para-
graph 2) of subsection (di and in paragraph t2) of subsection (e) by
underground injection into deep injection wells.
“(2) Within forty-five months after the date of the enactment of
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1954. the Adminis-
trator shall make a determination regarding the disposal by under-
ground injection into deep injection wells of the hazardous wastes
referred to in paragraph 2’ of subsection d and the hazardous
wastes referred to in paragraph (2) of subsection e’ The Adminis-
trator shall promulgate final regulations prohibiting the disposal of
such wastes into such wells if it may reasonably be determined that
such disposal may not be protective of human health and the
environment for as long as the waste remains hazardous. taking into
account the factors referred to in subparagraphs (A) through C) of
subsection (d)W. In promulgating such regulations, the Administra-
tor shall consider each hazardous waste referred to in paragraph (2)
of’ subsection d) or in paragraph 12) of subsection (el which is
prohibited from disposal into such wells by any State.
“(3) If the Administrator fails to make a determination under
paragraph (2) for any hazardous waste referred to in paragraph (2)
of subsection (d) or in paragraph (2) of subsectibn (e) within forty-five
months after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste• Amendments of 1984, such hazardous waste shall be
prohibited from disposal into any deep injection well.
“(4) As used in this subsection, the term ‘deep injection well’
means a well used for the underground injection of hazardous waste
other than a well to which section 70 10(a) applies.
“(g) ADDITIONAL LAND DISPOSAL PROHIBITION DETERMINATIONS.—
(1) Not later than twenty-four months after the date of enactment of
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the Adminis-
trator shall submit a schedule to Congress for—
“(A) reviewing all hazardous wastes listed (as of the date of
the enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

-------
H. R. 2867—10
of 1984) under section 3001 other than those wastes which are
referred to in subsection (d) or (e); and
“(B) taking action under paragraph (5) of this subsection with
respect to each such hazardous waste.
“(2) The Administrator shall base the schedule on a ranking of
such listed wastes considering their intrinsic hazard and their
volume such that decisions regarding the land disposal of high
volume hazardous wastes with high intrinsic hazard shall, to the
maximum extent possible, be made by the date forty-five months
after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984. Decisions regarding low volume hazardous
wastes with lower intrinsic hazard shall be made by the date sixty-
six months after such date of enactment.
“(3) The preparation and submission of the schedule under this
subsection shall not be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980. No hearing on the record shall be required for purposes of
preparation or submission of the schedule. The schedule shall not be
subject to judicial review.
“(4) The schedule under this subsection shall require that the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations in accordance with
paragraph (5) or make a determination under paragraph iS)—
“(A) for at least one-third of all hazardous wastes referred to
in paragraph (1) by the date forty-five months after the date of
enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984;
“(B) for at least two-thirds of all such Listed wastes by the date
fifty-five months after the date of enactment of such Amend-
ments; and
“C) for all such listed wastes and for all hazardous wastes
identified under 3001 by the date sixty-six months after the date
of enactment of such Amendments.
In the case of any hazardous waste identified or listed under section
3001 after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984. the Administrator shall determine whether
such waste shall be prohibited from one or more methods of land
disposal in accordance with paragraph (5) within six months after
the date of such identification or listing.
“(5) Not later than the date specified in the schedule published
under this subsection, the Administrator shall promulgate final
regulations prohibiting one or more methods of land disposal of the
hazardous wastes listed on such schedule except for methods of land
disposal which the Administrator determines will be protective of
human health and the environment for as long as the waste remains
hazardous, taking into account the factors referred to in subpara-
graph (A) through (C) of subsection (dXl). For the purposes of this
paragraph, a method of land disposal may not be determined to be
protective of human health and the envfzonment (except with re-
spect to a hazardous waste which has complied with the pretreat-
ment regulations promulgated under subsection (m)) unless, upon
application by an interested person, it has been demonstrated to the
Administrator, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be
no migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit or
injection zone for as long as the wastes remain hazardous.
“(6XA) If the Administrator fails (by the date forty-five months
after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984) to promulgate regulations or make a determi-
nation under paragraph (5) for any hazardous waste which is

-------
H. R. 2867—11
included in the first one-third of the schedule published under this
subsection, such hazardous waste may be disposed of in a landfill or
surface impoundment only if—
“(i) such facility is in compliance with the requirements of
subsection (0) which are applicable to new facilities (relating to
minimum technological requirements); and
“(ii) prior to such disposal, the generator has certified to the
Administrator that such generator has investigated the avail-
ability of treatment capacity and has determined that the use of
such landfill or surface impoundment is the only practical
alternative to treatment currently available to the generator.
The prohibition contained in this subparagraph shall continue to
apply until the Administrator promulgates regulations or makes a
determination under paragraph 15) for the waste concerned.
“(B) If the Administrator fails (by the date 55 months after the
date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984) to promulgate regulations or make a determination under
paragraph (5) for any hazardous waste which is included in the first
two-thirds of the schedule published under this subsection, such
hazardous waste may be disposed of in a landfill or surface impound.
ment only if—
“(i) such facility is in compliance with the requirements of
subsection (0) which are applicable to new facilities (relating to
minimum technological requirements): and
“(ii) prior to such disposal, the generator has certified to the
Administrator that such generator has investigated the avail-
ability of treatment capacity and has determined that the use of
such landfill or surface impoundment is the only practical
alternative to treatment currently available to the generator.
The prohibition contained in this subparagraph shall continue to
apply until the Administrator promulgates regulations or makes a
determination under paragraph (5) for the waste concerned.
“(C) If the Administrator fails to promulgate regulations. or make
a determination under paragraph 15) for any hazardous waste re-
ferred to in paragraph il within 66 months after the date of
enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984,
such hazardous waste shall be prohibited from land disposal.
“(h) VARIANCES FROM LAND DISPOSAL PROHIBITIONS.—I 11 A prohi-
bition in regulations under subsection (d), (eJ, (f), or .g shall be
effective immediately upon promulgation.
“(2) The Administrator may establish an effective date different
from the effective date which would otherwise apply under subsec-
tion (dl, (e), (I ’), or (g) with respect to a specific hazardous waste
which is subject to a prohibition under subsection Cd), (e), (f), or (g) or
under regulations under subsection (d), Ce), (f), or (g). Any such other
effective date shall be established on the basis of the earliest date on
which adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity
which protects human health and the envir cnment will be available.
Any such other effective date shall in no event be later than 2 years
after the effective date of the prohibition which would otherwise
apply under subsection (d). (e), (f). or (g).
“(3) The Administrator, after notice and opportunity for Comment
and after consultation with appropriate State agencies in all
affected States, may on a case-by-case basis grant an extension of
the effective date which would otherwise apply under subsection (d),
(e). (f), or (g) or under paragraph (2) for up to one year. where the
applicant demonstrates that there is a binding contractual commit-

-------
H. R. 2867—12
ment to construct or otherwise provide such alternative capacity but
due to circumstances beyond the control of such applicant such
alternative capacity cannot reasonably be made available by such
effective date. Such extension shall be renewable once for no more
than one additional year.
“(4) Whenever another effective date (hereinafter referred to as a
‘variance’) is established under paragraph (2), or an extension is
granted under paragraph (3), with respect to any hazardous waste,
during the period for which such variance or extension is in effect,
such hazardous waste may be disposed of in a landfill or surface
impoundment only if such facility is in compliance with the require-
ments of subsection (0).
“(1) PUBUCATION OF DmRMu r*1 ’ioN.—If the Administrator deter-
mines that a method of land disposal will be protective of human
health and the environment, he shall promptly publish in the
Federal Register notice of such determination, together with an
explanation of the basis for such determination.
“(j) STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE PROHIBITED FROM LAND Dis-
POSAL..—In the case of any hazardous waste which is prohibited from
one or more methods of land disposal under this section (or under
regulations promulgated by the Administrator under any provision
of this section) the storage of such hazardous waste is prohibited
unless such storage is solely for the purpose of the accumulation of
such quantities of hazardous waste as are necessary to facilitate
proper recovery, treatment or disposal.
“ 1k) DEFINITIoN OF LAND DI5POSAL.—For the purposes of this
section, the term land disposal’, when used with respect to a
specified hazardous waste, shall be deemed to include, but not be
limited to, any placement of such hazardous waste in a landfill,
surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment
facility, salt dome formation, salt bed formation, or underground
mine or cave.
“l BAN ON DusT SUPPRESSION—The use of waste or used oil or
other material, which is contaminated or mixed with dioxin or any
other hazardous waste identified or listed under section 3001 (other
than a waste identified solely on the basis of ignitability), for dust
suppression or road treatment is prohibited.
“(m) TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR WASTEs Suajcc’r TO LAND Dis-
POSAL PaoHiBrrioN.—(1 Simultaneously with the promulgation of
regulations under subsection (d), (e), (f), or (g) prohibiting one or
more methods of land disposal of a particular hazardous waste, and
as appropriate thereafter, the Administrator shall, after notice and
an opportunity for hearings and after consultation with appropriate
Federal and State agencies, promulgate regulations specifying those
levels or methods of treatment, if any, which substantially diminish
the toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents from the waste so that short.
term and long-term threats to human hé’dlth and the environment
are minimized.
“(2) If such hazardous waste has been treated to the level or by a
method specified in regulations promulgated under this subsection,
such waste or residue thereof shall not be subject to any prohibition
promulgated under subsection (d). (e), U), or Ig) and may be disposed
of in a land disposal facility which meets the requirements of this
subtitle. Any regulation promulgated under this subsection for a
particular hazardous waste shall become effective on the same date
?OJ

-------
H. R. 2867—13
as any applicable prohibition promulgated under subsection (d), (e),
(f), or (g).
‘(n) AIR EMISS I0NS.—Not later than thirty months after the date
of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984, the Administrator shall promulgate such regulations for the
monitoring and control of air emissions at hazardous waste treat-
ment, storage, and disposal facilities, including but not Limited to
open tanks, surface impoundments, and landfills, as may be neces-
sary to protect human health and the environment.”.

-------
SECTION 201—LAND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Salt dome formations, salt bed formattons, underground mines and
caves
House bilL—The House bill provides that, effective February 1,
1984, the placement of any bulk or containerized liquid hazardous
waste in salt dome formations, salt bed formations, underground
mines or caves is prohibited.
EPA is required to conduct a study and submit a report to Con-
gress within two years of the date of enactment of this subsection
regarding human health and environmental effects associated with
the disposal of these wastes in these types of geologic formations.
The report can suggest modifications to this ban that might be in
order as a result of the study, however, further legislation is re-
quired to effect such modifications, if any.
The House bill also provides that the disposal of nonliquid haz-
ardous wastes in these types of formations is prohibited, effective
on the date of enactment, until such time as the Administrator
promulgates performance and permitting standards for such geo-
logic formations and issues a permit under section 3005(c) for a par-
ticular facility.
Finally, the House bill contains a provision stipulating that de-
terminations made by the Administrator with respect to the land
disposal of hazardous waste pursuant to other provisions of the
House bill will not alter the statutory prohibitions noted above.
Senate arnendment.—The Senate amendment does not contain
similar provisions.

-------
83
Conference substttute.—The conference substitute adopts a modi-
fied version of the House bill. Essentially, the conferees agreed that
the placement of noncontainerized or bulk liquid hazardous wastes
in all four types of geologic formations would be prohibited as of
the date of enactment until:
(1) the Administrator determines, after notice and opportuni-
ty for hearings on the record in areas that would be affected
by such disposal practices that the placement of these wastes
in such formations is protective of human health and environ-
ment;
(2) the Administrator promulgates performance and permit-
ting standards for these types of formations; and
(3) a final permit for a specific facility is issued under Sec-
tion 3005(c) of RCRA.
The prohibition on the placement of any containerized liquid
hazardous waste and non-liquid hazardous wastes in salt dome for-
mations, salt bed formations, underground mines or caves shall be
effective until such time as the Administrator issue a permit under
Section 3005(c) for a particular facility.
As in the House bill, determinations made by the Administrator
with respect to the land disposal of hazardous waste under new
Section 3004 (d), (e), or (g) as contained in the conference substitute
will not affect the prohibitions on placement of these wastes in
these types of geologic formations.
Finally, the conference substitute contains a provision stipulat-
ing that these provisions do not affect the demonstration project
being undertaken by the Department of Energy at its Waste Isola-
tion Pilot Project in New Mexico.
Liquids n landfills
House bill.—The House bill contains three provisions regarding
the disposal of liquids in landfills.
First, the bill prohibits the disposal of noncontainerized or bulk
liquid hazardous waste in any landfill. The prohibition is effective
6 months after enactment of this provision. Prior to that date, reg-
ulations and requirements promulgated by EPA (as in effect on
April 30, 1983) regarding such liquid waste disposal are to remain
in force ‘and effect.
Second, the bill requires EPA to promulgate, within 6 months of
enactment, final regulations to minimize, to the extent technologi-
cally feasible, the disposal of containerized liquid hazardous wastes
in landfills and to minimize, by means other than the addition of
absorbents where technologically feasible, the presence of free liq-
uids in containerized wastes disposed of in landfills. Regulations
and requirements in effect as of April 30, 1983 pertaining to this
issue are to remain in force and effect prior to the effective date of
the required regulations.
Third, the bill prohibits the placement of nonhazardous bulk liq-
Uids in a permitted landfill under Subtitle C unless the owner or
operator of such a landfill demonstrates, or the Administrator de-
termines that:
(1) the only reasonably available alternative, such placement
is placement in a landfill or surface impoundment not permit-

-------
84
ted under Subtitle C which contains or may reasonably be an-
ticipated to contain hazardous waste; and
(2) the placement of such liquids in the owner or operator’s
landfill will not present a risk of contamination to any under-
giound source of drinking water.
Finally, the House bill contains a stipulation that EPA determina-
tions regarding the land disposal of hazardous waste pursuant to
other provisions of the bill will not affect the statutory prohibition
regarding the disposal of bulk or noncontainerized hazardous waste
in landfills.
Senate amendrnent.—The Senate amendment contains a require-
ment that, not later than fifteen months after enactment of these
provisions, EPA is to promulgate final regulations that would both
prohibit the disposal of bulk or noncontainerized liquid hazardous
waste in landfills and minimize the disposal of containerized liquid
hazardous waste in landfills. Such regulations are also to prohibit
the landfilling of liquids that have been absorbed in materials that
biodegrade or that release liquids when compressed as might occur
during routine landfill operations.
Prior to the effective date of the new regulations, the require-
ments set forth in regulations (as in effect on October 1, 1982) re-
specting the disposal in landfills of such liquid hazardous waste
remain in effect.
Conference substitute.—The conference substitute adopted:
(1) the House bill with respect to the 6 month prohibition on
the disposal of noncontainerized or bulk liquids in landfills;
and
(2) the House bill with respect to the 12 month prohibition
on the disposal of non-hazardous liquids in landfills.
The conference substitute also requires that EPA promulgate final
regulations, within 15 months of enactment, to:
(1) minimize the disposal of containerized liquid hazardous
waste in landfills; and
(2) minimize the presence of free liquids in containerized haz-
ardous waste to be disposed of in landfills. Such regulations, as
in the Senate amendment are to prohibit the landfilling of liq-
uids that have been absorbed in materials that biodegrade or
that release liquids when compressed as might occur during
landfill operations.
As in the House bill, the conference substitute requires the contin-
ued application, pending the date of the statutory prohibitions and
the effective date of new regulations, of pertinent regulatory re-
quirements in effect as of April 30, 1983. Finally, the conference
substitute provides, as in the House bill, that determinations made
by the Administrator with respect to the land disposal of hazardous
waste pursuant to other provisions of the conference substitute will
not alter the statutory prohibition on the placement of bulk or non-
containerized liquid hazardous waste in landfills.
Prohibition on land disposal of specified wastes
House biIl.—The House bill provides that, effective 12 months
after enactment, the land disposal of a set of hazardous wastes that
are specifically listed in the bill (the “California list”) is prohibited
0 Zii

-------
85
(32 months for underground injection) unless EPA determines that
the prohibition of a particular method of land disposal is not neces-
sary to protect human health and the environment. Within 18
months EPA shall submit an interim report to Congress on the
review of underground injection of “California list” wastes.
Within 12 months, EPA is to submit a schedule to Congress for
reviewing all hazardous wastes to determine if a land disposal pro-
hibition is warranted, as follows: review ‘/3 of all listed or identified
hazardous wastes in 32 months, % in 42 months, and all within 52
months.
If EPA fails to make a determination for any listed or identified
hazardous waste within the allotted time, that waste is prohibited
from land disposal. Regulatory prohibitions of one or more methods
of land disposal are to be based on the following considerations: the
long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal, the goal of
managing hazardous waste in an appropriate manner in the first
instance, and the waste’s persistence, toxicity, mobility, and pro-
pensity to bioaccumulate.
Prohibitions are effective immediately or up to 42 months later
(only up to 30 months later for wastes from Federal agencies or in-
strumentalities) based on the earliest date on which adequate alter-
native capacity will be available. In the case of prohibitions for
which the effective date is not extended, EPA may grant case-by-
case variances for up to 6 months, renewable twice, upon a showing
of severe economic hardship by a generator.
EPA may require pretreatment and detoxification prior to land
disposal, limit waste dilution, and impose other conditions.
Hazardous waste which is prohibited from any land disposal
method may be stored only in order to accumulate the quantity
necessary to facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or disposal.
“Land disposal” includes placement in a landfill, surface im-
poundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt
dome formation, salt bed formation, or underground mine or cave.
Senate amendment.—The Senate amendment provides that
within 32 months EPA shall prohibit the land disposal of the “Cali-
fornia list” wastes, except for methods of land disposal of those
wastes that EPA determines will be protective of health and the
environment, in which case a notice to that effect shall be pub-
lished in the Federal Register together with an explanation. A
method of land disposal may not be determined to be protective of
human health and the environment if a specified waste contains
significant concentrations of one or more hazardous constituents
that are highly toxic, highly mobile, or have a strong propensity to
bioaccumulate, unless an interested person demonstrates to a rea-
sonable degree of certainty that there will be no migration of such
constituents from the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as
the waste remains hazardous.
Within 24 months, EPA is to submit a schedule to Congress for
reviewing all hazardous wastes to determine if a land disposal pro-
hibition is warranted, as follows: ‘/3 of the listed wastes in 48
months, % in 60 months, and all within 72 months High-volume,
high-hazard wastes shall be addressed first; low-volume, low hazard
wastes shall be addressed last. Also, within 52 months, EPA is to
prohibit as appropriate all toxicity-characterized wastes.

-------
86
EPA shall prohibit the land disposal of hazardous wastes, except
for methods of land disposal of those wastes that EPA determines
will be protective of health and the environment, in which case a
notice to that effect shall be published in the Federal Register to-
gether with an explanation. A method of land disposal may not be
determined to be protective of health and the environment if a
specified waste contains significant concentrations of one or more
hazardous constituents that are highly toxic, highly mobile, or
have a strong propensity to bioaccumulate, unless an interested
person demonstrates to a reasonable degree of certainty that there
will be no migration of such constituents from the disposal unit or
injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous.
Prohibitions are effective immediately or up to 2 years later
based on the earliest date on which adequate alternative capacity
will be available. Two 1-year extensions may be granted where the
applicant demonstrates that there is a binding contractual commit-
ment to construct alternative capacity, but completion has been
unavoidably delayed.
Within 24 months, EPA shall prohibit as appropriate the land
disposal of dioxin-containing wastes (proposed EPA hazardous
Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022, and F023), and FOOl, F002, F003,
F004, and F005 wastes.
When promulgating prohibitions, EPA shall specify the levels or
methods of treatment which substantially diminish the toxicity of
the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration. If
EPA fails to promulgate regulations concerning California wastes
or dioxins and F0O1—F005 wastes by the specified deadline, then 6
months after the deadline such wastes may be disposed in landfills
or surface impoundments only if they have a double liner and
leacha e collection system, they monitor groundwater, and they
satisfy EPA’s locational criteria. This provision does not apply to
contaminated soil and debris from cleanup or removal of releases.
If EPA fails to promulgate regulations concerning chemicals used
by drycleaners by the specified deadline, they shall be given 24
months rather than 6 months before being required to dispose of
wastes in a facility meeting the new minimum technological re-
quirements set forth elsewhere in the Senate amendments.
Conference sabstitute.—The Conference substitute adopts provi-
sions froth both the House bill and the Senate amendment. It pro-
vides that, effective 32 months after enactment, the land disposal
of the “California list” is prohibited (except for underground injec-
tion) unless the Administrator determines that the prohibition of a
particular method of land disposal is not necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
Effective 24 months after enactment, the land disposal of dioxin
containing hazardous wastes identified and proposed to be added to
40 CFR 261.31 in an April 4, 1983 Federal Register notice and haz-
ardous wastes numbered FOOl, F002, F003, F004, and F005 in EPA
regulations (referred to here as solvents) is prohibited (except for
underground injection) unless the Administrator determines that
the prohibition of a particular method of land disposal is not neces-
sary to protect human health and the environment. The selection
of dioxins and solvents for early consideration and prohibition is
adopted from the Senate bill.

-------
8?
The Administrator shall determine whether the disposal of the
California list, dioxins and solvents into deep injection wells may
not be protective of human health and the environment and the
Administrator shall, not later than 45 months after enactment,
promulgate final regulations prohibiting such disposal if it may
reasonably be determined that such disposal may not be protective
of human health and the environment for as long as the waste re-
mains hazardous. If the Administrator fails to make a determina-
tion within 45 months, such hazardous waste shall be prohibited
from disposal into deep injection well.
As in the Senate amendment, statutory or regulatory prohibi-
tions on land disposal of hazardous wastes shall be effective imme-
diately upon the specified date unless the Administrator estab-
lishes another effective date with respect to a specific hazardous
waste. Such extensions of the effective dates shall be based on the
earliest date on which adequate alternative treatment, recovery or
disposal capacity which protects human health and the environ-
ment will be available. Such extensions are limited to 30 months
after the original effective date. Additional extensions of up to one
year (renewable for no more than one additional year) may be
granted on a case-by-case basis where an applicant demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the Administrator that said applicant has a
binding contractual commitment to construct or otherwise provide
such alternative capacity but due to circumstances beyond the ap-
plicant’s control such alternative capacity cannot reasonably be
made available prior to the original effective date. For the duration
of any such extension, use of landfills or surface impoundments for
such wastes is restricted to those that meet the minimum techno-
logical requirements of the bill for new facilities.
With respect to contaminated soil and debris from a cleanup
under section 104 or 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 or a corrective
action under this Act, the statutory prohibitions on land disposal
shall not be effective until the date 48 months after enactment.
Not later than 24 months after enactment, EPA must publish a
schedule for making determinations on the prohibition of land dis-
posal for each hazardous waste listed under section 3001. The
schedule shall not be subject to judicial review. Failure to develop
and publish the schedule, however, shall subject the Administrator
to legal action. Athough the substance of the schedule may not be
challenged insofar as it is left to the Agency’s discretion, the re-
quirement to develop and publish the schedule in a timely manner
is a mandatory duty that may be compelled.
The schedule shall set forth a plan by which the Administrator
shall make determinations regarding the imposition of a prohibi-
tion on land disposal for ½ of all listed wastes within 45 months,
for % of all listed wastes within 55 months, and for all listed and
identified hazardous wastes within 66 months. EPA is to schedule
high-volume wastes that are intrinsically the most hazardous for
early review. The goal of the statutory standard for the schedule is
that the most hazardous wastes are reviewed first. Nevertheless,
because an equally important goal is to publish the schedule quick-
ly so that the land disposal restrictions effort can progress, the
c J

-------
88
Conferees do not expect EPA to undertake a rigorous assessment of
risk for purposes of developing the schedule.
Two of the critical factors in determining which wastes present
the greatest hazards in land disposal are the toxicity of the waste
and the volume of the waste being land disposed. However, these
factors are not the only relevant ones and in some cases may not
give an accurate indication of which wastes present the greatest
risks. For example, if a highly toxic waste degrades very rapidly, it
may not present a serious risk in the land disposal environment.
Likewise, a particular waste may not be very toxic relative to other
hazardous wastes but may be so mobile (or in fact may mobilize
other relatively immobile wastes) that it does in fact present a seri-
ous risk in land disposal. In establishing the schedule, EPA may
consider factors other than toxicity and volume if they are relevant
to the risk of the waste in land disposal.
For some listed wastes, very little data exists on basic constituent
properties. Therefore, EPA can schedule some wastes for later
review on the basis of unavailability of date. Use of this data avail-
ability factor in setting the schedule is at the discretion of the Ad-
ministrator. This override to the basic environmental standard of
the schedule should be used only in limited circumstances. EPA is
to undertake efforts to obtain the missing data on these wastes. To
obtain this data, EPA can rely on the authorities of Section 3007 of
RCRA and sections 4 and 8(d) of the Toxic Subtances Control Act.
With respect to each waste scheduled for review and consider-
ation by EPA within the 45 and 55 month schedule, the failure of
the Agency to issue regulations by such 45 and 55 month date shall
result in a statutory restriction on the use of landfills and surface
impoundments for such wastes. Only after a generator certifies to
EPA that such generator has investigated the availability of treat-
ment capacity and determined that the use of a landfill or surface
impoundment is the only practicable alternative to treatment cur-
rently available to the generator may such waste be placed in a
landfill or surface impoundment. A further limitation is the condi-
tion that such landfill or surface impoundment must satisfy the
minimum technological requirements of the bill for new facilities.
Failure of the Agency to issue final regulations for any hazard-
ous waste by the date 66 months after enactment shall result in a
statutory prohibition on land disposal of all listed and identified
hazardous wastes for which land disposal regulations have not been
issued.
The conference substitute adopts the Senate amendment on
treatment standards; the House bill provisions on storage of haz-
ardous waste prohibited from land disposal; and the House bill defi-
nition of land disposal.
Ban on dust suppression
House bilL—No provisions.
Senate amendment.—The Senate amendment bans the use of
dioxin-contaminated wastes or any other hazardous waste as a dust
suppressant (unless the waste is hazardous solely as a result of the
ignitability characteristic).
Conference substititute.—The conference substitute adopts the
Senate amendment.
89
Air emissions
House bill.—The House bill requires EPA to promulgate regula-
tions, within 24 months, for monitoring and control of air emissions
at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
Senate amendment—The Senate amendment contains a similar
provision with a due date of 36 months.
Conference substitute.—The conference substitute adopts the pro-
vision with a due date of 30 months.
2 i

-------
1Z J- 4Uc..? ,fl -r4i—jqb
Section 5. Land disposal of hazardous wastes
This section amends Section 3004 by adding several new subsec-
tions that establish a comprehensive program to regulate the land
disposal of hazardous wastes. The objectives of this program are
twofold. The first is to ensure that hazardous wastes are managed
properly in the first instance through methods such as recovery, re-
cycling and detoxification. The second objective is to ensure that
land disposal is used only for those wastes for which it can reason-
ably by anticipated to be protective of human health and the envi-
ronment in the very long term, even if there are no treatment al-
ternatives.
The Committee has concluded that the continued land disposal of
some hazardo s wastes presents an unwarranted and unnecessary
risk to human health and the environment. The Committee does
not intend by this amendment to encourage EPA to patch a “leaky
rowboat” by merely upgrading management standards for land dis-
posal, although such upgrading is necessary and desirable. Upgrad-
mg the land disposal standards is not, by itself, sufficient, and it
cannot be a substitute for treatment to reduce or eliminAte the
hazard posed by the waste.
Section 5 establishes three phases for implementation of these
objectives.
Liquids in Landfills—New Section 3004(b) establishes the first
phase of the Committee’s regulatory program. It focuses specifical-
ly on the landifihing of liquid hazardous wastes. EPA is required,
within six months after enactment, to promulgate final regulations

-------
31
to minimize—to the extent technologically feasible—the disposal of
containerized liquid hazardous wastes in landfills. This provision
also requires final regulations to prohibit the landfilling of bulk or
noncontainerized liquid hazardous wastes.
The Committee has focused on liquid hazardous waste because
liquids can have a substantial impact on both the integrity of the
landfill and the mobility of wastes leaving the landfill. Liquid haz-
ardous wastes present a substantial threat to liners in landfills by
increasing the pressure on liners and by weakening the liner
through chemical interactions. The phenomena can contribute to
liner failure. Furthermore, liquid hn rdous wastes react with
other wastes in the landfills and, because of çnhanced mobility,
present a substantial threat to groundwater resources located be-
neath the landfill once the liner has been breached.
EPA’s current prohibition on the land disposal of containerized
hazardous wastes with free liquids is to remain in effect until EPA
promulgates new final regulations in accordance with this provi-
sion. it is the Committee’s intent to discourage landfilling of con :
tainerized liquid hazardous waste to the extent technology can pro-
vide a means to discontinue the practice.
Prohibitions on Land Disposal of Specified Hazardous Wastes.—
The Committee’s most immediate priority is to restrict the place-
ment of liquids in landfills. However, the Committee is convinced,
based on the testimony presented in hearings, that determining
which hazardous wastes should be land-disposed is the principal
method by which human health and environmental protection can
be assured. Such a process should focus on waste streams and their
constituents, and their behavior in the environment.
Subsection (c) establishes the second phase of the program to re-
strict land disposal. Based upon the Committee’s belief that land
disposal is the least desirable management practice, paragraph (1)
authorizes the Administrator to prohibit one or more methods of
land disposal for specified hazardous wastes. As the Office of Tech-
nology Assessment has reported to Congress, there is a hierarchy of
waste management options which merits consideration prior to
land disposal. These preferred options include waste reduction al-
ternatives such as process modification, end-product substitution
and materials recovery, properly conducted recycling and reuse,
and treatment. Land disposal was found to be most appropriate for
residuals from waste treatment operations, pretreated (or stabilized)
wastes, uiitreatable wastes, and relatively low-hazard (and other
high volume) wastes.
The Administrator has the authority to differentiate between the
various types of land disposal methods in making prohibition deter-
minations. Accordingly, a determination that one method may be
allowed does not mean that other methods are also permissible; al-
lowing land treatment of a particular waste does not mean, for ex-
ample, that landfilling or deep well injection is permissible. Con-
versely, prohibiting one method does not mean that other methods
are allowed; prohibiting landfilling does not mean, for example,
that land treatment complies with the standard. A failure to make
a determination for any specific method of land disposal is intend-
ed by the Committee to have the same effect as a prohibition on
land disposal. The Committee is not requiring a total prohibition
c2’91

-------
32
on all methods of land disposal for all wastes, but is delegating to
the Administrator the authority to make a distinction among
methods and wastes for land disposal.
The standard for the Administrator’s determination of whether
to allow one or more methods of land disposal for any hazardous
waste is whether it may reasonably be anticipated that the method
of land disposal may not be protective of human health and the en-
vironment. For this regulatory standard, the Committee intends a
presumption that land disposal not be allowed if the Administrator
can conclude that land disposal may not be protective of human
health and the environment. The Committee reiterates its inten
tion that land disposal be used principally as a last resort.
The following factors are to be considered by the Administrator
in determining whether one or more methods of land disposal may
not be protective of human health and the environment:
The long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal.
The Committee intends the Administrator to consider the lack
of knowledge of how hazardous wastes behave when land dis-
posal, the uncertainties regarding the period of time the waste
may remain hazardous, the design and management uncertain-
ties involving the long-term inability of liners and leachate col-
lection systems to prevent waster migration from the facility,
the uncertainties associated with ground water monitoring,
and the institutional uncertainties associated with isolating
the waste from the environment for as long as the waste re-
mains hazardous. The extensive record this Committee and
others have developed on the deficiencies of present land dis-
posal practices and standards substantiates the Committee’s
action to restrict land disposal as provided in this section.
The goal of managing hazardous waste in an appropriate
manner in the first instance. The Committee again reiterates
that it considers land disposal to be the least desirable hazard-
ous waste management practice, particularly if the waste has
not been pretreated or detoxified prior to land disposal. The
Committee strongly believes cleanup requirements in case of
containment failure are necessary and appropriate. However,
greater emphasis must be placed on reducing the need for
future cleanup activity because of the expense and complexity
involved in undertaking such activity. A much more prudent
public policy is to encourage the development of alternative
treatment technology and capacity, by drastically reducing cur-
rent dependence on land disposal.
The persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bloaccu-
mulate of hazardous wastes and their toxic constituents.
Wastes which remain hazardous for a long period of time, or
are mobile in the air, soil or groundwater, or which are highly
toxic, are prime candidates fot the land disposal restrictions.
The Committee views the mandate of Section 5 as requiring es-
sentially a two step process. The first step involves an P srnination:
of the inherent characteristics of each waste listed for the purpose
of determining which wastes are candidates for a prohibition on
land disposal. The second step is an e rnnination of the various
land disposal technologies and factors to identify those circum-
stances in which a prohibition of a waste identified in step one is

-------
33
not warranted because of the certainty of containment in the very
long-term and the very low likeithood that corrective action will be i
necessary. This second step requires a consideration of (1) the spe-
cific disposal technology, (2) site-specific factors that reduce long-
term uncertainty and the chance that corrective action will be nec-
essary, and (3) the characteristics of the waste to be disposed.
In reviewing the list of hazardous wastes for the purpose of de-
termining which wastes should be prohibited from land disposal
(pursuant to Section 3001(dXl)) the Administrator should first con-
sider the inherent characteristics of the wastes and the waste’s con-
stituents, i.e., the waste’s or the constituents’ persistence, toxicity,
mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate. For each waste, these
four characteristics could be reviewed separately or in combination.
For example, a particular waste or constituent may be so extreme-
ly toxic that the waste is a candidate for a ban on that basis alone.
Another waste may be appropriate for a ban based on a combina-
tion of factors, for instance because it is highly toxic and mobile.
The Administrator may also consider concentrations of waste con-
stituents when reviewing a particular waste type. For example, he
may find that for constituents below a certain concentration limit
the waste is suitable for land disposal but that, above that concen-
tration level, it is not. Likewise, a similar method could be used for
waste identified by characteristics. For example, the Administrator
might find that a prohibition is not appropriate for all corrosive
waste, but only for corrosive waste above a specified pH.
Additionally, the Adnainiqtrator could establish what would es-
sentially be pretreatment standards. For example, for a highly
mobile waste, the Administrator could allow land disposal if the
waste is stabilized so as to reduce its mobility. This type of stand-
ard could be expressed in a number of ways. It could be stated as a
measure of the reduced mobility that must be achieved, or as the
type of pretreatment that must be undertaken prior to land dispos-
al.
EPA could also develop a set of characteristic tests along the
lines of those used for determining whether a waste is hazardous in
order to determine whether a waste should be banned from land
disposal. These characteristic tests would presumably measure tox-
icity, persistence, mobility, and/or propensity to bioaccumulate.
The result of this first step of reviewing the inherent characteris-
tics of wastes would be a list of candidate wastes for prohibitions
from land disposal. The second step of the process would then be a
review of the appropriateness of the various methods of land dis-
posal in light of the technology involved, site-specific factors, and
the characteristic(s) of the waste in question.
During this second step of the process, the Administrator should
consider the long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal
and the goal of proper waste management in the first instance to
reduce the need for expensive, complex, and time-consuming cor-
rective action in the future. In certain limited circumstances, land
disposal of wastes identified in Step 1 might be appropriate if there
is a reasonable certainty that wastes will be contained in the very
long-term (i.e., at least several hundred years) and a very low like-
lihood that corrective action would ever become necessary.

-------
34
For example, land treatment would be acceptable for certaii
wastes identified in Step 1 if the technology and site conditions in
combination with the type of waste is such that the waste will be
rendered nonhazardous through the treatment process. Another ex
ample of a potentially acceptable land treatment situation involves
wastes containing heavy metals. Although land treatment does not
render the waste nonhazardous, a prohibition would not be neces-
sary if there is a long-term certainty that the hazardous constitu-
ents would be immobilized. In this example, the Agency would
have to determine that the pH of the soil would remain sufficiently
high in the very long-term to keep the hazardous constituents im-
mobile.
In summary, the Step 1 examination of inherent waste charac-i
teristics should result in a list of wastes for which a prohibition:
from land disposal may be appropriate. Step 2 would then be a’
very narrow set of circumstances in which the wastes identified in
Step I could be land disposed.
Rather than simply delegating to EPA the absolute authority to
determine which waste should not be land disposed, paragraph (2)
specifies hazardous wastes and concentrations which the Commit-
tee presumes meet the statutory criteria. Therefore, hazardous
wastes as specified in this paragraph should not be land disposed
unless the Administrator determines that one or more methods of
land disposal will comply with the standards under paragraph (1).
The Administrator must make such a determination for each
method of land disposal the Administrator deems permissible for
the waste specified. If a determination on a particular land disposal
method is not made, that method of land disposal is not allowed for
the specified wastes.
The Committees is extremely concerned that EPA has not been
able to comply with past statutory mandates and timetables, not
just for RCRA, but for virtually all of its programs. The Committee
is also mindful of its responsibility to provide EPA with sufficient
guidance to enable it to exercise the discretion and responsibilities
we have delegated in a manner that is consistent with the Commit-
tee’s intent. Therefore, paragraph (2) provides EPA with a starting
point in carrying out the Committee’s mandate to minimize the
land disposal of hazardous waste. The list of wastes provided in
paragraph (2) is not intended to be exhaustive. No presumption is
to be drawn that different wastes, or a less concentrated hazardous
waste, is less hazardous than those specified in the bill, or that
such wastes are more appropriate for land disposal. The hazardous
wastes and concentrations specified in paragraph (2) were selected
primarily because the State of California is already implementing
these provisions. The California regulations were adopted after the
conducting of extensive rulemnking into the problems associated
with the land disposal of these wastes. The development of finaE
regulations involved representatives from all interested parties, in.
cluding generators, disposal companies, and environmental groups.
The Committee intends that dilution to a concentration less than
the specified thresholds by the addition of other hazardous waste or
any other material during waste handling, transportation, treat-
ment, or storage, other than dilution which occurs as a normal

-------
35
part of a manufacturing process, will not be allowed; such hazard-
ous waste would still be prohibited from land disposal.
The Committee further intends, by establishing presumptive stat-
utory concentration limits, to avoid unnecessary and drawn-out liti-
gation over administratively determined concentration levels. The
Committee is satisfied that these levels are a reasonable regulatory
starting point and, at levels 10,000 times the National Primary
Drinking Water Standards, are conservative. The Administrator
may substitute more stringent concentration levels than the levels
specified in this paragraph.
Finally, the Committee is reaffirming its belief in the necessity
for minimum national standards. States should not have to be
placed in the position of having to unilaterally fill- national regula-
tory vacuums. Progressive states should not be at a competitive dis-
advantage with other states that have neither the resources, capac-
ity, or authority to adopt standards to protect human health and
the environment in the absence of adequate EPA regulations.
Schedule for Additional Prohibition Determinations.—New Sub-
section (d) supplements the restrictions established by the Commit-
tee in preceding subsections and is the third phase of the new regu-
latory program. EPA is to review (within six months of enactment)
all hazardous wastes from non-specific sources listed under 40 CFR
261.31 and from specific sources under 40 CFR 261.32. The purpose
of this review is to establish a schedule for determining whether
one or more methods of land disposal of such wastes should be al-
lowed. The Administrator would also review all other wastes to
make an identical determination. The Administrator would have a
tOtal of 54 months after enactment to complete the reviews and
promulgate fmal regulations regarding land disposal. To make this
a more manageable task, the Committee has established a timeta-
ble for EPA to conduct a review of the listed hazardous wastes.
The Administrator is required by paragraph (1) to submit a
schedule to Congress for reviewing these listed wastes within 6
months after enactment. The Committee has intentionally provided
that the development of the schedule not be done pursuant to a
formal rulemaking. The committee has intentionally provided the
Administrator with maximum discretion. Of paramount impor-
tance is that the schedule be completed within six months of enact-
ment. The submission of the schedule is to be considered a non-dis-
cretionary duty under Section 7002 of the Act. If the schedule is
not submitted to Congress in a ti nely fashion, the timetable re-
mains in effect regardless. The Adminii trator’s ability to meet this
deadline as with all other deadlines in this bill, shall not be im-
paired in any way whatsoever by Executive Order 12291.
Paragraph (1) establishes the timetable for the review and pro-
mulgation, of final regulations. The Administrator has 54 months
from enactment, four years after submission of the schedule, to
complete the review. One-fourth of all listed wastes must be re-
viewed in the first year and a half after publication of the schedule
(24 months from enactment); the AdminiRtrator must complete the i
review of 50 percent of all listed wastes within 34 months of enact-
ment, 75 percent within 44 months, and must have reviewed all
listed wastes within four years of publication of the schedule (54

-------
36
months from enactment). The percentages refer to the number of
wastes listed, not the volumes of wastes currently listed.
This subsection also provides that if the Administrator fails to
adhere to the timetable for the wastes placed on the schedule and
promulgate final regulations, those wastes for which a determina-
tion should have been made and final regulations promulgated
shall be prohibited from any and all methods of land disposal. The
Administrator does not have a non-determination option. A failure
to do anything means the waste is prohibited from all methods of
land disposal until such time as the Administrator makes a final
determination. A failure to make a determination on a given
method of land disposal means the waste may not be land disposed
in that manner. The committee is giving the Administrator discre-
tion in determining which wastes will be reviewed each year, but
insists those decisions be made. The Committee believes that the
statutory prohibition should take effect if EPA does not act on ita
own schedule. This is consistent with the Committee’s presumption
against land disposal and is necessitated by experience with past
failures of EPA to act within congressionally mandated schedules.
For hazardous wastes that are not listed, the Administrator is
given significantly more discretion in conducting the requisite
review and determination as to whether such wastes should be pro-
hibited from land disposal. The Administrator is to complete the
review and make all determinations within four years of publish-
ing the schedule, four and one half years from enactment. Any
waste for which a determination has not been completed at the end
of four and one half years is also prohibited from land disposal.
The Committee believes that four and one half years is more
than sufficient time for the Administrator to implement the re-
quirements of this provision. The task has been greatly facilitated
by the Committee’s actions to ban landfilling of bulk liquids and to
minimise the landfilling of free liquids, by specifying certain
wastes for which prohibition determinations must be made within
a year of enactment independent of the schedule, and by requiring
the Administrator to make prohibition determinations for listed
wastes on an explicit schedule. EPA already has begun to review
hazardous wastes for land disposal restrictions. California and Illi-
nois have statutory restrictions on land disposal which will provide
additional information for EPA. Many states prohibit or restrict
specific wastes. The Committee hopes that generators will antici-
pate EPA action in this area and begin minimizing reliance on
land disposal as expeditiously as possible.
The Committee reiterates that it intends the Administrator to
prohibit land disposal of hazardous wastes where the Administra-
tor reasonably anticipates that land disposal of that waste may not
be protective of human health and the environment, considering
the factors as specified.
Effective Dates.—The effective dates established by Subsection (e)
are intended to be implemented swiftly. The Committee believes
that there is a compelling health and environmental need to begin
restricting land disposal and shift management practices to treat-
ment. The record demonstrates that treatment alternatives to land
disposal are available now and will be more available and less
costly in the future as demand increases.

-------
37
The threshold determination of whether a waste is hazardous al-
ready has been made by EPA. The next decision is what manage-
ment standard is most appropriate for these wastes and how quick-
ly to implement it. Because of the Committee’s deep concerns over
land disposal, the Committee believes that time is of the essence.
Accordingly, the prohibitions on land disposal required in this sec-
tion are effective immediately on promulgation. The Committee has
allowed the Administrator to extend the prohibition date if an alterna-
tive management method to land disposal is not reasonably available.
The Adininistrator can extend the effective date of a prohibition
to the earliest time an alternative is available, but in no case later
than a total of 42 months after enactment. EPA should periodically
assess the availability of alternative treatment during this period.
Three and one half years should be sufficient time for treatment
capacity to be expanded or for the generators to implement other
means of managing the waste at the source. After 42 months,
wastes which should not be land disposed cannot be, even if all the
alternative treatment capacity has not yet been installed.
The cost of shipping the waste shall only be considered in the
context of “severe economic hardship” discussed below. Also, the
Committee does not intend the Administrator to consider cost in
determining whether a prohibition on land disposal should be made
or when it should be effective, except as provided in the variance
for “severe economic hardship.”
The Committee has allowed for temporary, case-by-case, six-
month variances from an immediate prohibition upon a showing by
a generator that an immediate prohibition would cause severe eco-
nomic hardship. The Committee is allowing such an economic con-
sideration very reluctantly, but in recognition that there may be
isolated instances of severe economic impacts, particularly for gen-
erators of waste subject to early prohibition determinations. The
Committee does not intend this variance to be granted merely be-
cause treatment may cost significantly more than present land dis-
posal. Clear and present health and environmental risks should not
be tolerated, even upon a showing of severe economic hardship.
The Committee believes that present land disposal practices and
regulatory requirements have subsidized land disposal costs so that
generators have not paid their true economic costs. One of the
Committee’s purposes in adopting this comprehensive program for
restricting land disposal is to compel generators to internalize the
costs of disposal and treatment of hazardous waste. Therefore, the
Committee acknowledges that the amendments adopted will in-
crease the costs 4 manag-ing hazardous wastes for those who are
now land disposing their wastes.
There may, however, be individual situations where the costs of
disposal is the dominant cost factor so that a very substantial rise
in waste management costs would have a dramatic effect on the
company. Generally speaking, the publication of the regulatory
schedule for listed wastes should provide adequate notice to gener-
ators so that the economic impact of the prohibition can be anticl-
pated. The Committee does not believe that this variance will be
utilized with any frequency, particularly after the first year of en-
actment.

-------
38
The burden on the generator to prove severe economic hardship
is appropriately a tough burden. The term severe should not be in-
terpreted lightly. It means harsh and extreme, involving similar
economic considerations as under Section 119(dX2) of the Clean Air
Act.
The Committee explicitly provides that no Federal agency or in-
strumentality may utilize this variance. The Committee intends
that the Federal government should set an example for the private
sector. Not only is the Federal government subject to the same
standards and deadlines for land disposal prohibitions as the pri-
vate sector, but the Committee intends that Federal agencies
should immediately minimize land disposal of all hazardous wastes
wherever technologically feasible.
Procedures are also established for adding additional wastes to
be prohibited from land disposal.
Imposition of Condition.—Subsection (I) authorizes the Adminis-
trator to impose additional conditions on the land disposal of haz-
ardous wastes as necessary to accomplish the purposes of minimiz-
ing land disposal, encouraging proper management in the first in-
stance, and assuring that generators manage their wastes using the
best available treatment. The Administrator may require, as a
minimum, certain types of pretreatment and detoxification prior to
allowing one or more methods of land disposal. The Administrator
may also impose limitations on the use of waste dilution to avoid
disposal restrictions. The later is particularly important where reg-
ulations are based on concentrations of hazardous constituents.
The Committee does not intend that the Administrator circum-
vent the Committee’s intent to restrict land disposal by simply im-
posing additional management conditions on land disposal. The
Committee clearly intends generators to utilize the best available
treatment technology in managing their wastes. For example, mini-
mal “treatment” prior to disposal, diverting wastes to lined facili-
ties, or requiring a “waste management plan” for additional oper-
ating controls, do not represent adequate substitutes for pretreat-
ment and detoxification. Where land disposal is allowed, the Com-
mittee intends the Administrator to require best management
practices that include treatment, not just containment of cleanup.
Another example would be the continued use of neutralization
basins to render corrosive wastes non-hazardous prior to additional
treatment or disposal. An example of where a pretreatment re-
quirement is appropriate prior to land disposal is the metal finish-
ing industry. Pretreatment can reduce hexavalent chromium to
less toxic and soluble trivalent chromium with alkaline precipita-
tion of the toxic metal contaminants into a sludge from which the
leaching and environmental migration of these contaminants is
substantially reduced. Pretreatment also can destroy cyanides. Pre-
treatment of metal finishing wastes can thus produce a stabilized
waste and a dischargeable wastewater eNuent. Another example
would be requiring neutralization of acidic wastes as a condition of
land disposal.

-------
LAND DISPOSAL LIMITATIONS
This section amends section 3004 of the Act and establishes a
program to reduce significantly current dependence on land dispos-
al as a waste management practice by prohibiting the land disposal
of certain hazardous wastes. This program is based upon a finding
that land disposal in genera’ is the least desirable form of waste
management because of the problems associated with assuring
long-term containment of hazardous wastes. Therefore, in order to
avoid substantial risk to human health and the environment, reli-
ance on land disposal should be minimized and land disposal of
hazardous wastes, particularly in landfills and surface impound-
ments, should be the least favored method for managing hazardous
waste. Where treatment and recovery options are or will become
available, there is no reason to accept the residual risk associated
with land disposal facilities, even those meeting state-of-the-art
standards.
Based upon these findings, new section 3004(b) directs the Ad-
ministrator to promulgate regulations prohibiting the land disposal
of hazardous wastes, except for those waste and land disposal
method combinations that the Administrator determines will be
protective of human health and the environment. The section im-
poses on the Administrator a stringent standard for determining
that the continued land disposal of certain wastes is advisable. The
presumption will be against land disposal as a waste management
technique.
A ban on one or more methods of land disposal for a specified
waste does not necessarily mean that all methods of land disposal
of that waste must be prohibited. For example, a particular hazard-
ous waste might be prohibited from disposal in a surface impound-
ment or landfill but not from disposal in an injection well. Similar-
ly, land treatment may be an acceptable disposal method for those
hazardous wastes which can be biodegraded or transformed directly
by the land treatment process or, if hazardous constituents remain
after land treatment, where the hazardous constituents can be im-
mobilized.
This scheme requires a two-step assessment. The first step in-
volves an examination of the inherent characteristics of a waste.
During this step, the Administrator shall consider the persistence,
toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate of a particular
hazardous waste or toxic constituents in the waste and the poten-’
tial effect of the waste on the integrity of containment mechanisms I
(such as clay or synthetic liners or the fabric of an injection well or
an injection zone). If a waste contains significant concentrations of
one or more hazardous constituents that are highly toxic, highly
mobile, or have a strong propensity to bioaccumulate, step one of
the assessment results in a presumption that land disposal of that
specific waste will be prohibited.
For each waste, these characteristics could be reviewed separate-
ly or in combination. For example, a particular waste or constitu-
ent may be so extremely toxic that the waste is a candidate for a
ban on that basis alone. Another waste may be appropriate for a
ban based on a combination of factors, for example because it is
highly toxic and mobile. Also, a waste may not be mobile or toxic
itself but could render other wastes more toxic or mobile, thus it
may be appropriate to ban such a waste.
The Administrator shall also consider concentrations of waste
constituents when reviewing a particular waste type. The concen-
tration levels that are “significant” will, of course, differ for var-
ious constituents. The Administrator may establish “concentration
limits” for waste constituents and then ban the land disposal of
wastes which contain these constituents in excess of the stated con-
cerntration limits.
Step two of the assessment involves a consideration of wastes
identified in step one in combination with the various land disposal
technologies. A presumption for prohibition of a waste made in
step one may be overcome with respect to a particular method of
land disposal if the Administrator determines that the particular
method of land disposal of such waste will be protective of human
health and the environment. This determination may be made if
the Administration finds, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that I
no migration of the highly mobile, highly toxic, or highly bioaccu-
mulative constituents will occur from the disposal unit or injection
zone, for as long as the waste remains hazardous.

-------
15
Interested members of the regulated community may demon-
strate that a method of land disposal will be protective of human
health and the environment because there will be no migration for
as long as the waste remains hazardous. The requirement for an
application by an “interested person” is intended to place the
burden on the applicant or industry to prove that a specified waste
can be safely contained in a particular type of individual disposal
unit or injection zone. This demonstration could be made either by
an individual applicant for a particular facility, or alternatively, it
could be made for a class of facilities with like containment mecha-
nisms and natural hydrogeological conditions. Such a demonstra-
tion could be made by a State with an approved underground injec-
tion control program, for injection wells under such program which
meet the test of new section 3004(b)(2). This is a limited variance,
requiring the applicant to sustain the burden of meeting this stand-
ard without the use of artificial barriers such as liners. Artificial
barriers cannot provide the assurances necessary to meet the
standard.
Protection of human health and the environment requires a
demonstration that the disposal practice in question provide a “rea-
sonable degree of certainty” that the waste can not escape to cause
damage to human health of the environment. Wastes chemically
decompose in a land disposal facility, although often this decompo-
sition occurs very slowly stretching over centuries. The Adminis-
trator is required to find that the nature of the facility and the
waste will assure that migration of the wastes will not occur while
the wastes still retain their hazardous characteristics in such a
way that would present any threat to human health and the envi-
ronment. Absent such a finding the waste in question is to be
banned from that type of disposal. In determining appropriate con-
finement from which migration shall not be allowed to occur, the
terms disposal unit or injection zones should be construed not in
terms of the property ownership but in terms of the overall envi-
ronmental integrity of the disposal practice, keeping in mind, in
particular, the potential for contamination of groundwater or sur-
face water resources. Injection of hazardous wastes into deep wells
allow dispersion of these wastes in a defined strata deep beneath
the surface in a pattern totally without regard to the land owner-
ship of the surface above. The disposal practice must be viewed in
terms of its environmental and human health consequences and
assure that, . to a reasonable degree of certainty, no migration of I
hazardous constituents can occur for as long as the wastes remain
hazardous. The phrase “reasonable degree of certainty” is intended
to discount only the unpredictable future events. Certain geologic
events such as earthquakes and floods, the likelihood of which can
be predicted, should be considered by the Administrator when de-
termining if migration will occur.
If the Agency reviews a particular waste and finds that it does
not meet the step one criteria, of if EPA determines that a prohibi-
tion is not warranted for certain methods of land disposal, it must
publish the basis for that determination in the Federal Register.
Thus, each time the Agency finds that a waste should not be pro-
hibited from some or all methods of land disposals, it must publish

-------
16
an explanation of why those methods of land disposal are protec-
tive of human health and the environment.
These are several key terms used in the step one standard for
prohibiting wastes. These terms are “significant concentrations of
hazardous constituents,” “highly toxic,” “highly mobile,” and “a
strong propensity to bioaccumulate.” Because of their highly tech-
nical nature, definition of these terms is left to the Agency. Howev-
er, the word “highly” or “strong” should not be read to be unduly
restrictive. Land disposal is not appropriate for many wastes, par-
ticularly wastes containing hazardous constituents significantly in
excess of existing ambient standards. The Agency may set up a
ranking system for assigning priorities to wastes based on these
characteristics and then determine the appropriate cut-off point for
determining which wastes are candidates for prohibition. Alterna-
tively, EPA could develop a set of characteristic tests for toxicity,
mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate, similar to the character-
istic tests now used to determine whether a waste is hazardous.
These characteristic tests would be used for determining which
wastes are candidates for land disposal prohibitions.
A key term for step two, “injection zone” has an existing usage
in the underground injection control program under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Its meaning here is intended to be same as
defined in 40 CFR Part 146.3.
Treatment standards
Treatment of hazardous wastes will sometimes result in residuals
that must be land disposed. Therefore, in combination with promul-
gation of rules prohibiting one or more methods of land disposal of
a hazardous waste, the Administrator is directed to promulgate
regulations establishing what would essentially be “pretreatment
standards” for hazardous wastes prior to allowing land disposal.
These pretreatment standards are essential to implementing a suc-
cessful program of land disposal prohibitions.
For example, for a highly mobile waste, the Administrator could
allow land disposal if the waste were stabilized so as to reduce its
mobility. This type of standard could be expressed in various ways.
It could be stated as a measure of the reduced mobility that must
be achieved, or as the type of pretreatment that must be undertak-
en prior to land disposal, or as a maximum concentration of the
waste constituents which contribute to the waste’s mobility. In the
latter case, this determination would be made in conjunction with
the determination of significant concentrations in step one.
A requirement for treatment of hazardous constituents under
other statutes is another factor that may be considered. For exam-
ple, the Administrator should impose, as a condition of land dispos-!
al, a treatment requirement that is consistent with categorical pre-
treatment standards required pursuant to the Clean Water Act. In-
creased regulation under the Solid Waste Disposal Act should com-
plement and reciprocally re-enforce regulations under the Clean
Water and Clean Air Acts. It makes little sense to improve or ac-
celerate regulations under those statutes only to have environmen-
tal goals frustrated by loopholes allowing less stringent treatment
under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

-------
17
There are certain hazardous wastes with constituents (e.g., some
heavy metals) that are highly toxic or bioaccumulative which
cannot be transformed to a less hazardous chemical form through
treatment. In these cases it would be preferable to recover these
constituents. Where recovery is not technologically feasible, howev-
er, such wastes should be treated using the best available treat-
ment technologies (e.g., stabilization or fixation) to immobilize the
highly toxic or bioaccumulative constituents prior to land disposal.
The dilution of wastes by the addition of other hazardous wastes
or any other materials during waste handling, transportation,
treatment, or storage is not an acceptable method of treatment to
reduce the concentration of hazardous constituents. Only dilution
which occurs as a normal part of the process that results in the I
waste can be taken into account in establishing concentration
levels.
Schedule
Paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of new section 8004(b) contain sched-
ules for the three phases of the program for making determina-
tions as to which wastes to prohibit from which land disposal meth-
ods. The Agency has stated in hearings that it plans initially to
review dioxin-containing hazardous wastes and spent solvent haz-
ardous wastes numbered FOOl, F002, F003, F004, and F005 in regu-
lations promulgated pursuant to section 3001 (40 C.F.R. 261.31).
Therefore, these wastes have been selected to be reviewed first. The
Agency is directed to determine by July 1, 1985, if prohibitions of
one or more methods of land disposal of these wastes is appropri-
ate.
Paragraph (5) contains a list of hazardous wastes the Administra-
tor must review, within 32 months of enactment, and consider for
land disposal prohibition. These hazardous wastes and specified
concentration levels were selected primarily because the State of
California has conducted a rulemaking procedure and begun imple-
menting restrictions on these wastes. The specified concentration
levels—1O,000 times the Interim Primary Drinking Water Stand-
ards—are a conservative starting point for the analysis. These
wastes at these concentrations clearly meet the “highly toxic”
standard. The specified concentrations are not intended to be bind-
ing on the Agency. Indeed, the Administrator may substitute more
stringent concentration levels for the levels specified in paragraph
(5).
The Administrator may, in reviewing particular wastes on this
list, determine that some subset of a listed waste such as haloge-
nated organic compounds should be prohibited from certain forms
of land disposal, while other examples of a generally listed category
are appropriate for land disposal.
The schedule for the third phase of the program is contained in
paragraph (6). This paragraph directs the Administrator to publish
within 12 months of enactment a schedule for reviewing all hazard.
ous wastes listed under section 3001. For the purposes of section
7002, the issuance of the schedule is a mandatory duty. This sched-
ule must provide for review and determination of whether or not to
prohibit land disposal of one-third of all listed wastes within 82
months of enactment, two-thirds of all listed wastes within 42
£ 0J

-------
18
months of enactment, and all listed wastes within 52 months of en-
actment. Even if the schedule is issued late, these deadlines are
binding. The wastes already covered in paragraph (4) shall not be
included as part of this schedule. Any new wastes listed after en-
actment must be reviewed and a determination of whether or not
to subject them to a land disposal prohibition must be made within
32 months after their listing. In addition, within 52 months of en-
actment, the Administrator must determine whether or not to pro-
hibit the land disposal of hazardous wastes identified by any toxic-
ity characteristic. This includes the existing extraction procedure
toxicity characteristic or revisions to its as well as any additional
toxicity characteristics that may be developed by the Agency prior
to that time, including any characteristics developed under the
amendments contained elsewhere in this bill.
In making these determinations, the Agency should not start
from the point of having to justify the imposition of a land disposal
restriction. The presumption is that land disposal is the least pro-
ferred management method. This makes the Agency’s decision far
simpler than if the Act were neutral as to different management
options. The Agency should not start from an assumption that it
must begin a new research effort or regulatory analysis before any
determinations can be made. There is an information base at the
present time to begin to make the phased determinations required
by this section. This includes the information from the years of
work EPA and others have devoted to developing a degree of
hazard system and the extensive analysis on land disposal, includ-
ing research and development on the effects of wastes on different
liners and the behavior of wastes when placed in the ground, as
well as the work done by the State of California. The Agency
should also utilize its data on incidents of groundwater contamina-
tion from hazardous wastes, and wastes found in sites on the Na-
tional Priority List.
Effective date of prohibitions
A prohibition of one or more methods of land disposal of a speci-
fied hazardous waste shall be effective immediately upon promul-
gation unless the Administrator determines that there does not
exist adequate alternative treatment, recovery or disposal capacity
which is protective of human health and the environment. The pro-
hibitions should go into effect immediately upon promulgation
whenever and wherever possible. The Agency should expend every
effort to assure that unsafe practices are terminated as quickly as
possible. The purpose of new section 3004(b)(3) is to assure that suf-
ficient capacity for alternative treatment, recovery or disposal is
available to accommodate the wastes affected by a prohibition. This
provision allows the Administrator to grant a general two-year ex-
tension of the prohibition deadline if necessary to assure the avail-
ability of alternative treatment, recovery or disposal capacity. Ad-
ditionally, the alternative capacity must be determined to be pro-
tective of human health and the environment. The availability of
adequate storage capacity (either in or on the land or in tanks and
containers) is not an acceptable alternative capacity for the pur-
pose of determining whether to establish an early effective date.
Rather, alternative capacity must be for the treatment, recovery

-------
19
(including legitimate use, re-use, and recycling), or disposal of the’
waste.
Claims of inadequate capacity can become a “self-fulfilling
prophecy” if the regulated community believes that land disposal
deadlines will normally be extended and that immediate invest-
ment in development of alternative capacity will be premature and
economically non-productive. Extensions based on capacity short-i
falls should be infrequently granted. Given consistent regulatory
and economic incentives, adequate capacity will be quickly devel-
oped.
The available capacity determination is to be done on a national
basis. Otherwise, different regions of the country would be receiv-
ing varying degrees of protection and could be used as dumping
grounds for the rest of the country. In addition to creating “pollu-
tion havens”, an attempt to regionalize capacity considerations
would place industries within regions subject to the prohibition at!
a competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, regionalization would
generate the kind of self-fulfilling capacity shortfalls discussed
above. A nationwide availability of capacity approach might neces-
sitate the transportation of wastes to treatment facilities over sig-
nificant distances; however, this kind of waste transportation is oc-
curring today. With the elimination of cheap, unsafe land disposal
alternatives, treatment capacity and inexpensive “milk run” style
collection services will develop to meet regional demands.
In order to encourage the development and construction of alter-
native capacity, the effective date of prohibitions should not extend
beyond two years except in narrowly defined circumstances. There-
fore, extensions beyond an effective date established by the Admin-
istrator may only be granted on a case-by-case basis for one year
and renewable for no more than one additional year (i.e., a inaxi-
mum of two years total), where an applicant demonstrates to the
Administrator that there is a binding contractual commitment to
construct or otherwise provide such alternative capacity but due to
circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, such alternative
capacity cannot reasonably be made available by the effective date.
This provision is intended only to accommodate those making a!
good faith effort to meet the effective date but who are unable to
do so due to circumstances beyond their control.
The Administrator should use this discretion sparingly and only
in cases of an extraordinary nature. It is not intended that a gener-
ating industry, for example, could be allowed to continue to have
its wastes disposed of in an otherwise prohibited manner solely by
binding itself to using a facility which has not been constructed.
Thus, when an “alternate technology” facility is operating at less
than maximum capacity, the Administrator should determine that
alternative capacity is available whether or not an individual com-
pany applying for an extension is constructing its own alternative
facility. In such cases, the company should be required to use the
available alternative capacity until such time as its own capacity
has been constructed and permitted.
Addigional conditions
In order to assure timely and consistent application of the pro-
gram of land disposal limitations, some additional conditions have

-------
20
been included in paragraphs (8) and (9) of new section 3004(b). New
section 3004(b)(8)(A) addresses the concern that hazardous wastes
placed in treatment or storage surface impoundments comply with
at least minimum standards to protect human health and the envi-
r’ qment. Under this provision, a hazardous waste prohibited from
disposal in a surface impoundment may be treated or stored in a
surface impoundment only if the impoundment has at least one
liner. (Because of new section 3004(f), this principally deals with ex-
isting impoundments.) The requirements of this section are a mini-
mum and do not necessarily meet the Agency’s responsibility to
assure that the storage or treatment of the prohibited hazardous
waste is protective of human health and the environment. Specifi-
cally, the reference to “at least one liner” in this section is intend-
ed to mean a liner of the type called for in 40 CFR 264. The Agency
has defined a liner to mean any barrier which restricts the migra-
tion of a waste from the disposal zone. A loose interpretation of
this language could mean that in situ, highly permeable soils could
be interpreted to constitute a “liner” because even these soils
would “restrict” the movement of wastes into groundwater. Such
an interpretation, however, is unacceptable. The intent is to re-
quire at least a single liner either of a synthetic or natural materi-
al with a very low permeability such as that called for in the July
26, 1982, regulations. The Administrator may impose additional re-
quirements on such impoundments as may be necessary to elimi-
nate or mimimize the potential for waste migration.
Under new section 3004(b)(8)(B) placement of hazardous wastes in
a surface impoundment or waste pile for more than six months is
to be regulated as disposal, whether the ostensible purpose is for
treatment and storage or for disposal. Many surface impoundments
and waste piles have been designated as long-term “storage” rather
than “disposal” facilities, although they have indistinguishable en-
vironmental consequences. Thus, in new section 3004(b)(8), only
short-term storage of up to six months or treatment performed
within that same time period avoids being defined as disposal. Haz-
ardous wastes may not be circulated during a six month period in a
surface impoundment facility where the liner may become con-i
taminated with the waste. In such cases the Agency shall require
the facility operator to remove that contaminated portion of the
liner within six months or discontinue use of the surface impound-
ment for storage or treatment.
As an overall strategy under paragraph (8), the Agency should
encourage operators of unlined facilities to drain and retrofit these
facilities as quickly as economically feasible. This paragraph is in-
tended to prevent the use of unlined facilities or facilities whose
liners may become contaminated with hazardous wastes from re-
maining in operation and receiving such wastes.
Paragraph (9) contains certain restrictions that apply if the Ad-
ministrator fails to promulgate regulations regarding wastes re-
ferred to in paragraphs (4) (dioxin-containing hazardous wastes and
spent solvent hazardous wastes numbered FOOl, F002, F003, F004,
and F005) and (5) (the list of wastes adopted from the California I
program). If the Administrator fails to determine whether a land
disposal prohibition is warranted for these wastes by the specified
deadline (by July 1, 1985, for paragraph (4) and by the date thirty.

-------
21
two months from the date of enactment for paragraph (5)), then be-
ginning not later than six months after these deadlines, such
wastes may be disposed of in a landfill or a surface impoundment
only if the unit is in compliance with the requirements of section
3004(0(1), as added by these amendments. That section requires
that new or expanded landfills and surface impoundments are at
least double-lined and have a leachate collection system above (in
the case of landfills) and between such liners or that the facility
owner or operator demonstrates that alternative design and operat-
ing practices, together with locational characteristics, will prevent
the migration of hazardous constituents into ground-water or sur-
face water at least as effectively as such liners and leachate collec-
tion systems would at the same location. In addition, such units
must be monitoring groundwater, consistent with the provisions of
new section 3004(1). These requirements remain in effect until such
time as the Administrator makes a determination that a prohibi-
tion of land disposal of these wastes is not warranted. This provi-
sion is intended to provide temporary protection against the migra-
tion of particularly dangerous wastes. However, it should not be
considered a substitute for the land disposal prohibitions intended
by this section. The Agency is expected and required to meet its
statutory deadlines.
The requirements of paragraph (9) do not apply to contaminated
soil and debris from the cleanup or removal of any release of a haz-
ardous substance, even if that soil or debris would otherwise fall
within one of the categories of waste referred to in paragraphs (4)
and (5). This exception was included to assure that the clean-up of
contaminated sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (Public
Law 96-510) and removal and remedial actions and clean-ups un-
dertaken pursuant to orders issued under section 7003 of the Act
and section 106 of CERCLA could proceed in an orderly fashion.
A question was raised during the Committee’s consideration of
this bill as to whether the restrictions on land disposal contained
in this section are intended to apply to uranium or thorium tail-
ings subject to regulation under the “Uranium Mill Tailings Radi-
ation Control Act of 1978” (UMTRCA), as amended. This section is
not intended to affect the statutory program that has been estab-
lished by Congress in UMTRCA, as amended. Under section
1004(27) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, “solid waste” (the defini-
tion on which “hazardous waste” is based) excludes “source, special
nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy
Act”. Section lie of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, defines
“byproduct material” to include uranium and thorium tailings. Ac-
cordingly, uranium and thorium tailings are not hazardous wastes
subject to the restrictions on land disposal contained in new section
3004(b). Requirements under section 84 and 275 of the Atomic
Energy Act are to assure the protection of human health and the
environment, and need not comply with the special provisions of
new section 3004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Liquids in landfills
A new subsection (c) is being added to section 3004 to require the
Agency to promulgate final regulations which minimize the dispos-

-------
22
al of liquid hazardous waste in landfills. The Agency currently reg
ulates liquid waste in two forms: (1) bulk liquids and (2) container
ized liquids (e.g., 55 gal. drums containing liquids). Containerized
liquids are of particular concern because metal drums ultimately,
at some unpredictable time, decay. If the drums collapse or leak
after the post-closure care period, significant uncontrolled releases
and subsidence of the cover could occur at a time when the lea-
chate collection and removal system is no longer operated, the
ground water may no longer be routinely monitored, and the final
cover is no longer maintained. Bulk liquid hazardous wastes in
landfills are also of concern because wastes in liquid form are rela-
tively mobile, landfill liners can be damaged during placement of
wastes, and hydrostatic pressures increase the likelihood of lea-
chate escaping. Alternative technologies are available to deliquify
wastes prior to disposal in a landfill. Therefore, the Agency is di-
rected to prohibit bulk liquid hazardous wastes and minimize con-
tainerized liquids in landfills.
Liquid wastes means both “liquids” in the conventional sense of
the term (i.e., the state of matter in which a substance exhibits a
characteristic readiness to flow, little or no tendency to disperse,
and relatively high incompressibility) and the free flowing or liquid
portion of sludges that readily separates under gravitational forces.
The latter meaning EPA adequately refers to as “free liquids”
which is defined in 40 CFR 260.10 as “liquids which readily sepa-
rate from the solid portion of a waste under ambient temperature
and pressure.” The current hazardous waste landfill regulations
promulgated by EPA use the term “free-standing liquid” as well as
‘free liquids” which EPA describes in the preamole (47 FR 12317,
March 22, 1982) as “those (liquids) that form distinct pools or
layers within a container.” Thus, “free-standing liquid” is a subset
of “liquid” and “free liquids” and, therefore, is covered by these
two terms. -
The Agency is currently evaluating two test protocols it is devel-
oping to define the term “free liquids”: a paint filter test and an
inclined plane test. Because of the technical aspects of this, the
Agency is authorized, in promulgating its final regulation under
this subsection, to define what is meant by liquids and free liquids,
and to specify any test protocols the Agency deems appropriate.
The term “minimize” is used in the amendment to give the Agency
the flexibility to develop a test and rule that restricts or limits
liquid hazardous waste or free liquids, yet is practical both to
achieve and to measure for compliance determinations (as waste is
received and disposed of during inspections). This flexibility is not
intended to give authority to allow significant quantities of liquid
hazardous wastes to be disposed of in landfills. Rather, it is intend-
ed to allow the Agency to deal from a practical standpoint with
very small quantities of liquid wastes and with difficult wastes
(e.g., gelatinous wastes and sludges with high moisture content but
little free flowing moisture under gravitational forces).
As discussed previously, the goal of minimizing liquids is to
reduce the potential migration and leachability of hazardous con-
stituents, and the potential for subsidence. To this end, the pre-
ferred treatment methods are decanting or deliquifying (via centri-
fuge, vacuum drums or conveyor, or filter presses, etc.), and mixing

-------
23
with agents (e.g., bentonites and chemical reagents) that result in a
material that provides structural stability as well as removal of
“free liquids.” Unacceptable mixing agents include sawdust, munic-
ipal waste, shredded paper, and other absorbent materials that bio-
degrade, and thereby collapse and release free liquids. Also unac-
ceptable are absorbent materials that have sponge-like behavior,
i.e., that absorb liquids but readily release them again under pres-
sure (as may be expected in a landfill), such as sawdust, fly ash,
shreeded paper, and certain vermiculites. Such materials also tend
to produce free-standing liquids in containers during shipment. The
Agency is expected to develop and publish criteria distinguishing
between acceptable and unacceptable mixing agents or to test and
publish a list rating mixing agents and distinguishing between ac-
ceptable and unacceptable agents, based on the above guidance.
These amendment require that free liquids be minimized by means
other than the addition of absorbent material, where technological-
ly feasible.
The Administrator may continue to allow the disposal in land-
fills of small containers of hazardous waste placed in overpacked
drums according to EPA specifications issued on November 17,
1981. This method of disposal—generally known as disposal by lab
pack—is commonly used by laboratories which produce small
amounts of many different wastes. These wastes are collected in
small containers ranging in size from one ampule to five-gallon
containers. This inside containers are surrounded by a sufficient
quantity of compatible absorbent material, such as vermiculite, and
overpacked in large drums (usually 55 gallon) prior to disposal in a
secure landfill. EPA regulations require that the inside containers
be of a design and constructed of a material that will not react
dangerously with, be decomposed by, or be ignited by, the waste
held therein. In addition, the placement of incompatible wastes in
the same outside container is prohibited. The regulations also ban
the landfill disposal of reactive wastes in lab packs unless the
waste is rendered non-reactive prior to packaging.
Finally, language is included in these amendments to assure
that the current regulations remain in effect and are not temporar-
ily suspended pending further revisions or reviews.
Ban on dust suppression
A new subsection (d) is added to section 3004 to prohibit the use
of contaminated waste or used oil or other material for dust sup-
pression or road treatn ient. It was such use of oil mixed with
dioxin that.created the serious situation at Times Beach, Missouri.
These amendments are designed to prevent the recurrence of such
situations. Such use of hazardous waste contaminated materials is
flatly banned, as a matter of Federal law.

-------
16 Lç
AIR EMISSIONS FROM LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
This amendment amends section 3004 of the Act to require the
Administrator within 30 months after enactment to promulgate
regulations for monitoring and control of air emissions from haz-
ardous waste facilities as may be necessary to protect human
health and the environment.
There is a considerable body of information indicating that emis-
sions into the air from hazardous waste facilities pose a significant
threat to health and the environment. Emissions of volatile chemi-
cals from treatment, storage and disposal of wastes have been esti-
mated to be of a similar magnitude as emissions of the same com-
pounds from industrial processes. Studies of hazardous waste sur-
face impoundments and landfills report that significant quantities
of hazardous constituents in the wastes may be emitted into the
air. In fact, one quarter of the remedial action sites on the Nation-
al Priority List under the Comprehensive Emergency Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) are included at least in
part because of potential threats to health and the environment
from emissions of hazardous pollutants into the air.
Proposals to regulate emissions from hazardous waste facilities
have been published on several occasions since passage of the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act in 1976. Final regulations
have never been issued. The Agency also has authority to regulate
emissions of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, but
its performance under that Act has been appallingly slow.
The bill, therefore, requires regulatory action within 30 months
under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, providing substantial flexibil-
ity to the Agency in establishing needed controls, so long as they
meet the basic requirements of the Act, to protect human health
and the environmen t. Levels of control may be based on such fac-
tors as volatility and toxicity of wastes and the type of process
being regulated.
Monitoring should be required at hazardous waste facilities
where necessary to protect human health and the environment.
The Agency is currently monitoring air emissions at a significant
number of CERCLA sites. It would be entirely appropriate for the
Agency to issue monitoring regulations on an expedited basis,
while preparing a control strategy. Such an approach might facili-
64
tate tne gathering of data on the nature and extent of the problem
posed by air emissions.
;2t,1

-------
REPORT TO CONGRESS
This amendment requires that the Environmental Protection
Agency conduct an inventory of hazardous waste injection wells
and report to the Congress not later than March 15, 1984. This pro-
vision is necessary because even though preliminary estimates indi-
cate that 57 percent of the hazardous waste generated in the
United States is disposed of through deep well injection, virtually
no reliable information exists as to these wells and the activities
surrounding them. Elsewhere in this bill, the disposal of hazardous
waste though injection into or above an aquifer which serves as a
drinking water supply is prohibited. An inventory was ordered in I
order to improve the information base relating to wells below
drinking water aquifers.
In conducting the inventory, the Environmental Protection:
Agency may rely upon information which is already in existence. It
is expected that much of the necessary information will be found in
the files of State and local agencies. Some of the information, how-
ever, will not be found so easily and, for at least twenty wells, the
Agency is required to conduct a comprehensive survey.
The inventory and comprehensive survey are to provide the fol-
lowing information:
1. The location and depth of each well;
2. Engineering and construction details of each, including
the thickness and composition of its casting, the width and con-
tent of the annulus, and pump pressure and capacity;
3. The hydrogeological characteristics of the overlying and
underlying strata, as well as that into which the waste is in-
jected;
4. The location and size of all drinking water aquifers pene-
trated by the well, or within a one-mile radius of the well or
within two hundred feet below the well injection point;
5. The location, capacity, and population served by each well
providing drinking or irrigation water which is within a five-
mile radius of the injection well;
6. The nature and volume of the waste injected during the
one-year period immediately preceding the date of the report;
7. The dates and nature of the inspections of the injection
well conducted by independent third parties or agents of State,
Federal, or local government;
8. The name and address of all owners and operators of the
well and any disposal facility associated with it; and
70
9. Such other information .
discretion, deem necessary to delhi Administrator may, in his
hazardous waste disposal in the Zlnited

-------
p i-D ‘/ gGL$ p ir
4 LAND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
5 SEC. 5. (a) LAND DIsPosAL OF CERTAIN HAZARDOUS
6 WASTES.—Section 3004 is amended by inserting “(a) ] i
7 GENERAL.—” after “3004.” and by adding the following at
8 the end thereof:
9 “(b) SALT Doi n FoRi rIoNs, SALT BED FoB-
10 TIONS, UNDERGROUND MINES AND OAvES.—(1) Effective
11 February 1, 1984, the placement of any liquid hazardous
12 waste or free liquids contained in hazardous waste (whether
13 containerized, noncontainerized or bulk and whether or not
14 absorbents have been added) in any salt dome formation, salt
15 bed formations, underground mine, or cave is prohibited. Ef-
16 fective on the date of enactment of this subsection, the place-
17 ment of any other hazardous waste in a salt dome formation,
18 salt bed formations, underground mine, or cave is prohibited
19 until such time as the Administrator has promulgated per-
20 formance and permitting standards for such facilities under
21 this subtitle and a permit has been issued under section
22 3005(c) for the facility concerned.
23 “(2) The Administrator shall conduct a study and,
24 within two years after the date of the enactment of this sub-
25 section, submit a report to the Congress regarding the effects

-------
1 on human health and the environment which are associated
2 with the placement of liquid hazardous waste in salt dome
3 formations, salt bed formations, underground mines, and
4 caves. Such report may include recommendations for the
5 modification of the prohibition contained in paragraph (1) on
6 the placement of liquid hazardous waste in salt dome forma-
7 tions, salt bed formations, underground mines, and caves.
8 “(3) No determination made by the Administrator under
9 subsection (d) or (e) of this section regarding any hazardous
10 waste to which such subsection (d) or (e) applies shall affect
11 the prohibition contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
12 “(c) LIQUIDS IN LA.r r)FILLs.—(1) Effective six months
13 after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the place-
14 ment of bulk or noncontainerized liquid hazardous waste or
15 free liquids contained in hazardous waste (whether or not ab-
16 sorbents have been added) in any landfill is prohibited. Prior
17 to such date the requirements (as in effect on April 30, 1983)
18 promulgated under this section by the Administrator regard-
19 ing liquid hazardous waste shall remain in force and effect to
20 the extent such requirements are applicable to the placement
21 of bulk or noncontainerized liquid hazardous waste, or free
22 liquids contained in hazardous waste, in landfills.
23 “(2) Not later than six months after the date of the en-
24 actment of this subsection, the Administrator shall promul-
25 gate final regulations which—
HR 2867 RFS

-------
1 “(A) minimize (to the extent technologically feasi-
2 ble) the disposal of containerized liquid hazardous
3 waste (whether or not absorbents have been added) in
4 landfills; and
5 “(B) minimize (by means other than the addition
6 of absorbent material where technologically feasible)
7 the presence of free liquids in containerized hazardous
8 waste to be disposed of in landfills.
9 Prior to the date on which such final regulations take effect,
10 the requirements (as in effect on April 30, 1983) promulgated
11 under this section by the Administrator shall remain in force
12 and effect to the extent such requirements are applicable to
13 the disposal of containerized liquid hazardous waste, or free
14 liquids contained in hazardous waste, in landfills.
15 “(3) Effective one year after the date of the enactment
16 of this subsection, the placement of any liquid which is not a
17 hazardous waste in a landfill for which a permit is required
18 under section 3005(c) or which is operating pursuant to inter-
19 im status granted under section 3005(e) is prohibited unless
20 the owner or operator of such landfill demonstrates to the
21 Administrator, or the Administrator determines, that—
22 “(A) the only reasonably available alternative to
23 the placement in such landfill is placement in a landfill
24 or unlined surface impoundment, whether or not per-
25 mitted under section 3005(c) or operating pursuant to
lilt 2867 RFS——2

-------
1 interim status under section 3005(e), which contains,
2 or may reasonably be anticipated to contain, hazardous
3 waste; and
4 “(B) placement in such owiier or operator’s land-
5 fill will not present a risk of contamination of any Un-
6 derground source of drinking water. As used in this
7 subparagraph, the term ‘underground source of drink.
8 ing water’ has the same meaning as provided in regu-
9 lations under the Safe Drinking Water Act (title XI\ ’
10 of the Public Health Service Act).
11 “(4) No determination made by the Administrator unaer,
12 subsection (d) or (e) of this section regarding any hazardous
13 waste to which such subsection (d) or (e) applies shall affect
14 the prohibition contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection..
15 “(d) PROHIBITIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL OF SPECIFIED
16 WAsTEs.—(1) The Administrator may promulgate regu]a
17 tions prohibiting one or more methods of land disposal of:
18 specified hazardous wastes (in addition to the wastes referred
19 to in paragraph (2) of this subsection) which are identified Or
20 listed under section 3001. The Administrator shall speCifY
21 each such hazardous waste for which it may reasonably be
22 anticipated that on or more methods of land disposal may
23 not be protective of human health and the environment for 3$
24 long as the waste remains hazardous, taking into account the
25 long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal, the
HR 2867 RFS

-------
1 goal of managing hazardous waste in an appropriate manner
2 in the first instance, and the persistence, toxicity, mobility,
3 and propensity to bioaccumulate of such hazardous wastes
4 and their toxic constituents. In promulgating such regula-
5 tions, the Administrator shall consider each hazardous waste
6 which is prohibited from one or more methods of land dispos-
7 a! by any State.
8 “(2) Effective on the date specified in subsection (e),
9 except as provided in paragraph (3) with respect to under-
10 ground injection into deep injection wells, the land disposal of
11 the following listed or identified hazardous wastes is prohibit-
12 ed unless the Administrator determines the prohibition on one
13 or more methods of land disposal is not required in order to
14 protect human health and the environment for as long as the
15 waste remains hazardous, taking into account the factors re-
16 ferred to in paragraph (1):
17 “(A) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liq-
18 uids associated with any solid or sludge, containing
19 free or complex cyanides at concentrations greater than
20 or equal to 1,000 mg/i.
21 “(B) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liq-
22 uids associated with any solid or sludge, containing the
23 following dissolved metals (or elements) or compounds
24 of these metals (or elements) at concentrations greater
25 than or equal to those specified below:
HR 2867 RFS

-------
1 “(i) arsenic and/or compounds (as As) 500
2 mg/I;
3 “(ii) cadmium and/or compounds (as Cd) 100
4 mg/I;
5 “(iii) chromium (VI and/or compounds (as
6 Cr “TI)) 500 mg/i;
7 - “(iv) lead and/or compounds (as Pb) 500
8 mg/i;
9 “(v) mercury and/or compounds (as Hg) 20
10 mg/I;
11 “(vi) nickel and/or compounds (as Ni) 134
12 mg/I;
13 “(vii) selenium and/or compounds (as Se)
14 100 mg/i; and
15 “(viii) thallium and/or compounds (as Th) 130
16 mg/i.
17 “(0) Liquid hazardous waste having a pH less
18 than or equal to two (2.0).
19 “(D) Liquid hazardous wastes containing polychio-
20 rinated biphenyls at concentrations greater than or
21 equal to 50 ppm.
22 “(E) Hazardous wastes containing halogenated or-
23 ganic compounds in total concentration greater than or
24 equal to 1,000 mg/kg.

-------
1 Where necessary to protect human health and the environ
2 ment, the Administrator may substitute more stringent COn
3 centration levels than the levels specifed in subparagraphs
4 (A) through (E).
5 “(3)(A) not later than thirty-two months after the enact-
6 ment of the Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act
7 of 1983, the Administrator shall complete a review of the
8 disposal of all hazardous wastes referred to in paragraph (2)
9 by underground injection into deep injection wells and shall
10 promulgate final regulations prohibiting the disposal of any
11 such hazardous waste into such wells if it may reasonably be
12 determined that such disposal may not be protective of
13 human health and the environment for as long as the waste
14 remains hazardous, taking into account the factors referred to
15 in paragraph (2). In promulgating such regulations, the Ad-
16 ministrator shall consider each hazardous waste referred to in
17 paragraph (2) which is prohibited from disposal into such
18 wells by any State.
19 “(B) If the Administrator fails to make a determination
20 for any hazardous waste referred to in paragraph (2) within
21 the thirty-two month period referred to in subparagraph (A),,
22 such hazardous waste shall be prohibited from disposal into
23 any deep injection well.
24 “(C) Not later than eighteen months after the enactment
25 of the Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of

-------
1 1983, the Administrator shall submit a report to the Oo .
2 gress setting forth the interim results of the review required
3 to be carried out under subparagraph (A).
4 “(D) As used in this subsection, the term ‘deep injection
5 well’ means a well used for the underground injection of haz-
6 ardous waste other than a well to which section 70 10(a) ap-
7 plies.
8 “(e) SCHEDUIJE FOE ADDITI0NM 4 PRoHIBITIoN DE-
9 TEEMINATIONS.—(1) Not later than twelve months after en-
10 actment of the Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement
11 Act of 1983, for all hazardous wastes listed in 40 C.F.R.
12 261.31 and 261.32 (as in effect on the date of the enactment
13 of this subsection) which are not covered by a prohibition
14 under subsection (d), the Administrator shall submit a sched-
15 ule to Congress for reviewing those wastes under this subsec-
16 tion. The submission of such schedule shall not be treated as
17 rulemaking for purposes of chapter 5 of title 5 of the United
18 States Code or for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act
19 of 1980. The Administrator shall complete such review and
20 shall promulgate regulations in accordance with paragraph
21 (2) for the percentages of such wastes set forth in the follow-
22 ing table before the expiration of the corresp’onding period set
23 forth in such table:

-------
23
Percentage of listed hazardous Period after enactment by which
wastes for which a determi- determination must be made
nation of land disposal pro- and regulation promulgated
hibition must be made
331/3 32 months
66% 42 months
100 52 months
1 The Administrator shall add to the schedule required under
2 this paragraph any hazardous waste identified or listed under
3 section 3001 after the date of enactment of the Hazardous
4 Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983 and before
5 fifty-four months after such date of enactment. The Adminis-
6 trator shall also determine, within fifty-four months after the
7 enactment of such Act, whether all remaining hazardous
8 wastes identified or listed under section 3001 should be pro-
9 hibited from one or more methods of land disposal in accord-
10 ance with paragraph (2). In the case of any hazardous waste
11 identified or listed under section 3001 after fifty-four months
12 after enactment, the Administrator shall determine whether
13 such waste shall be prohibited from one or more methods of
14 land disposal in accordance with paragraph (2) within six
15 months after the date of such identification or listing.
16 “(2) In accordance with the schedule and time periods
17 set forth in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall promulgate
18 final regulations prohibiting one or more methods of land dis-
19 posal of hazardous wastes if it may reasonably be anticipated
20 that such method of land disposal may not be protective of
21 human health and the environment for as long as the waste
22 remains hazardous, taking into account the long-term uncer-
HR 2867 RFS

-------
1 tainties associated with land disposal, the goal of managing’
2 waste in an appropriate manner in the first instance, and the
3 persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumu-
4 late of such hazardous wastes and their toxic constitutents.
5 In promulgating such regulations, the Administrator shall
6 consider each hazardous waste which is prohibited from one
7 or more methods of land disposal by any State.
8 “(3) If the Administrator fails to make a determination
9 for any hazardous waste listed or identified under section
10 3001 within the time provided in paragraph (1), such hazard-
11 ous waste shall be prohibited from land disposal.
12 “(f) EFFECTIVE DATES; SPECIAL RuLEs.—(1)(A)
13 Except as provided in subparagraph LB), the prohibition
14 under subsection (d)(2) shall be effective on the date twelve
15 months after the date of the enactment of this subsection and
16 a prohibition in regulations under subsection (e) shall be ef-
17 fective immediately upon promulgation.
18 “(B) The Administrator may establish an effective date
19 other than that required under subparagraph (A) with respect
20 to a specific hazardous waste subject to a prohibition under
21 subsection (d)(2) or (e) on the basis of the earliest date on
22 which adequate capacity for alternative management will be
23 available. No such other effective date established by the Ad
24 ministrator shall be later than forty-two months after the ef-
25 fective date specified in subparagraph (A), except that in the

-------
1 case of disposal of a specific hazardous waste by agencies or
2 instrumentalities of the Federal government, no such other
3 effective date established by the Administrator may be later
4 than eighteen months after the effective date specified in sub-
5 paragraph (A) unless the Administrator determines at that
6 time that alternative available capacity is still unavailable or
7 inadequate for the management of such hazardous waste. If
8 the Administrator makes such a determination concerning
9 disposal by an agency or instrumentality of the waste con-
10 cerned, he may establish another effective date which may
11 not be later than thirty months after the effective date speci-
12 fled in subparagraph (A).
13 “(2) For those hazardous wastes for which no other ef-
14 fective date is established under paragraph (1)(B), the Adniin-
15 istrator may grant a variance on a case-by-case basis for up
16 to six months, renewable twice only, upon a showing by a
17 generator of severe economic hardship. No such variance
18 shall be granted for wastes generated by any agency or in-
19 strumentality of the United States.
20 “(3) The Administrator may, from time to time after the
21 initial promulgation of regulations required by this subsec-
22 tion, revise such regulations to add additional hazardous
23 wastes to be prohibited from one or more methods of land
24 disposal.

-------
1 “(4) The Administrator may impose such conditions as
2 may be necessary to accomplish the purpose of subsections
3 (b) through (0 of this section, including but not limited to
4 pretreatment and detoxification prior to land disposal, and
5 limitations on waste dilution.
6 “(5) In the case of any hazardous waste which is prohib-
7 ited from one or more methods of land disposal under subsec-
8 tion (d) or (e) of this section (or under regulations promulgat-
9 ed by the Administrator under such subsection (d) or (e)) the
10 storage of such hazardous waste is prohibited unless such
11 storage is solely for the purpose of the accumulation of such
12 quantities of hazardous waste as are necessary to facilitate
13 proper recovery, treatment or disposal.
14 “(6) For the purposes of subsections (d) and (e) of this
15 section, the term ‘land disposal’, when used with respect to a
16 specified hazardous waste, shall be deemed to include, but
17 not be limited to, any placement of such hazardous waste in a
18 landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land
19 treatment facility, salt dome formation, salt’ed formations, or
20 underground mine or cave.”.

-------
12 (c) An EMISSIONS FROM LA1 D DISPOSAL FACILI-
13 TIES.—SectiOfl 3004 is amended by adding the following
14 new subsection after subsection (k):
15 “(1) AIR EMISSIONS FROM LAND DISPOSAL FACILI-
16 TIES.—Not later than twenty-four months after the date of
17 the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall pro-
18 mulgate regulations for such monitoring and control of air
19 emissions at hazardous waste storage, treatment, and land
20 disposal facilities (including but not limited to open tanks,
21 surface impoundments, and landfills) as may be necessary to
22 protect human health and the environment.”.

-------
ç- c - AS
LAND DiSPOSAL LIMITATIONS
SEC. 5. (a) Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act is amended by inserting “(a) STANDARDS.—” after
“SEC. 3004.” and by adding the following new subsections:
“(b) LAND DISPOSAL LIM1TATIONs.—(1) The Con-
gress finds that certain classes of land disposal facilities are
not capable of assuring long-term containment of certain
hazardous wastes, and that to avoid substantial risk to
human health and the environment, reliance on land dispos-
al should be minimized and land disposal, particularly
landfill and surface impoundment, should be the least fa-
vored method for managing hazardous wastes. Therefore, the
Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for hear-
ings and after consultation with appropriate Federal and
State agencies, promulgate regulations prohibiting the land
HR 2867 EAS

-------
9
disposal of hazardous wastes, except for methods of land dis-
posal of one or more such wastes which the Administrator
determines will be protective of human health and the enti-
ronment. If the Administrator determines thai a method of
land disposal of a hazardous waste will be protective of
human health and the environment, he shall promptly pub-
lish in the Federal Register notice of such determination to-
gether with an explanation of the basis for such deterrnina-
lion. The Administrator shall take into account the persist-
ence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate of
such hazardous waste, and the potential effect of such waste
on the integrity of containment mechanisms.
“(2) For the purposes of this subsection (other than
paragraph (7)), if a specified waste contains significant con-
centrations of one or more hazardous constituents that is
highly toxic, highly mobile, or has a strong propensity to
bioaccumulate, a method of land disposal may not be deter-
mined to be protective of human health and the environment
for such specified hazardous waste, unless upon application
by an interested person it has been demonstrated to the Ad-
ministrator, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there
will be no migration of such constituents from the disposal
unit or injection zone for as long as the wastes remain haz-
ardous.
HR 2867 LAS

-------
10
“(3) A prohibition in regulations under this subsection
shall be effective immediately upon promulgation, unless the
Administrator establishes another effective date with respect
to a specific hazardows waste on the basis of the earliest
date on which adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or
disposal capacity which protects human health and the envi-
ronment will be available, which shall in no event be later
than two years after the date of promulgation. The Adminis-
trator, after notice and opportunity for comment and after
c nsulta1ion with appr priate State agencies in all affected
States, may grant an extension of such effective date on a
case-by-case basis for up to one year, renewable for no more
than one additional year, where the applicant demonstrates
that there is a binding contractual commitment to construct
or otherwise provide such alternative capacity but due to cir-
cum.stances beyond the control of such applicant such alter-
native capacity cannot reasonably be made available by
such effective date.
“(4) Not later than twenty-four months after the enact-
ment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of
1984, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations in ac-
cordance with paragraph (1) for dioxin-containing hazard-
ous wastes (Proposed EPA hazardous waste, numbered
F020, F021, F022, and F023) and those hazardous wastes
numbered FOOl, F002, F003, F004, and F005 in regula-

-------
11
lions promulgated by the Administrator under section 3001
(40 C.F.R. 261.31), as those regulations are in effect on
July 1, 1983;
“(5) Not later than thirty-two months after the enact-
ment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of
1984, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations in ac-
cordance with para qraph (1) for the following hazardous
wastes:
“(A) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liq-
uids associated with any solid or sludge, containing
free cyanides at concentrations greater than or equal to
1,000 mg/i.
“(B) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liq-
uids associated with any solid or sludge, containing the
following metals (or elements) or compounds of these
metals (or elements) at concentrations greater than or
equal to those specified below:
“(i) arsenic and/or compounds (as As) 500
mg/l;
“(ii) cadmium and/or compounds (as Cd)
100 mg/i;
“(iii) chromium (VI and/or compounds (as
Cr VI)) 500 mg/l;
“(iv) lead and/or compounds (as Pb) 500
mg/i;
HR 2867 EAS

-------
12
“(v) mercury and/or compounds (as Hg) 20
mg/i;
“(vi) nickel and/or compounds (as Ni) 134
mg/i;
“(vii) selenium and/or compounds (as Se)
100 mg/i; and
“(viii) thallium and/or compounds (as Th)
130 mg/i.
“(C) Liquid hazardous waste having a pH less
than or equal to two (2.0).
“(D) Liquid hazardous wastes containing poly-
‘chlorinated biphenyls at concentrations greater than or
equal to 50 ppm.
“(E) Hazardous wastes containing halogenated
organic compounds in total concentration greater than
or equal to 1,000 mg/kg.
When necessary to protect human health and the environ-
ment, the Administrator shall substitute more stringent con-
cent ration levels than the levels specified in subparagraphs
(A) through (E).
“(6)(A) Not later than twenty-four months after the en-
act ment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of
1984, the Administrator shall publish a schedule for decid-
ing whether or not to prohibit in accordance with paragraph
(1) the land disposal of each hazardous waste listed under
HIt 2867 LAS

-------
13
section 3001. Such schedule shall require that the Adminis-
trator must make such decisions for at least one-third of all
such listed wastes by the date forty-eight months after the
dale of such enactment, for at least two-thirde of all such
listed wastes by the date sixty months after the date of such
enactment, and for all such listed wastes by the dale seven-
ty-two months after the date of such enactment. The Admin-
istrator shall base the schedule on a ranking of such listed
wastes considering their intrinsic hazard and their volume
such that decisions whether or not to prohibit the kind dis-
posal ‘of high volume hazardous wastes with high intrinsic
hazard shall, to the maximum extent possible, be made by
the dale forty-two months after the enactment of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984 and decisions re-
garding low volume hazardous wastes with lower intrinsic
hazard shall be made by the date seventy-two months after
the date of such enactment.
“(B) Not later than the date specified in subparagraph
(A) for each waste on the schedule published under such
subparagraph, the Administrator shall promulgate regula-
lions in accordance with paragraph (1) for each such waste.
“(C) Not later than fifty-two months after the enact-
ment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of
1984, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations in ac-
• HR 2867 EAS

-------
14
cordance with paragraph (1) for each hazardous waste iden-
tified on the basis of any toxicity characteristics.
“(D) Not later than thirty-two months after the listing
of a hazardous waste listed after the enactment of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984, the Administra-
tor shall promulgate regulations in accordance with para-
graph (1) for such waste.
“(7) Simultaneously with the promulgation of regula-
lions under paragraph (1) prohibiting one or more methods
of land disposal of a particular hazardous waste, and as ap-
pri.ipriate thereafter, the Administrator shall, after notice
and an opportunity for hearings and after consultation with
appropriate Federal and State agencies, promulgate regula-
tions specifying those leveLs or methods of treatment, if any,
which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term
threats to human health and the environment are mini-
mized. If such hazardous waste has been treated to the level
or by a method specified in regulations promulgated under
this paragraph, such waste or residue thereof shall not be
subject to any prohibition promulgated under paragraph (1)
of this subsection and may be disposed of in a land disposal
facility which meets the requirements of this subtitle. Any
regulation promulgated under this paragraph for a parlicu-
HR 2867 EAS

-------
15
lar hazardous waste shall become effective on the same dale
as any applicable prohibition promulgated under paragraph
(1) of this subsection.
“(8)(A) Any hazardous waste prohibited under this
subsection from disposal in a surface impoundment may be
treated or stored in a surface impoundment only if that im-
poundment is equipped with at least one liner.
“(B) For the purposes of this subsection, ‘disposal’
shall include the placement of hazardous waste in a surface
impoundment or a waste pile for a period of more than six
months, regardless of whether ii is intended that the hazard-
ous waste will be removed before closure of the facility.
“(9) Except as provided in paragraph (10), if the Ad-
ministrator fails to promulgate regulations under paragraph
(1) with respect to a waste referred to in paragraph (4) or
in paragraph (5) by the deadline specified in such para-
graph, effective six months after such deadline, and until
the Administrator promulgates regulations under paragraph
(1), such waste may be disposed of in a landfill or a surface
impoundment only if such facility is in compliance with the
requirements of section 3004(f) of this Act. This paragraph
and paragraph (10) shall not apply to contaminated soil
and debris from the cleanup or removal of any release of a
hazardous substance.
HR 2867 EAS

-------
16
“(10) if the Administrator fails to promulgate regula-
lions under paragraph (1) with respect to nonliquid hazard-
ous wastes containing halogenaled organic compounds in
total concentration greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/kg by
the date thirty-two months after the enactment of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984, effective twenty-
four months after such date, and until the Administrator
promulgates such regulations under paragraph (1), such
wastes from the refurbishment of textiles and apparel con-
taining halogenated organic compounds in total concentra-
don less than 28,000 mg/kg may be disposed of in a land-
fill or surface impoundment only if such facility is in com-
pliance with the requirements of section 3004(1) of this Act.
All other such wastes shall be subject to the provisions of
paragraph (9).
“(c) LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS.—NOt later than fifteen
months after the enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Amendments of 1984, the Administrator shall promulgate
final regulations which minimize the disposal of liquid con-
tainerized hazardous waste in landfills, and which prohibit
the disposal of bulk or noncontainerized liquid hazardous
wastes in landfills. Such regulations shall also prohibit the
disposal in landfills of liquids that have been absorbed in
materials that biodegrade or that release liquids when com-
pressed as might occur during routine landfill operations.
HR 2867 EAS C 2 . O/

-------
17
Prior to the promulgation of such final regulations, the re-
quirements in regulations under this section respecting the
disposal in landfills of liquid hazardous waste and free liq-
uids contained in hazardous waste in effect as of October 1,
1982, shall remain in effect.
“(d) BAN ON DUST SUPPRESS1ON.—ThC use of waste
or used oil or other material, which is contaminated or
mixed with dioxin or any other hazardous waste identified
or listed under section 3001 (other than a waste identified
solely on the basis of ignitability), for dust 8uppression or
road treatment is prohibited.
“(e) BAN ON CERTAiN WELLs. —Effective one hun-
dred and eighty days after the enactment of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act Amendments of 1984, no hazardous waste
may be disposed of by underground injection into or above
any formation which contains, within one-half mile of the
well used for such underground injection, an underground
source of drinking water. This subsection shall not apply to
the injection of contaminated ground water into the aquifer
from which it was withdrawn, if such injection is a re-
sponse action taken under section 104 or 106 of the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Li-
ability Act of 1980 or part of corrective action required
under this title intended to clean up such contamination and
ir )Q 7 1 A __9

-------
18
such contaminated ground water is treated to substantially
reduce hazardous constituents prior to such injection. “
(b) Section 3005(e) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
amended by ad4ing the following: “The owner or operator of
a waste pile qualifying for the authorization to operate
under this subsection shall be subject to the same require-
ments for liners and leachate collection systems or equiva-
lent protection provided in regulations promulgated by the
Administrator under section 3004 before October 1, 1982,
or revised under section 3004(f), for new facilities receiving
individual permits under subsection (c) of this section, with
resped to each new unit, replacement of an existing unit, or
lateral expansion of an existing unit that is within the
waste management area identified in the permit application
submitted under this section, and with respect to waste re-
ceived beginning six months after Ike date of enactment of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984.. The
owner or operator of a landfill or surface impoundment
qualifying for the authorization to operate under this subsec-
lion shall be subject to the requirements of section 3004(f),
with respect to each new unit, replacement of an existing
unit, or lateral expansion of an existing unit that is within
the waste management area identified in the permit applica-
lion submitted under this section, and with respect to waste
received beginning six months after such date of enactment.
Ilk 2867 EAS

-------
19
The owner or operator of each such unit shall notify the Ad-
ministrator (or the State, if appropriate) at least sixty days
prior to receiving waste. The Administrator (or the State)
shall require the filing of a completed permit application
within six months of receipt of such notice, for each facility
submitting such notice, in the case of any unit in which the
liner and leachate collection system has been installed pur-
suant to the requirements of this subsection and in good
faith compliance with the Administrator’s regulations and
guidance documents governing liners and leachaie collection
systems, no liner or leachate collection system which is dif-
ferent from that which was so installed pursuant to this sub-
section shall be required for such unit by the Administrator
when issuing the first permit under this section 10 such fa-
cility: Provided, Thai the Administrator shall not be pre-
cluded from requiring installation of a new liner when the
Administrator has reason to believe that any liner installed
pursuant to the requirements of this subsection is leaking.
The Administrator may, under section 3004, amend the re-
quirements for liners and leachate collection systems re-
quired under this subsection as may be necessary to provide
additional protection for human health and the environ-
ment. ‘
(c) Section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
amended by adding the following new subsection:
HR 28 7 EAS

-------
20
“(g) The standards concerning ground water monitor-
ing, unsaturated zone monitoring, and corrective action,
which are applicable under 8ection 3004 to new landfills,
surface impoundments, land treatment units, and waste-pile
units required to be permitted under subsection (c) shall
alio apply to any landfill, surface impoundment, land treat-
ment unit, or waste-pile unit qualifying for the authoriza-
tion to operate under subsection (e) which receives hazard-
ous waste after July 26, 1982. ‘

-------
ç9c- ,7 c p 5
AIR EMISSiONS FROM LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SEC. 25. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act is amended by adding the following new subsection:
“(i) AiR EMJSSIONS.—Not later than thirty-six
months after the date of enactment of the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act Amendments of 1984, the Administrator shall pro-
mulgate such regulations for the monitoring and control of
air emissions at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities, including but fbi limited to open tanks,
surface impoundments, and landfills, as may be necessary
to protect human health and the environment. “

-------
I L 7 f6 (p Q, qr- qr, Prir.i7 £ .
,‘A 1 I 1 (3 — 5 b
14 LAND DISPOS.4L OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SEC. 5. Section 300 is amended by inserting “(a) l.v
16 GENERAL.—” after “3004. “and by adding the following at
iT the end thereof:
18 “j’ b,) LIQUIDs z.v LANDFILLS.—NO1 later 1/ian six
19 months after the enactment of the Hazardous Waste control
20 and Enforcement Act of 1983, the Administrator shall pro-
21 nzulgale final regidations which mininzi:e (to the extent tech-
22 noloç ’icolly feasible) the disposal of containerized liquid ha:-
23 ardous wastes in landfills, and which prohibit the landfill
24 disposal of bulk or noncontainerized liquid hazardous wastes.
25 Such regulations shall become effective immediately upon
HR 2867 RH

-------
12
1 promulgation. Pending promulgation of such regulations, the
2 Administrator shall maintain the requirements (as in effect
3 on April 30, 1983) in regulations under section 3004 re-
4 specting the disposal in landfills of liquid hazardous wastes
5 and free liquids contained in hazardous wastes.
6 “(c) PROHIBITIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL OF SpEd-
7 F lED WASTES.— ’1) The Administrator may promulgate
8 regulations prohibiting one or more methods of land disposal
9 of specified hazardozis wastes (in addition to the wastes r-
10 ferred to in paragraph (2) of this subsection) which are kier,-
11 tified or listed under section 3001. The Ad7nin stra1or shall
12 specify each such ha:ardous waste for which ii may reason-
13 ably be anticipated that one or more methods of land dsposal
14 may not be pro1ectzL e of human health and the em ironrnent
15 for as long as the waste remains hazardous, taking into ac-
16 count the long-term uncertainties associated with land dispos-
17 al, th goal of managing hazardous waste in an appropria!c
18 manner in the first in5lance, and the persistence, toxicity.
19 mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate of such ha:ardous
20 wastes and their toxic constituents. In promulgating such
21 regulations, the Administrator shall consider each ha:ardov .
22 waste which is prohibited from one or more methods of km]
23 disposal by any State.
24 “( 2,J Xoi later than tweke months after the enactment of
25 the lazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of l9 ?.
HR 2367 RH

-------
13
1 the land disposal of the following hazardous wastes is prohib-
2 lied unless Me Administrator determines the prohibition on
3 one or more methods of land disposal is not required in order
4 to protect human health and the environment for as long as
5 the waste remains hazardous, taking into account the factors
6 referred to in paragraph (1):
7 “(A) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liq-
8 ulds associated with any solid or sludge, containing
9 free or complex cyanides at concentrations greater than
10 or equal to 1,000 mg/i.
11 “(B) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liq-
12 uids associated with any solid or sludge, containing the
13 following dissoked metals (or elements) or compounds
14 of these metals (or elements) at concentrations greater
15 than or equal to those specified below:
16 “(‘1) arsenic and/or compound6 (as As) 500
17 my ‘1;
iS “(iD cadmium and ’or compounds (as Cd)
19 100 mg/l,
20 “(iii) chromium ( V I and,or compounds (as
21 Cr VI)) 500 mg/i;
22 ‘Th) lead and, or compounds ‘as Pb) 500
23 - my 1;
24 “(r) mercury and/or compounds t’i Hg) 21)
25 mg/i;
HR 2867 RH

-------
14
1 “(v0 nickel and/or compounds (as Ni) 134
2 mg/i;
3 “(vii) selenium and/or comppunds (as Se)
4 100 mg ’l; and
5 “( ñii) thallium and/or compounds (as Th) 130
6 . mg/i.
7 “(U) Liquid hazardous waste having a pH ks
.8 than or equal to two (2.0,).
9 “(D) Liquid hazardous wastes containing po4 ’.
10 chlorinated biphenyls at concentrations greater than or
11 equal to 50 ppm.
12 “(E) Hazardous wa3t s containing halogenatcd
13 organic compounds in total concentration greater (han
14 or equal to 1,000 mg/kg.
15 1T7zere necessary to protect human health and the environ-
16 men!, t ze Administrator may substitute more stringent con-
17 centration level3 than the levels specifed in subparagr j
18 (A) through (E).
19 SCHEDULE FOR ADDITIONAL PROHiBiTioN DE-
20 TER3IINATJONS.—(1) Not later than six months after enact-
21 ment of the Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act
22 of 1983, for all hazardous wastes listed in 40 C.F.R. 261.31
23 and 261.32 (‘as in effect on the date of the enactment of thz .
24 subsection) which are not covered by a prohibition unthr ib-
25 section (b) or (c), the Administrator shall submit a schedule
HR 2867 RH

-------
15
I to C ongress for reciewing those wastes under this subsection.
2 Thc Administrator shall complete such reiiew and shall pro
3 mulgate requlalions in uccordance with paragraph (2) for th
4 percentages of such wastes set forth in the following table
5 before the expiration of the corresponding period set forth in
6 such table:
Percentage of listed ha:ardous
wastes for which a determi- Period after enactment by which de-
notion of land disposal pro. termination must be mode and
hibition mast be made regulation promulgated
25 24 months
50 34 7flO7 th3
75 44 mernths
100 54 mouh
7 The Administrator shall add to the schedule required under
8 subsection (‘d.)(l) any hazardous waste identified or listed
9 under sec!io.i 3001 after the dale of enactment of the Hazard-
10 ous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983 and before
11 fifty-fo’. r m&nlhs after such date of enactment. The Admims-
12 trator shall also determine, within fifty-four muntlis after th
13 enactment of such Act, whether all remaining hazardous
14 wastes identified or listed under section 3001 should be pro-
15 hibited from one or more nethc,ds of land disposal in acco: - !-
16 ance with paragraph (2,). In the case of any hazardous waste
17 identified or listed under section 3001 after fifty-four months
18 after enactment, the Administrator shall determine whether
19 such waste shall he p7’ohib ted from one or more methods of;
HR 2 5 ’ RH
2c/

-------
16
I land disposal in accordance with paragraph (2) within six
2 months after the date of such identification or listing.
3 “(2) in accordance with the schedule and time period
4 set forth in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall promul.
5 gate final regulations prohibiting one or more methods of
6 land disposal of hazardous wastes if it may reasonably be
7 anticipated thai such method of land disposal may not b
8 protective of human health and the environment for as long
9 a.s the waste remains ha:ardous, taking into a counl the bug.
10 term uncertainties associated with land disposal, (he goal of
Ii managing waste in an appropriate manner in the first in-
12 stance, and the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity
13 to bioaccumulale of such hazardous wastes and their toxic
14 constitutents. In promulgating such regulations, the ..4d;nin-
15 islralor shall consider each ha:ardous waste which is prohi1
16 ited from one or more methods of land disposal by any Su .
17 •‘Y3) if the Administrator fails to make a dc rmina:io7
18 for any hazardous waste listed or identified under section
19 3001 within the time provided in paragraph (1), such ha:-
20 ardous wa. te shall he prohibited from land disposal.
21 “t’e) EFFECTIVE DATES UNDER (c) (2) A ND (dj.). —
22 (1)t’-4) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the prohihi-
23 lion under subsection (c)(2) shall be effective on the date
24 twelve months after the date of the enactment of this subsec-
HR 286 RH

-------
17.
1 lion and a prohibition in regulations under subsection (d)
2 shall be effective immediately upon promulgation.
3 “(‘B,) The Administrator may establish an effective date
4 other than that required under subparagraph (A) with respect
5 to a specific hazardows waste subject to a prohibition under
6 subsection (c)(2) or (d) on the basis of the earliest date on
7 which adequate capacity for alternative management will be
8 available. No such other effective date established by the Ad.
9 minislralor shall be later than fort y.lwo months after the ef-
10 fective date specified in subparagraph (.4) of promulgation.
11 “(2) For those ha:ardous wastes for which no other ef.
12 fective date is established under paragraph (1)(B), the Ad-
13 rninistrator may grant a variance on a case.by.case basis for
14 up to si.r months, renewable twice only, upon a showing by a
1 generator of severe economic hardship. No such variance
16 shall be granted for wastes generated by any agency or in-
17 strumenlalily of the United States.
18 “(3) The Administrator may, from time to lime after the
19 initial promulgation of regulations required by this subsec-
20 lion, revise such regulations to add additional hazardous
21 wastes to be prohibited from one or more methods of land
22 disposal.
23 “(I) iMPOsITION OF CONDITIO.\’S.—The Administra-
24 br may impose such conditions as may be necessary to ac-
25 complisli the purpose of this section, including but not limited
18
1 to pretreatment and detoxification prior to land disposal, and
2 limitations on waste dilution. ‘

-------
—t4 - -‘i.i 4 - -- -
5 LAND DISPOSAL LIMITATIONS
6 SEC. 5. (a) Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal
7 Act is amended by inserting “(a) STANDARDS.—” after
8 “SEc. 3004.” and by adding the following new subsections:
9 “(b) LAND DISPOSAL LIMITATI0Ns.—(1) The Con-
10 gress finds that certain classes of land disposal facilities are
11 not capable of assuring long-term containment of certain haz-
12 ardous wastes, and that to avoid substantial risk to human
13 health and the environment, reliance on land disposal should
14 be minimized and land disposal, particularly landfill and
15 surface impoundment, should be the least favored method for
16 managing hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Administrator
17 shall after notice and opportunity for hearings and after con-
18 sullation with appropriate Federal and Stale agencies, pro-
19 mulgate regulations prohibiting the land disposal of hazard-
20 ous wastes, except for methods of land disposal of one or more
21 such wastes which the Administrator determines will be pro-
22 teclive of human health and the environment. If the Adminis-
23 trator determines that a method of land disposal of a hazard-
24 ous waste will be protective of human health and the environ-
25 ment, he shall promptly publish in the Federal Register
S 757 RS

-------
38
1 notice of such determination together with an explanation of
2 the basis for such determination. The Administrator shall
3 take into account the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and pro-
4 pensity to bioaccumulate of such hazardous waste, and the
5 potential effect of such waste on the integrity of containment
6 mechanisms.
7 “(2) For the purposes of this subsection, if a specified
8 waste contains significant concentrations of one or more haz-
9 ardous constituents that is highly toxic, highly mobile, or has
10 a strong propensity to bioaccumulate, a method of land dis-
11 posal may not be determined to be protective of human health
12 and the environment for such specified hazardous waste,
13 unless upon application by an interested person it has been
14 demonstrated to the Administrator, to a reasonable degree of
15 certainty, that there will be no migration of such constituents
16 from the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the
17 wastes remain hazardous.
18 “(3) A prohibition in regulations under this subsection
19 shall be effective immediately upon promulgation, unless the
20 Administrator establishes another effective date with respect
21 to a specific hazardous waste on the basis of the earliest date
22 on which adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or dispos-
23 al capacity which protects human health and the environment
24 will be available, which shall in no event be later than two
25 years after the date of promulgation. The Administrator,
S 757 RS

-------
39
1 after notice and opportunity for comment and after consulta-
2 lion with appropriate State agencies in all affected Slates,
3 may grant an extension of such effective date on a case-b y-
4 case basis for up to one year, renewable for no more than one
5 additional year, where the applicant demonstrates that there
6 is a binding contractual commitment to construct or other-
7 wise provide such alternative capacity but due to circum-
8 stances beyond the control of such applicant such alternative
9 capacity cannot reasonably be made available by such effec-
10 live date.
11 “(4) Not later than July 1, 1985, the Administrator
12 shall promulgate regulations in accordance with paragraph
13 (1) for dioxin-containing hazardous wastes and those hazard-
14 ous wastes numbered FOOl, F002, F003, F004, and F005
15 in regulations promulated by the Administrator under section
16 3001 (40 C.F.R. 261.31), as those regulations are in effect
17 on July 1, 1983; -.
18 “(5) Not later than thirty-two months after the enact-
19 ment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1983,
20 the Administrator shall promulgate regulations in accordance
21 with paragrap (1) for the following hazardous wastes:
22 “(A) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liq-
23 uids associated with any solid or sludge, containing
24 free cyanides at concentrations greater than or equal to
25 1,000 mg/i.
S 757 RS

-------
40
1 “(B) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liq-
2 uids associated with any solid or sludge, containing the
3 following dissolved metals (or elements) or compounds
4 of these metals (or elements) at concentrations greater
5 than or equal to those specified below:
6 “(i) arsenic and/or compounds (as As) 500
7 mg/i;
8 “(ii) cadmium and/or compounds (as Cd)
9 100 mg/i;
10 “(iii) chromium (Vi and/or compounds (as
11 Cr VI)) 500 mg/i;
12 “(iv) lead and/or compounds (as Pb) 500
13 mg/i;
14 “(v) mercury and/or compounds (as Hg) 20
15 mg/i;
16 “(vi) nickel and/or compounds (as Ni) 134
17 mg/i;
18 “(vii)- selenium and/or compounds (as Se)
19 100 mg/i; and
20 “(viii) thallium and/or compounds (as Th)
21 130 mg/i.
22 “(C) Liquid hazardous waste having a pH less
23 than or equal to two (2.0).
S 757 RS

-------
41
1 “(D) Liquid hazardous wastes containing poly-
2 chlorinated biphenyls at concentrations greater than or
3 equal to 50 ppm.
4 “(E) Hazardous wastes containing halogenated
5 organic compounds in total concentration greater than
6 or equal to 1,000 mg/kg.
7 When necessary to protect human health and the environ-
8 ment, the Administrator shall substitute more stringent con-
9 cent ration levels than the levels specified in subparagraphs
10 (A) through (E).
11 “(6)(A) Not later than twelve months after the enact-
12 ment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1983,
13 the Administrator shall publish a schedule for deciding
14 whether or not to prohibit in accordance with paragraph (1)
15 the land disposal of each hazardous waste listed under section
16 3001. Such schedule shall require that the Administrator
17 must make such decisions for at least one-third of all such
18 listed wastes by the date thirty-two months after the date of
19 such enactment, for at least two-thirds of all such listed
20 wastes by the date forty-two months after the date of such
21 enactment, and for all such listed wastes by the date fifty-two
22 months after the date of such enactment.
23 “(B) Not later than the date specified in subparagraph
24 (A) for each waste on the schedule published under such sub-
S 757 RS——6

-------
42
1 paragraph, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations in
2 accordance with paragraph (1) for each such waste.
3 “(C) Not later than fifty-two months after the enactment
4 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1983, the
5 Administrator shall promulgate regulations in accordance
6 with paragraph (1) for each hazardous waste identified on the
7 basis of any toxicity characteristics.
8 “(D) Not later than thirty-two months after the listing
9 of a hazardous waste listed after the enactment of the Solid
10 Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1983, the Administrator
11 shall promulgate regulations in accordance with paragraph
12 (1) for such waste.
13 “(7) Simultaneously with the promulgation of regula-
14 lions under paragraph (1) prohibiting one or more methods of
15 land disposal of a particular hazardous waste, and as appro-
16 pri ate thereafter, the Administrator shall, after notice and an
17 opportunity for hearings and after consultation with appro-
18 priate Federal and State agencies, promulgate regulations
19 specifying those methods of treatment, if any, which are nec-
20 essary before such method or methods of disposal of such haz-
21 ardous waste would be protective of human health and the
22 environment. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
23 3010(b), immediately upon the promulgation of regulations
24 under this paragraph, the disposal of such hazardous waste
25 by such method or methods is allowed if such hazardous
S 757 KS

-------
43
1 waste has first been treated by a method specified in regula-
2 lions promulgated under this paragraph.
3 “(8)(A) Any hazardous waste prohibited under this sub-
4 section from disposal in a surface impoundment may be
5 treated or stored in a surface impoundment only if that im-
6 poundment is equipped with at least one liner.
7 “(B) For the purposes of this section, ‘disposal’ shall
8 include the placement of hazardous waste in a surface im-
9 poundment or a waste pile for a period of more than six
10 months, regardless of whether it is intended that the hazard-
11 ous waste will be removed before closure of the facility.
12 “(9) if the Administrator fails to promulgate regula-
13 lions under paragraph (1) wit/i respect to a waste referred to
14 in paragraph (4) or in paragraph (5) by the deadline speci-
15 fied in such paragraph, effective six months after such deaa-
16 line, and until the Administrator promulgates regulations
17 under paragraph (1), such waste may be disposed of in a
18 landfill or a surface impoundment only if such facility is in
19 compliance with the requirements of section 3004(f)(1) of this
20 Act. This paragraph shall not apply to contaminated soil and
21 debris from the cleanup or removal of any release of a haz-
22 ardous substance.
23 “(c) LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS.—NO1 later than one year
M after the enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act A mend-
5 ments of 1983, the Administrator shall promulgate final reg-
S 757 RS

-------
44
1 ulations which minimize the disposal of liquid containerized
2 hazardous waste in landfills (including the minimization of
3 free liquids by other means than the addition of absorbent
4 material, where technologically feasible), and which prohibit
5 the disposal of bulk or noncontainerized liquid hazardous
6 wastes in landfills. Prior to the promulgation of such final
7 regulations, the requirements in regulations under this sec-
8 tion respecting the disposal of landfills of liquid hazardous
9 waste and free liquids contained in hazardous waste in effect
10 as of October 1, 1982, shall remain in effect.
11 “(d) BAN ON DUST SUPPRESSION.—The use of waste
12 or used oil or other material, which is contaminated or mixed
13 with dioxin or any other hazardous waste identified or listed
14 under section 3001 (other than a waste identified solely on
15 the basis of ignitability), for dust suppression or road treat-
16 ment is prohibited.

-------
S it’ i’Q S
19 AIR EMISSIONS FROM LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
20 SEC. 24. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
21 is amended by adding the following new subsection:
22 “(lc) AIR EMISSIONS.—NO1 later than thirty months
23 after the date of enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
24 Amendments of 1983, the Administrator shall promulgate
25 such regulations for the monitoring and control of air emis-
86
1 sions at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposat
2 facilities, including but not limited to open tanks, surface
3 impoundments, and landfills, as may be necessary to protect
4 human health and the environment. “.

-------
,At :jp itoPQCZ p 1°
7 LAND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
8 SEC. 5. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
9 amended by inserting “(a) IN GENERAL.—” after “3004.”
10 and by adding the following at the end thereof:
11 “(b) LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS.—NOt later than six
12 months after the enactment of the Hazardous Waste Control
13 and Enforcement Act of 1983, the Administrator shall pro-
14 mulgate final regulations which minimize (to the extent tech-
15 nologically feasible) the disposal of containerized liquid haz-
16 ardous wastes in landfills, and which prohibit the landfill dis-
17 posal of bulk or noncontainerized liquid hazardous wastes.
18 Such regulations shall become effective immediately upon
19 promulgation. Pending promulgation of such regulations, the
20 Administrator shall maintain the requirements (as in effect on
21 April 30, 1983) in regulations under section 3004 respecting
22 the disposal in landfills of liquid hazardous wastes and free
23 liquids contained in hazardous wastes.
HR 2867 HI

-------
11
1 “(c) PROHIBITIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL OF SPECIFIED
2 WAsTEs.—(1) The Administrator may promulgate regula-
3 tions prohibiting one or more methods of land disposal of
4 specified hazardous wastes (in addition to the wastes referred
5 to in paragraph (2) of this subsection) which are identified or
6 listed under section 3001. The Administrator shall specify
7 each such hazardous waste for which it may reasonably be
8 anticipated that one or more methods of land disposal may
9 not be protective of human health and the environment for as
10 long as the waste remains hazardous, taking into account the
11 long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal, the
12 goal of managing hazardous waste in an appropriate manner
13 in the first instance, and the persistence, toxicity, mobility,
14 and propensity to bioaccumulate of such hazardous wastes
15 and their toxic constituents. In promulgating such regula-
16 tions, the Administrator shall consider each hazardous waste
17 which is prohibited from one or more methods of land dis-
18 posal by any State.
19 “(2) Not later than twelve months after the enactment
20 of the Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of
21 1983, the land disposal of the following hazardous wastes is
22 prohibited unless the Administrator determines the prohibi-
23 tion on one or more methods of land disposal is not required
24 in order to protect human health and the environment for as
HR 2867 III

-------
12
1 long as the waste remains hazardous, taking into account the
2 factors referred to in paragraph (1):
3 “(A) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liq-
4 uids associated with any solid or sludge, containing
5 free or complex cyanides at concentrations greater than
6 or equal to 1,000 mg/l.
7 “(B) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free Iiq-
8 uids associated with any solid or sludge, containing the
9 following dissolved metals (or elements) or compounds
10 of these metals (or elements) at concentrations greater
11 than or equal to those specified below:
12 “(i) arsenic and/or compounds (as As) 500
13 mg/I;
14 “(ii) cadmium and/or compounds (as Cd) 100
15 mg/i;
16 “(iii) chromium (VI and/or compounds (as
17 Cr VI) 500 mg/i;
18 “(iv) lead and/or compounds (as Pb) 500
19 mg/i;
20 “(v) mercury and/or compounds (as Hg) 20
21 mg/i;
22 “(vi) nickel and/or compounds (as Ni) 134
23 mg/I;
24 “(vii) selenium and/or compounds (as Se)
25 100 mg/i; and
HR 2867 10

-------
13
1 “(viii) thallium and/or compounds (as Th)
2 130 mg/i.
3 “(C) Liquid hazardous waste having a pH less
4 than or equal to two (2.0).
5 “(D) Liquid hazardous wastes containing polychlo-
6 rinated biphenyls at concentrations greater than or
7 equal to 50 ppm.
8 “(E) Hazardous wastes containing halogenated or-
9 ganic compounds in total concentration greater than or
10 equal to 1,000 mg/kg.
11 Where necessary to protect human health and the environ-
12 ment, the Administrator may subsitute more stringent con-
13 centration levels than the levels specifed in subparagraphs
14 (A) through (E).
15 “(d) SCHEDULE FOR ADDITIONAL PROHIBITION DE-
16 TERMINATIONS.—(1) Not later than six months after enact-
17 ment of the Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act
18 of 1983, for all hazardous wastes listed in 40 OFR 261.31
19 and 261.32 (as in effect on the date of the enactment of this
20 subsection) which are not covered by a prohibition under sub-
21 section (b) or (c), the Administrator shall submit a schedule to
22 Congress for reviewing those wastes under this subsection.
23 The Administrator shall complete such review and shall pro-
24 mulgate regulations in accordance with paragraph (2) for the
25 percentages of such wastes set forth in the following table
HR 2867 III

-------
14
1 before the expiration of the corresponding period set forth in
2 such table:
“Percentage of Listed
Hazardous Wastes for Which Period After Enactment
a Determination of Land by Which Determination
Disposal Prohibition Must be Made and
Must Be Made Regulation Promulgated
25 18 months
50 30 months
75 42 months
100 54 months
3 The Administrator shall add to the schedule required under
4 subsection (d)(1) any hazardous waste identified or listed
5 under section 3001 after the date of enactment of the Haz-
6 ardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983 and
7 before fifty-four months after such date of enactment. The
8 Administrator shall also determine, within fifty-four months
9 after the enactment of such Act, whether all remaining haz-
10 ardous wastes identified or listed under section 3001 should
11 be prohibited from one or more methods of land disposal in
12 accordance with paragraph (2). In the case of any hazardous
13 waste identified or listed under section 3001 after fifty-four
14 months after enactment, the Administrator shall determine
15 whether such waste shall be prohibited from one or more
16 methods of land disposal in accordance with paragraph (2)
17 within six months after the date of such identification or list-
18 ing.
19 “(2) In accordance with the schedule and time periods
20 set forth in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall promulgate
21 final regulations prohibiting one or more methods of land dis-
HR 2867 IH
c2O/

-------
15
1 posal of hazardous wastes if it may reasonably be anticipated
2 that such method of land disposal may not be protective of
3 human health and the environment for as long as the waste
4 remains hazardous, taking into account the long—term uncer-
5 tainties associated with land disposal, the goal of managing
6 waste in an appropriate manner in the first instance, and the
7 persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumu-
8 late of such hazardous wastes and their toxic constitutents.
9 In promulgating such regulations, the Administrator shall
10 consider each hazardous waste which is prohibited from one
11 or more methods of land disposal by any State.
12 “(3) If the Administrator fails to make a determination
13 for any hazardous waste listed or identified under section
14 3001 within the time provided in paragraph (1), such hazard-
15 ous waste shall be prohibited from land disposal.
16 “(e) EFFECTWE DATES UNDER (c)(2) AND (d).—(1)(A)
17 Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the prohibition
18 under subsection (c)(2) shall be effective on the date twelve
19 months after the date of the enactment of this subsection and
20 a prohibition in regulations under subsection (d) shall be ef-
21 fective immediately upon promulgation.
22 “(B) The Administrator may establish an effective date
23 other than that required wider subparagraph (A) with respect
24 to a specific hazardous waste subject to a prohibition under
25 subsection (c)(2) or (d) on the basis of the earliest date on
HR 2867 IH
2O/

-------
16
1 which adequate capacity for alternative management will be
2 available. No such other effective date established by the Ad-
3 ministrator shall be later than forty-two months after the ef-
4 fective date specified in ubparagraph (A).
5 of promulgation.
6 “(2) For those hazardous wastes for which no other ef-
7 fective date is established under paragraph (1)(B), the Admin-
8 istrator may grant a variance on a case—by—case basis for up
9 to six months, renewable twice only, upon a showing by a
10 generator of severe economic hardship. No such variance
11 shall be granted for wastes generated by any agency or in-
12 strumentality of the United States.
13 “(3) The Administrator may, from time to time after the
14 initial promulgation of regulations required by this subsec-
15 tion, revise such regulations to add additional hazardous
16 wastes to be prohibited from one or more methods of land
17 disposal.
18 “(1) IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS.—The Administrator
19 may impose such conditions as may be necessary to accom-
20 push the purpose of this section, including but not limited to
21 pretreatment and detoxification prior to land disposal, and
22 limitations on waste dilution.”.

-------
C. .oL ’ T?€ c rIiI’-II
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speakir. I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration of the conference report
on the thu CILR. 2867) to amend the
Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize:
appropriations for the fiscal years
1984 through 1988. and for other pur -:
poses.
The Clerk read the title of the bfll.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is I
there objection to the request of the!
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. FLORrO. Mr. Speaker. I ask
unanimous consent that the statement
of the managers be read in lieu of the
report.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
Mr. FL.ORIO (during the reading).
Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent
that the statement be considered as
read.
The SPEAKER pro’ tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman from Hew Jersey (Mr.I
Ftoiuo! will be recognized for 30 mm-
utes and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. BROYHILLI will be recog.
nized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pi.oaxoj.
(Mr. FLORIO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker. I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(2 3 ig L 1 C L/
Mr. Speaker, after nearLy 3 years’ not yet addressed the ‘problem of
effort, today’s cdnslderation of HR. cleaning up old sites. While enactment
2867 marks the final legislative stage of RB. 2867 is a maJor achievement, it
in the reauthorization of the Resource is only half c i the eotuUon. I hope that
Conservation and Recovery Act, the the othev body will recognise the cut.-
law that governs tl e management and lea! Importance of a strong Superfurid
disposal of hazardous waste, bill enacted thIs year. Congress cannot
I would particularly like to recognize adjourn and assume that it has fully
th C efforts of the gentleman from dealt with the toxic waste crisis in this
Michigan (Mr. Dzwczuj, the gentle- t,y just by enacting ECRA. To do
man from New York [ Mr. Lmrrl. the the job right, both laws must be
gentleman from North Carolina
Mu. Saovmu.I. the gentlewoman from Finally, I would like to mention one
Maryland (Ms. Mixutsicil, the gentle. provision of the House bill which was
man from Ohio (Mr. EC1CARTI. and the left out of the final bilL In the House
gentleman New Mexico (Mr. Ricxaan” bill, we made clear that all enforce-
soi 3. all members of our committee ment actions brought by the Govern-
who have worked so bard to gel to this meat could draw upon principles of
point. common law. Thus If. for some reason.
Mr. Speaker, it should be empha- the statute was silent on a particular I
sized that this is no ordinary reauthor- point, the court would be free to look I
Izatlon. The bW agreed to be themem- common law to advance the basic I
bera of conference committee Will p pose of RCRA. This right already I
launch a dramatic overhaul of the Wa3’ ejists in the citizen suit provision of I
America manages i ’ hazardous RCRA (section 7002) and the House I
wastes. The regulatory program ‘ bill merely clarified that the Govern-
dated by this bill, if eonxier ious1y ment in enforcing RCR.A would have
implemented, will force a passive tise some common law rights as the
change in This COUntry ispOsal prne. thary citizen. Although the confer-
tices: That is. awacfroni land disposal ence committee did not, at the last
and toward appropriate recycling, minute, see fit to make this clarifica-
waste reduction and treatment. lion. I do not think this omission
Many of the market incentives for should be construed as Congress’
treatmen technology already exist. intent to dispense with Federal
This bill assures that these incentives common law. On the contrary, the
for safe management are strengthened action of the Conferees simply mdi-
and that th regulatory system needed estee thai. such clarilication was not
to guide them will provide long term necessary. Therefore, the Government
protection of human health a d in enforcing RCRA. and courts in con-
environment, Moreover, were land dis- struing this statute, retain the right to
posal continues it will conducted Only rely on common law wherever it Is ap-
under the most str1n ent CQ7lditioflS. propr a &
For example, the bill establishes rigor- wp , taa’i—iaz øwazocs ass sous wasvz
ous technologicaf’ requisements such Acnm mrrs 0 ? 1984
as leak detecti n, cinuble liners and
leachate collection systems.
Mr. Speaker, the bill ‘àlso mandates
that in 66 months. 5½ years from now,
land disposal, of most hazardous
wastes wilj come to an end. That Is a
big task for EPA to accomplish, but it
is long overdue—and we have given
the Agency all the tools, resources,
and legislative instructions it needs to
get the job done. Mr. Speaker, this Is a
carefully crafted, thoroughly reviewed
piece of legislation—one which has the
unanimous support of all the confer-
em. If EPA fails in this mission to
carry out this legislation, it will only
be the result of incompetence or a lack
of will.
Mr. Speaker, this bill not only ad-
dresses ti-c dcfects’ln the current law
(such as the so-called “small genera-
tor’ loophole or the “burning for
energy recovery” loophole) it charts a
dramatic new course for the future.
While I do not minimize the magni-
tude of task that faces both govern-
ment and Industry, I believe that en-
actment and enforcement of this legis-
lation will provide genuine protection
of the publlcs health,
I would like to point out, however,
that while the reauthorization of
RCRA will help prevent the creation
of new Superfund sites. Congress has
Wib DiSPOSAL PROHUITIONS
HR. 2887 would prohibit land disposal of
solvents and wastes containing dioxin 24
months following enactment. In 32 months
hazardous w tes on the California list (i.e
heavy concentrations of cyanide, arsenic
lead, mercury etc.) would also be bannec
from land disposal, except where EPA deter
mines that a particular disposal or treat
ment method would be sale.
The legislation also requires EPA to d c c ci
op a specific timetable in order to conduct’
thorough review of all remaining hazazdOU ,
wastes. One third of the wastes would 1 1kv’
to be reviewed wIthin 45 months, the aecunL
POLICY
The overall poUcy which Is reflected hi
the RCR.A Reauthorization bill (ER. 2867)
is that Americel almost total reliance on
land disposal has resulted in an wiaccept-
able risk to hwnan and th. environment
and should be ended. The cental purpose of
ILL 2867 Ia that land disposal should be
drastically curtailed and for the & toxic
wastes, elIminated entirely
The proposed legislation Is designed to eli
courage the development and Implementa-
tion of advanced treatment. waste reduction
nd recycling technologies which will even-
tually eliminate the need for massive land
disposal. Where land disposal remains nec-
essary, it should be conducted In compliance
with stringent safeguards in order to pie-
vent groundwater contaminatIon, toxIc air
emissions and other threate to public
- health.
2o/

-------
— - ..tSIrU
wIthin 68 months. EPA’s Statutory mandate
is to problolt the land disposal of these
tasia wiles , It finds that one or more
methods of disposal will not harm pubilc
health or the environment U WA falls to
meet either of it t first two deadlines and If
there Is no lnatment capacIty, then the
wastes that have not been reviewed would
have to be sent to land disposal facilitIes
that are double-lined and have leachate col-
leetlon systems. It EPA falls to meet Its
final deadline, then all unreviewed wastes
would be banned from land disposal, unless
the generator qualifies for £ limited vail-
an t s-
w an
US. 2867 closes a number of regulatory
loopholes which have allowed the disposal
of signifliant quantities of hazardous waste
to remain uncontrolled. Among these loop-
holes is the ‘small generator’ exemption
which permits the disposal of up to one
metric ton a month (per generator) Into so-
called sanitary h f ! ills or into sewers—dis-
posal practices which obviously are not pro-
tectIve of hwnsn health or the environ-
ment. The legislation requires reguistlon of
generators who produce more thin 100 kilo-
grams 4220 poqatds) each month, These gen .
erators will be required to send their haz-
ardous wastes to an appropnate disposal or
treatment facility,
Another major loophole which is ad-
dressed by this legislation concerns the use
of hazardous wastes as fueL Currently. some
of the most dangerous wastes. such as PCZ5
and dioxin are blended into used oil or
other fuel and burned in residential boilers
which are not ospable of destroying the
tosic component of these sastea. This prac-
l Ice, which has become Increasingly preva-
lent, particularly to the Northeast. creates a
substantial risk to those citizens whose
heath is most vulnerable, especially the eld-
erly. young children and persons with respl-
ratory ilLnesses. Under the legislation. EPA.
must Issue regulations that would allow
burning of hazardous wastes onjy wider cir-
cumstances that would not harm public
health.
mnyoa rc T
E S. 2861 contains a number of provisions
designed to promote compliance with the
bill ’s regulatory safeguards by lncnasins
civil and criminal penalties for violators. For
example, placing another person in danger
of death or serious bodily injury by Illegal
disposal or management of hazardous waste
ames a maximum 1$ year prison sentence
and a 5250,000 fine. A corporation could be
fined $1 million.
In addition. citizens would be provided the
right to sue responsible parties and compel
them to dean up hszardous waste sites.
Congress has recognized that leaving all en-
forcesnent responsibility to PA and the
slates has not been satisfactow In light of
the widespread non-compliance by hazard-
ous waste iscitities. Citizen Involvement, In.
cludlng lawsuits, to fort abatement of
public health dangers. is designed to law-
suits. to forte abatement of public health
dangers. is designed to a,rnplement the so c.
ernn’ient’s enlorcement efforts and encour-
age greater compliance by the regulated
tomniuntt y.
oaomcuwasri cOWMissfl
BR. 2867 also establishes a tP.member
National Groundwater Comrnbsion to inves-
tigate and report on aun of groundwater
contamination and to recommend a national
strategy for addressing threats tO the Na-
tion’s treahwater aqwfera.
agasmso P5DflcPOVND trQRAGZ taints
E It 2867 establIshes a comprehensive
regulatory program to prevent leaks from
underground storage tanks, There are more
than 3 million underground tanks in the
United States which contain hazardous sub-
stances or gasoline. an estimated 100.006
are presently leaking ipotentially contam-
inating groundwater) and another 350.000
are expected to ieak in the nest fIve yeses.
US. 2387 mandates the use of leak detec-
tion natenis, lhe development of new tank
standards which will protect aga inst corro-
atoit, as welt as many other safeguards.
Mr. EDGAR- Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mg, FLOR IO, 3 yIeld to the gentle-
men from Pennsylvanlt
Mr. EDGAR. I thank the gentleman
f or yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would Just like ‘to
commend the gentleman on the legis-
lation and point out that the legisla-
tion does Include the establishment of
a National Groundwater Cornrnffils-
attn. which the gentleman and I have
worked on, and 1 want to congratulate
him for his efforts.
Mr. PLORIC. I thank the gentle-
man, P
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the baffnee of
my time.
0 2140
Mr. SROYHrLL. Mr . Speaker, I
yield myself 5 mInutes.
I rise in support of HR. 2867. 1 be-
lieve it Is an Important environmental
measure which Is deserving of passage
tIns year. -_
My understanding of this measure Is
that it Incorporates a number of com-
promises on important Issues such as
smaLl quantity generators. PCB’s and
underground storage tanks, -
The language adopted on small
Quantity generatq is virtually identi-
cal to that otan agseement, reached by
the ,.b smess and eni’lronrnenta.l corn-
mun ’y I i i Is sear, It provides for a
workable rtgplat.ory program for small
quantity generators of between 100,
kiiogrthns’npd 1.000 kIlograms of has-
ardoias waste per month. Appropnate-
ly this program Is restricted to that
universe of generators—there is no
regulation below 100 k Ilograms per
month. In my opinion, regulation of
these small generators should not go
below 100 kilograms per month. I be-
lieve the conferees did well In adopting
this commonsense compromise.
Further, the conferees agreed to
drop a House provision which would
have required the listing of PCB’s
under RCRA. I advocated and corn-
plete y support this approach. PCB’s
an already regulated under the Doxic
Substances Control Act and EPA Is In
the process now 01 revlewlrtg’whether
or not supplemental regulation Is ap-
propriate under RCRA. It Is clear that
PCS’s are now, end will continue to
be. carefully monitored and that a
mandatory listing procedure Is inap-
propriate. -
Further, the conferees adopted a
eontprosnlse underground storage tank
proposal. It appears that this proposal
is a eomrnonsense compromise be-
tween the House and Senate versions
of the tank regulatory program which
will provIde a m n1mum amount of dis-
ruption to the regulated community.
In light of this sensible compromise
provision, I can aupport fIR, 2967 and
look forward to the President signing
it Into law this year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 m inutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lnrrl,
the ranking minority member of the
subcommittee who has worked so hard
and effectively, with respect to this
program. •
Mr. LENT: Mr. Speaker, I rise In
support of the conference report on
BR 2867—the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984. ThIs is a
carefully crafted compromise till
which has resulted from many years
of hard work by both Members and
staff, I want to particularly commend I
the chairman of the full committee on I
Energy and Commerce, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dircotttl, the
genqeman from New Jersey (Mr,
FLonlol, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Enovstrrsl, the geatle-
man from Ohio iMr. Ecxaitrj. and the
gentleman from Pennsylvan ia (Mr.
Rtr’rza].
In my opinion, this conference.
report represent -s a fair compromise I
between the provisions of HR. 2867
and S . 157—its Senate companion
measure, In most instances the differ-
ences between the two bills have been
split almost equally—resulting In an
important new environmental statute.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste En-
forcement Act of 1984 represents a
dramatic new shift In our national
policy about hazardous waste disposal.
After this measure is enacted, small
quantity generators of hazardous
waste who are now able to generate
2.20J k uograrns or 1 ton of hazardous
waste a month will have to dispose of
their waste In a properly permitted La-
ciLty rather than In an unregulated
dump-
Following enactment, the EPA will
be on a strict timetable for reviewing
and banning hazardous waste from
land disposal. Some of the most toxic
chemicals will be banned by statute
unless EPA determines that Is not nec-
essary to protect human health and.
the environment. These chemicals In.!
elude arsenic, cyanide, and dioxins.
For too many years In this country,.
we have permitted the practice of
dumping hazardous wastes in the land’
to go virtually unchecked. Even now
that the EPA is requiring landfi lls to
be lined. I do not leel conlident that
these liners will remain secure In the
long term. Therefore. I believe it Is ap-
propriate for the Congress to inter-
vene at this time and to establish a
new policy which calls for a review of
known hazardous wastes and a deter-
mination whether these wastes are ap-
prop nate for land disposal.
We simply cannot afford to allow
these dangerous and persistent chemi-
“I’ j it 0

-------
cats to conUnue to pollute our drink-
ing water supplks—EPA inusL act
quickly to evaluate them and ben
them where necessary.
Surface impoundments, which are
filled with liquid hazardoui wastes, are
also appropriately regulated in this
measure. These facilities which are
generally unlined and located within a
one-quarter mile of underground
sources of drInking water, are required
to be double lined and have leak detec-
tion Installed. Several narrow exemp-
tions are provided, but on the whole.
HR. 2861 will result In these impound-
ments being appropriately safeguard-
ed.
Dioxin emissions from resource re-
covery facilities are abs addressed in
this legulation. EPA is directed to
submit a report dcscnbmg the current
data and info matlon on dioxins from
resource recovery facilities, any signif•
leant risks to human health posed by
these emissions and operating prac-
tices appropriate for controlling these
emiss ons Based on this report. EPA
may publish advisories on guidelines
regarding the control of dior, n emLs.
sions from resource recovery facilities.
I strongly endorse this provision be-
cause there is a resource recovery f a-
duty on Long Island which was forced
to close by public pressure over dioxin
emissions. If EPA had dioxin emission
regulations In place, this closing could
have been avoided. I will, therefore.
work to assure that EPA prepare this
dioxin report and guidelines In a
timely fashion so that my facility
might be reopened and closings In
other parts of the country caz be
avoided.
One other Important provision In
H.R. 2867 should be menttoned—and
that is the new regulatory program for
underground storage tanks. Most of us
here today are aware of the large
number of these tanks which are leak-
trig and polluting our precious ground
water supplies. It Is Importdnt that
these tanks be regulated. I believe that
HR. 2867 does this in an evenhanded
way which will result In increased en-
vironmental protection and a minimal
amount of disruption to the regulated
community.
In sum. Mr. Speaker. I wholeheart-
edly support H.R. 2867 and urge its ex-
peditious passage today.
Mr. PLORIO. Mr. Speaker. I yield 4
minutes to the chairman of the full
committee. the gentleman from Michi-
gan (Mr. DIirGFi LJ.-
Mr. DINGELL asked and was given
permission to revue and extend his re-
marks.]
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank
my distinguished friend, the gentle
man from New Jersey, the able chair-
man of the subcorxunittee.
Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support
of this conference report. We have
worked over this legLsIation over a
long number of months, and I am con-
fideni. that It will lead this Nation for-
ward in Its absolutely essential task of
controlling hazardous waste and pro-
testing the public healtk and safety (Mr. ECKART asked and was given
and the envuonnient. . permission to revise and extend his ye.
I would like to take just a minute to’ muks.)
Commend some of my colleagues who Mr. ECKABT. Mr. Speaker.
have worked extremely hard, often March 1983. duj ’fXtg subcommittee
with dlfflbulty and adversity, to come ni&kup of uit 2887. 1 offered an
up with a reasonable and workable amemdment.—alOrlg with my friend 1
bill. I would like to commend the gen- $M distinguished coileasue, Jix
tieman from New Jersey (Mr. Fionro!, PL0RIO —tO prohibit land dlspc6al of
the subcommittee chairman, as well as the California. list wastes—that Is.
,the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. those with heavy concenUationl of ax-
iftxw. wt1. the gentleman from Lois- aexile, cyanide. lead, mercury. PCB’s,
Izlana (Mr. TAVZDII. the gentleman cetera, My amendment also required I
from Ohio (Mr. ECRARTI. the gentle- EPA to conduct a waste -bYWaste I
man from Mississippi (Mr. Dowovi. revlew ’of all the remaining listed and I
and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr identified hazardous wastes and to
6Km.aTl. I want also to cosurnend our allow continued land disposal of these I
minority members starting with my wastes only under circumstances that
good friend and ranking member, the will be protective of human health
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr and the environment. Under my
BaovuTLLl. the ranking member of the amentiment, EPA’a failure to review a
subcommittee, the gentleman from waste would mean that, by statue,
New York (Mr. Lmi-T3, and the entle that the waste would be prohibited
man from Pennsylvania (Mr.,.Rxrrxal . from any form of land disposaL
SectIon 42 of this 1egtslatiod ’ a pro’ Mr. Speaker, with sonic iiicdlfica-
vision which stales that pothing j tions, this prevision Is contained in the;
this action shall aff S or change the—final version of HR. 2867.
Uranium MIII TallInó Act, and In dia. By enacting this provision, as well as
cussing the matter. tj e ‘ onIerees the other safeguards in this bill. Con-
agreed to accept the pTov1sIc ’ gresa will be sending a clear and unam- j
The ectlon was aMed at Itie behest biguous message to the regulated coin-
of the Senato%froni Wypmlng (Mr. snunity and the Environmental Protec-
Susi’sos]. and I want to commendhim tion Agenc reliance on land disposal
for his accommodation with respect to of hazardous waste has resulted In an
the agreement, not only on the statu- Un.CC pt&bie risk to human health
tory language but also on the state- and the environment. Consequently.
ment of managers. What we agreed to the Congress intends that through the
in the conference committee was that vigorous implementation of the objec-
the statement of managers would eon- tlves of this act, land disposal will be
stitute, for purposes of legislative his- eliminated for many wastes and mini-
tory, the sole explanation. For the niIzed for all others, and that ad-
bene(Lt of my coUeagues, I would like vanced treatment, recycling, Inciner-
to quote that statement at this point atlon. and other hazardous-waste-con-
Bouse bilL—No ,,,, trol technoiogles should quickly re-
Senate amendmrnt.—The Senate ainenâ ’ place land disposal. In other words.
ment Includes I prvvthloo o ensure that land disposal should be used only as a
Solid Waste D posal A Amendments last resort and only under conditions
1984 do not affect. modify, or amend the which are fully protective of human
tTra.Mum MIII TaU1n ) adIatton Control health and the environment.
Act of 1975. as amended (UMTRCAJ. In addition, the enactment of this
Conference eubetltute.—The Conference bill constitutes a recognition that the
subetitute ii ti 1uzne as the Senate amend- successful Implemettatlon of the 1984
ment. Nothing In this secUon sh&ll be rzi endmenta will require an Improved
deemed to preclude or to require the 1 ’ working relationship between the En.
elsa of existing regulations promulgated
under UMTRCA. vironmental Protection Meucy and
the States. Congress. in my opinion.
I think this resolution of th matter regards the development of a viable
Is entirely acceptable, and deeply ap pederal-State partnership to be one of
preciate the cooperation of the other the highest priorities of this leglala-
body and, particularly, of the sponsor uon and expects the Agency to dvot
of the amendment, the Senator from much greater effort to assisting States•
Wyoming. In achieving authorization of their
The majority rind minority staffs of RCRA programs.
both this body and of the other body pi ,, lly. I would like to mention that
have worked long and hard on this, 867 amends RCRA by adding a
and they had invaluable support. U new t1tle ReVilatton of Underground
we always do. from the Office of Legla- Storage Tanks. There are more than 2
lative Counsel, million und rgroUnd tanks In the I
Again, r think this Is a superb piece United States which contain hazard-
of legislation, crafted with a great deal ous substances or gasoline. An estimat - I
of care, and I urge my colleagues to ed 100.000 are presently leaking
support It. potentially contaznlnatlz ig 5 ’OUfld:
Mr. yWRIO. Mr. Speaker. I yIeld 4 water—and another 350.000 are cx-
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio pected to leak In the next 3 years.
(Mr. Ecnsar). a very valuable member Since half the population of this coun.
of the subcommittee who played a try depends 00 gyound water as Its
very significant role In the conference. source of drinking water, a cont&mtha,-
t-’ flL_l_•
?o1

-------
S 13818
103 but less than 1.000 kilograms of
hazardous wastes per month must pro.
ride for proper identification of such
wastes which are transported off-site.
Such generators would have to notify
transporters that such wastes are haz-
ardous but would not have to comply
with full hazardous waste testing.
manifesti: g, record keeping or report--
lug rcquirenients during the period be.
tween enactment and promulgation of
regulations. Methods of Identification
are specified.
Until completion of a study of small
quantity generators and promulgation
of final regulations for such genera-
tors. hazardous wastes generated by a
generator in quantities less than 1.000
kilograms p r month must be dcliv-
creci to a permitted treatment, storage
or disposal facility or a sanitary land-
fill which meets current criteria.
Regulations for storage of hazardous
waste generatcd in quantities of be-
tween 100 and 1.000 kilograms par
month shall provide for onsite storage
for up to 180 days without a permit—
twice the 90-days storage period al-
lowed for large quantity generators.
For small quantity generators who
must ship or haul their waste over 200
road miles, the regulations shall pro-
vide for onsite storage without a
permit for up to 270 days of up to
6.003 kilograms of such waste.
By March 31, 1085, EPA must com-
plete and submit to Congress a study
of small quantity generators. Using
the results of the study and other
available data, EPA must promulgate
by March 31. 1986, additional regula-
tions as may be necessary for small
quantity generators who generate be-
tween 100 and 1,000 kilograms per
month of• hazardous waste. The
threshold of 100 kilograms per month,
however, is not the end of this Issue. It
represents a logical next step in the
regulatory process but it does not
mean that EPA is relieved of their re-
sponsibility to regulate in a timely
manner all generators of hazardous
waste as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
If no regulations have been pro nul-
gated for small quantity generators by
March 31, 1988, alter that date any
hazardous waste from small quantity
generators generating such waste in
quantities of greater than 100 kg/mo
must go to a treatment, storage or dis-
posal facility permitted under RCRA.
The Administrator Is instructed to
undertake activities to educate small
Quantity generators as to their respon-
ibiIItles under this section.
Regulations for management of haz-
ardous waste from small quantity gen-
erators may vary from regulation for
larger generators; such regulations
must provide, however, that wastes
generated in quantities of greater than
100 kg/mo go to a treatment, storage
or disposal facility permitted under
RCRA.
LAZ4D SiSPOSAL LZMITATIO? S
The continued use of some methods
of land disposal of some hazardous
wastes presents an unwarranted and
unnecessary risk to human health and
the environment. Particularly trouble-
some are landfills and surface Im-
poundments of highly toxic, mobile, or
persistent wastes and wastes that have
the potential to bloaccumulate.
The problem presented by land dis-
posal of hazardous wastes is a classic
example of the inability of the free
marketplace to provide for the public
good. Land disposal is extremely cheap
when compared with the available al-
ternatives such as incinceration or
chemical-physical treatment, There-
fore, we should not be surprised to
find that land disposal and treatment
In land disposal facilities such as sur-
face impoundments are being utilized
much more frequetly than the newer,
high-tech options.
According to EPA’s NatIonal Survey,
of the listed treatment processes in
1C81, incinerators treated the least
amount of hazardous waste. Only
about 450 mIllion gallozis—1.7 million
metric tons—of hazardous waste was
Incinerated during that year. About 40
times more hazardous waste was treat-
ed in surface impoundments—16.6 bil-
lion gallons, 62 million metric tons.
Nearly 20 times nicre hazardous waste
was disposed of in injection wells—8.6
billion gallons, 32 million mctric tons.
Over 10 times as much hazardous
waste was disposed of in surface Ira-
poundments—5.1 billion gallons, 19 bil-
lion metric tons—and nearly twice as
much hazardous waste was disposed of
in landflhls—810 millIon gallons, 3 mil-
lion metric tcns. In 1081, only 23 per-
cent of our Nation’s treatment capac-
ity was being used.
Unfortunately, land disposal pre-
sents fax greater risks to society than
are necessary, We have the technology
to reduce the quantity of hazardous
wastes disposed of In the land and to
render the waste less harmful. What
we do not have, and will not have e.s
long as cheap land disposal options are
available, is a viable market to support
the development and expansion of
new, safer treatment and disposal
technologies. This bill recognizes that
many of the risks associated with land
dIsposal are being unnessarily imposed
upon tli’L public and It is designers to
eliminate those risks. The result
should be the creat!on of a new
market and increased demand for new,
safer treatment and disposal technol-
ogies.
By enacting H.R. 2867 Congress will
state it’s findings that reliance on land
disposal should be minimized and land
disposal, particularly landfill and sur-
face impoundments, should be the
least favored method for managing
hazardous wastes. As reported by the
conference committee, EPA must,
within 24 months after enactment,
promulgate regulations to prohibit
land disposal of dioxms and solvents
unless the Administrator determines
that such a prohibition-is not required
to protect human health and the envi-
ronxnent. The Administrator may dis-
October 5, 1.934
tinguish between various methods of
land disposal. Similar regulations and
findings must be made by EPA first,
within 32 months after enactment for
a specified list of hazardous wastes
that are specified in the bill on the
basis of their toxicity, mobility, per-
sistence or potential to b!oaccumulate,
second, for all other listed hazardous
wastes on a staggered timetable—one-
third of list within 45 months of enact-
ment, one-third within 55 months, and
one-third of all listed and Identified
wastes within 66 months.
If EPA fails to meet the statutory
deadlines for dioxins. solvents, or the
specified list, and if the agency fails to
meet the 66-month deadline, lend dis-
posal of the affected wastes is statuto-
rily prohibited. -
Land disposal prohibitions axe effec-
tive immediately or, on basis of avail-
ability of adequate alternative treat-
ment, storage, or disposal capacity, up
to 2 years after promulgaticn. The 2-
year period may be extended on a
case-by-case basis for 1 year and re-
newed once for an additioal year If,
alter good faith efforts to develop nile-
quat.e capacity, It can be shown that
mcre time is needed.
If the Administrator finds a lack of
alternative capacity, he may set the
different effective date based on the
earliest date on which sufficent capac-
ity will become available. In setting
longer effective dates, the Adzninistra-
tor can consider the fact that different
physical or chemical forms of a par-
tIcular waste are treatable by different
methods. Thus, different effective
dates may be set for a single wn.ste
code—for example, FOOL P016, dIffer-
entiating between physical or chemi-
cal forms of the waste. For example,
the Administrator may find that there
is sufficient alternative capacity for
liquid FOOl waste—and thus restrict It
Immediately—but not for FOOl waste
that Is a solid or sludge—and thus set
a longer effective date for these forms
of the waste. This wiU insure that re-
strictions become effective as soon as
possible based on the availability of al-
ternative capacity.
Use of waste oil contathng dioxin or
other hazardous wastes for dust sup-
pression is banned. The disposal of
hazardous waste by Underground I n-
jection into or above any formation
which contains a potential under-
ground source of drinking water—
within one-quarter mile of Injection
well—is banned.
Expansions of existing waste piles,
landfills or surface hnpoundmegits
under interim status are subject to the
same requirements for liners, leachate
collection systems groundwater moni-
toring and locational criteria as new
facilities,
Land disposal facilities which
stopped accepting wastes between July
26, 1982 and January 28, 1983. are re-
qiured to take corrective action and
undertake groundwater monitoring
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

-------
October 5, 1984
IMMINENT hAZARD AND CITIZEN SUITS
Section 7003 of RCRA currently au-
thorizes suit to Immediately restrain
any person contributing to handling.
storage, treatment, transportation, or
disposal of any solid waste or hazard-
ous waste that may present an immi-
nent and substantial endangerment to
health or the environment. Though
the issue of inactive waste sites is not
addressed explicity in section 7003. the
Congress. most courts and every ad.
ministration which has administered
the act has contrued the section to
apply to such sites. Notwithstaxtding
an opinion for the U.S. Court of Ap-
peals for the Third Circuit and several
district court decisions upholding the
Government’s position, some courts
have ruled to the contrary. The ad-
ministration testified that clarifying
language amending section 7003 would
be helpful.
This bill will amend section 7003 to
affirm that which is aircady provided
for under existing law. It will clarify
that section 7003 authorizes suits con-
cerned with Inactive sites which may
present an imminent and substantial
endangerment.
Although section 7003 of RCRA au-
thorizes the Administrator to sue to
abate an endangerment whenever the
past or present handling, storage,
treatment, transportation, or disposal
of any solid or hazardous waste may
present on imminent and substantial
endangerment to health or the envi-
ronment, we now know from the Su-
perfund experience that the number
of potential problem sites exceeds the
Government’s ability to take action
each time such action is warranted.
The problem Is primarily one of inad-
equate resources.
Therefore, Ii.R. 2867 will authorize
citizens to bring suit against those who
have contributed or are contributing
to a situation which may present an
imminent and substantial endanger-
ment to health or the environment. To
prevent such suits from intefering
with Government enforcement ac-
tions, a number of conditions are
placed on the authority to bring such
suits,
SUBTiTLE D IMPROVEMENTS
Even with the phaseout of the small
qua.itlty generator exemption, sizable
amounts of hazardous materials from
such generators, household wastes.
and illegal dumping are disposed of in
municipal landfills. Current criteria
for sanitary landfills are inadequate to
deal with these facts. In addition.
there is a need to provide for better
impiemer ita tjon of the open dumping
ban and upgraded criteria for sanitary
landfills.
As a result of this bill, EPA must
revise criteria for sanitary landfills
and for determining which practices
constitute open dumping, taking into
account potential for such facilities re-
ceiving hazardous waste in household
wastes or from illegal dumping.
Within 42 months, States must estab
lish and cnforce a permit piogram or
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
other system to assure that sanitary
landfills which may receive hazardous
wastes comply with upgraded criteria.
If States do not adopt such a program.
EPA shall use the enforcement au-
thority in sections 3007 and 3008 to en-
force the ban on open dumps.
AIR EMISSIONS FROM LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Studies of hazardous waste surface
impoundments and landfills report
that significant quantities of hazard-
ous constituents in the wastes may be
emitted into the air. Proposals to regu-
late emissions from hazardous waste
facilities have been published on sev-
eral occasions since passage of RCRA
in 1976. Final regulations have never
been issued, The Agency also has au-
thority to regulate emissions of haz-
ardous air pollutants under the Clean
Air Act, but its performance under
that Act has been appallingly slow.
A provision of HR. 2867 requires
EPA to promulgate regulations for the
monitoring and control of air emis-
sions from hazardous waste facilities
as may be necessary to protect human
health and the environment,
GROUND WATER MONITORING
Cum rent EPA regulations allow waste
piles, landfills, and surface impound-
ments that satisfy certain conditions
to claim an exemption from the
ground water monitoring requirements
that are designed to detect any re-
leases of hazardous constituents from
the facilities. The conditions for ex-
emptions, on their face, do not meet
subtitle C’s basic requirement of pro-
tecting human health and the environ-
ment. There is evidence, for example,
that a leak could occur even from a
double-lined disposal facility, and that
hazardous Constituents can migi ate
Into ground water even if the facility
is located entirely above the seasonal
high water table. Similarly, if an in-
spection shows a liner is cracl ed, the
owner or operator is required only to
repair the crack, not to detect and
clean up any releases that may ha e
occurred before the crack was discov-
ered.
The bill will require that the act’s
ground water monitoring requirements
be completed with whether or not a
facility is located entirely above the
seasonal high water table, the facility
has two linei-s and a leachate collec-
tion syatem, or the facility’s liner—or
liners—are periodically inspected. This
section has the effect of nullifying sev-
eral portions of EPA’s regulations. It
does not make any changes to the
Agency’s regulations concerning
ground water monitom tug standards
other than deleting the indicated ex-
emptions,
WASTE MINIMIZATION
Curi-ent laws emphasize the need to
pioperly treat, store, and dispose of
hazardous wastes. While this contm-
ues to be a pi’imary clement of RCRA
and other pollution control laws, addi-
tional emphasis must be directed
toward first, minimizing the genera-
tion of hazardous wastes and second,
S 13821
utilizing the best treatment, storage,
and disposal techniques for each
waste.
A statement of national policy will
be added to the act as well as a re-
quirement that hazardous waste germ-
erators certify that they have pro-
grams to reduce the amount and toxic-
ity of their waste and that they are
using methods to minimize the threat
that their wastes pose to human
health and the environment,
DEFINITION OP HEATING OIL IN UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANK PROVISION -
The underground storage tanks that
are covered by this bill do not Include
underground storage tanks used for
storing heating oil for consumptive
use on the premises where stored.
There are many different grades of
heating oil used, Including No. 2. No, 4,
and No. 6. The particular type of heat-
ing oil used generally depends upon
the type and size of the furnace In
which it is burned, The reference to
heating oil cited above Includes all of
these grades of heating oil, so long as
the tank is used for storing such heat-
ing oil for consumptive use on the
premises where stored.
OTHER ISSUES
Several other issues have been con-
sidered in the course of developing
H.R, 2867 and merit comment. These
include the Issues of permitting of
mobile treatment unit,s ; the distinction
between oz)site and ofisite facilities;
direct action provisions of Superfund;
and health as cssments,
PERMITrINC OF MORII.E TREATMENT UNITS
The EPA. in order to fulfill its legis-
lative mandate, should continually be
looking at innovative, advanced tech-
nological methods to effectively and
safely treat and handle hazardous
wastes. Legislative and regulatory ini-
tiatives ai’e necessary to discourage
the use of landfills and land disposal
genei’ally as a disposal option of first
resort,
For many waste generators, the
availability of mobil treatment units
would make proper waste handling
and treatment economically feasible
and remove the growing financial in-
centive for cutting corners or for mid-
night dumping. Clearly, the long-term
tightening of EPA’s Current small gen-
erators exemption will mean a signifi-
cant increase in the number of regu-
lated facilities which could handle
their wastes more safely and etfectl -e-
ly through use of mobile treatincnt
technology—either through a circuit
rider approach where the unit periodi-
cally visited a facility—or where a unit
periodically visited a satellite treat-
ment area where waste from several
firms was aggregated and stored pend-
ing treatment.
EPA currently has legislative au-
thority to develop a permit procedure
for mobile treatment units, however,
current permit regulations, as promul-
gated, have stymied the development
of MTU technology, I have reviewed
the work completed in September 1983
1tt ° -

-------
S 13822
by EPA’s RCRA Permit Advisory
Committee and beheve the MTU
permit procedure outlined therein,
merits further consideration by the
Agency.
orsruNerrox BCWFt4 0N5 1T5 AND 0PF51T5
LAC 1LIT IES
According to the National Survey, 84
percent of those who generate hazard-
ous wastes ship their wastes offsite for
treatment, storage, or disposal. That
fact scorns to support the notion that
our regulatory effort should be fo-
cuscd on these offsite facilities. Some
people allege that the offsite treat.
ment and disposal industry has, in
fact, been subject to much greater
scrutiny, regulatory control. arid en.
forcentent than those ho generate
hazardous wastes and manage thcni
Inhouse or onsite. If this Is true, It Is
without justification. Onsil.e facihties
should be regulated at least as vigor-
ously as offsite facilities.
Although offsite facilities manage a
significant amount of hazardous
a-cites, they represent a small portion
of the total volume. Using EPA’s nurn-
hers, which are conservative. 96 per-
cent of the hazardous waste disposed
of Is disposed of onsite. That is 96 per-
cent by volume.
Offsite facilities at-c providing a serv-
ice to small businesses and to house’
holds generating hazardous wastes.
Why should we devote a dispropor-
tionate amount of our enforcement
effort to offsite facilities? The issue is
not just one of fairness but it Is also
one of safety. Let’s focus on the prob-
lem. We should continue to scrutinize,
regulate, and enforce against offsite
operators but we should also be focus-
ing on the high volume private sites
that are behind the company fense.
There is no reason to assume that in-
house operations are i-un any better
than the of fsite commercial lacilitzes.
With history as our guide, we must
not let any facility that is managing
hazardous waste escape our regulatory
and enforcement efforts.
DiREcT SOTION iN CERCiA
I am a strong supporter of the direct
action provisions of the bill, dealing
with financial responsibility. This ap-
proach to financial responsibility
should be applied to each environnien-
tal statute as the opportunity to
amend those statutes becomes avail-
able. Thus, while the conferees deleted
this provision as applied to the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLM, it was deleted only be-
cause all CERCLA amendments to this
bvlli were deleted. A similar amend’
inent sliold be added to CERCLA and
title Ill of the Outer Continental
Shelf lands Act at the earliest appro-
priate time.
MEAI.Tii ASSES5NEiITS
The bill requires that owners and
operators of landfills and surface im-
poundments submit exposure Inforina-
tion with their permit applications.
Submission of exposure information
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
should not be considered when deter-
mining the complctoness or adequacy
of a part B permit application. It is an
Independent requircment of this act.
enforceable as any other violation of a
repcri ing requirement.
CONCLUSiON
Madam President, the need for
action is rarely as clear as it Is today,
We have a law that was designed to
assure the people of this Nation that
the generation, handling, storage,
treatment, transportation, and dispos-
al of hazardous wastes in thIs country
Is regulated and controlled in a
manner that protects both human
health and the environment Unfortu-
nately, the regulatory program Is rid-
dled with loopholes and, as such, the
assurances we sought when we first
passed RCRA in 1976 are still empty
promises.
We cannot afford to delay any
longer. Even if out of sight Is out of
mind for some, we must not bc so fool-
ish as to believe that the status quo is
good enough. We must do as much as
we can to assure the public that haz-
ardous wastes are being handled In a
safe manner and that stops will be
taken to reduce t he amount and
danger of those hazardous wastes that
are generated In the future.
The amendments that we are consid-
ering today are designed to do that.
They will translate the promises of
1916 Into action. They recognize new
areas of promise and pursue them. For
these reasons, Hit. 2367 deserves your
support and your vote of approval.
Madam President, I want to take
this opportunity to thank all of the
ded eated, ho rd-working people at
EPA and on our staff who have
worked with us and helped us to craft
this major environmental bill. With-
out the assistance of EPA Assistant
Administrator Lee Thomas and his
staff, Environment and Public Works
Committee counsel Steve Shimbcrg,
Phil Cummings, Kathy Cud!ipp, Jon
Jewett. staff members Cha rlene Stur-
bitts, Bill Pay, Jimmie Powell, and Liz
Batrett-Brown, we could not have
achieved today’s accomplishment. En-
actment of the first major pollution
control law since 1980 Is an event that
should not go unnoticed and .the im-
portance of today’s action should not
be minimized.
Mr. LAUTENBERO. Madam flesh-
dent, I rise in strong support of H it.
2857, the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984, and urge Its Im-
mediate adoption by the Senate. This
conference report Is of utmost Impor-
tance to my State and the Nation as a
whole. The cradle-to-grave manage-
ment of hazardous wastes Is a formida-
ble task and one that demands careful
coordination between the public, Con-
gress, Environmental Protection
Agency and States.
Over 240 millIon ,tons of hazardous
wastes are generated every year—i ton
for every man, woman, and child in
our country. Much of this waste Is now
land disposed of in ways that contand-
October 5, 1984
nate the water we drink and the air we
breathe. The best solution to the haz-
ardous waste crisis facing our country
Is the reduction and recycling of these
wastes. But, for the foreseeable future,
there will be a substantial smount of
waste that must be disposed of
through other means that can harm
the pubiic and the environment.
The bill that we will approve today
is the first major environmental regu-
latory bill to be enacted since the Su-
porfund bill passed in 1980. It will
greatly improve the management of
our wastes. ft will close dangerous
loopholes in the current program and
start the country in a. new direction by
encouraging the treatment of danger-
otis wastcs and discouraging laud dis-
posal.
The main elements of H.R. 2867 are
the limitations on land disposal, retro-
fit requirements for surface impound-
ments. regulation of small quantity
generators, and a new program for lo-
cating and monitoring underground
storage tanks, many of which are leak-
ing and threatening water supplies.
Madam President . I was honored to
serve as a conferee on this bill. The
bill is the culmination of two sessions
of debate over needed Improvements
to this program. Senate approval of S.
757. on July 26, by a unanimous vote
of 93 to 0, is testament to the concern
of all Senators that the storage, trans-
port, and disposal of hazardous wastes
be carefully regulated.
This bill closes dangerous loopholes
in the current law. It narrows the ex-
emption for most small quantity waste
generators who today dispose of 4 mil-
lion tons annually of benzcne, toluene,
and other dangerous chemicals In our
neighborhood landfills every year. The
bill also regulates the burning and
blending of hazardous wastes for re-
source recovery and bars the disposal
of wastes such as dioxins, In road oils.
While the closing of these loopholes
has received considerable attention,
the real nexus of the bill is the ban on
land disposal of hazardous wastes that
threaten the public health and envi-
ronment.
No longer will the Indiscriminate dis-
posal of dioxins, PCB’s, and other
highly toxic chemicals be allowed In
landfills. Instead, this bill encourages
the reduction, recycling, and treat-
inent of hazardous wastes, It Is my
hope that the disincentive-s to dispose
of waste in landfills included in U.R.
2867 will stimulate the development of
new technologies to safely treat waste.
The limitations on land disposal
center around statutory bans on cer-
tain wastes. These bans will automati-
cally go into effect unless the EPA de-
termines that land disposal of these
wastes is sale. The bans are reasona- -
ble. They will prevent deadlines from
slipping Into the future without
action. They establish an Important
presumpiton that land disposal should
not be used for wastes that pose real
risks.

-------
October 5, 1984
This piesuinption should provide a
stimulus for the commercialization of
technology to treat these wastes. How-
ever 1 if no adequate alternative to land
disposal are available, the bill does
provide limited extensions from dis-
posal bans by the EPA. It is important
to note that these extensions will not
be granted on economic grounds.
Madam President the deadlines In
this bjll for banning land disposal of
certain wastes are realistic and should
provide more than adequate time for
EPA to analyze and develop regula-
tions to Implement these provisions.
They are consistent with EPA assist-
ant Administrator Lee Thomas’ assess-
ment of EPA ’s capabilities. I hope that
EPA will move as quickly as possible
to implement these provisions and ban
dangerous wastes from our landfills. It
would be unfortunate if EPA waited
until the 11th hour to take action.
Many of these deadlines are several
years off and I am concerned about
environmental hazards that will con-
tinue during the interim.
It Is important to note that the bill
also bans land disposal of liquid haz-
ardous wastes into shallow aquifers
and the underground Injection of cer-
tain wastes as well. I strongly support
the ban on liquid waste disposal. Such
thsposal practices are among the most
egregious examples of our past mis-
management of hazardous wastes.
Over 60 percent of our wastes are
disposed of by Injection into under-
ground aquifers. We must be especial-
ly careful, as we move away from dis-
posal in landlils and surface impound-
ments, that we do not simply shift to a
form of disposal that will perpetuate
the contamination of our precious
drinking water supplies. The deadlines
In the underground injection provi-
sions are 4 years off. Because we do
not know as much about the impacts
of underground injection as we know
about )andfilling. it is essential that
EPA expeditiously investigate the po-
tential environmental and health haz-
ards related to disposal of wastes
through underground injection.
Madam President. dunng our confer-
ence. we engaged in extensive discus-
sion about the retrofit requircments
for surface Impoundments. The• bills
approved by both Houses required that
existng impoundments—pits. ,ounds,
and lagoons—be retrofitted with
double linen a leak-detection systems
within 4 years of enactment. Our dis-
cussion focused primarily on the treat-
ment of wastewater surface impound-
ments, which were provided with an
explicit exemption in the Senate bill.
The criteria for exemption of thcse
Impoundments. which are estimated to
represent between 290 and 300 of the
1.500 exIsting impoundments. has been
tightened so that the universe of these
impoundments is limited to those en-
gaged in “aggressive biological treat-
tent” of wastewater. An important
ondition of this exemption is that
groundwater be monitored. Mr. Presi-
Jent, the strict monitoring of ground-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
water around these impoundments
will be critical In assessing the Impact
of the exemptions included in the bill.
This bill sets up. for the first time, a
Federal program for the regulation of
underground storage tanks containing
petroleum. The growing problem of
leaking underground storage tanks Is
one that will require our attention for
many years to come. The regulatory
program included in this bill will help
us identify these tanks, It will also re-
quire that new tanks meet strict anti-
leak standards. These provisions will
start us on our way toward preventing
and cleaning up tanks that threaten
the quality of our drinking water.
The emerging statistics on leaking
underground storage tanks are anti-
noun. it is estimated that a 1 gallon a
day leak of gasoline from a tank can
poison the water supply of 50,000 per-
sons. Experts in the petroleum indus-
try estimate that between ¶5,000 and
100.000 tanks are currently leaking.
and that this number may increase to
over 350,000 In the next 5 years. in my
State alone, it Is estimated that 20,000
tanks may be leaking.
It Is clear that leaks from these
tanks pose a very serious threat to our
groundwater. That Is why I joined
Senator Dunawasnosa In introducing
legislation in the Senate to regulate
underground storage tanks earlier this
year. I am very pleased that provisions
to address this emerging environmen-
tal problem are included In the bill.
Finally. I want to make mention of
the clarifications H.R. 2867 makes to
the criminal liability provisions of the
act, In September 1983, a New Jersey
district court decision threatened to
undermine effective Federal enforce-
ment actions against midnight dump-
en. The court refused to prosecute
two plant supervisors who were rou-
tinely ordering the disposal of acetate
and other dangerous chemicals into a
trench behind their factory in Laurel,
NJ. In a bizarre reading of the law, the
judge found that only owners and op-
erators, who are required to obtain
permits for disposing of wastes, could
be prosecuted for illegal waste disposal
under the criminal provisions of
RCRA.
In fact, the law clearly states that
anybody who knon ingly and Illegally
disposes of hazardous waste can be
held liable foi- n violation of RCRA re-
quirements. During Senate consider-
ation of S. 757, 1 offered an amend-
ment to the bill to overturn this court
decision and clarify the intent of the
act. Congiessrnan .Ini Floaso had in-
troduced similar legislation in the
House after the House had approved
its version of the RCRA bill.
By the time we went to conlerence.
the third Circuit Court of Appeals had
overturned the district court decision.
Nonetheless, the conference retained
this provision to clarity that any mid-
night dumpers who violated the law
will be prosecuted and cannot dump
wastes with impunity.
S 13823
Madam President. I want commend
the managers of the Senate and House
conferees, Senator Cuarsz and Con-
gressman Dwczu., for their strong
leadership and diligence In the confer-
ence. Without their commitment to
seeing this bill through, and their
commitment to a safe and clean envi-
ronment. we would not be approving
this bill today. As a new member of
the Environment and Public Works
Committee. I was privileged to serve as
one of the Sehate conferees on a piece
of legislation of such importance.
My only regret is that the House
conferees so strongly resisted Includ-
ing the Superfund amendments the
Senate adopted to S. 757, a number of
which I sponsored with my colleague
from New Jersey, Senator Bradley. I
strongly supported the Senate provi-
sions to S. ‘157 to provide cost credits
to States which use their own funds to
cleanup sites eligible for Superfund as-
sistance and to extend the statute of
limitations for natural resources
claims. Both of these provisions were
important to my State of New Jersey.
The stripping of these Superfur-d
amendments from the RCRA confer-
ence report is even more disappointing
given the failure of the Senate to con-
sider S. 2892. the Superfund reauthor-
ization bill reported to the Senate by
the Environment arid Public Works
Committee, which also contained
them.
Madam President. as many people
have noted, the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act and the Super-
fund represent two sides of the same
coin. Both statutes serve to protect
the public from exposure to hazardous
wastes, the first by regulating hazard-
ous waste disposal; the second by pro-
viding Federal assistance to cleanup
abandoned waste sites. Enactment of
an improved RCRA program this year
is important for avoiding the creation
of additional Superfund sites, It is my
hope that’ with RCRA behind us, we
will be able to take up the reauthoriza-
tion of Superfund at the earliest possi-
ble date in the 99th Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the confer-
ence report.
.The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. BAKER. Madam President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the conference report was agreed to,
Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that.
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE
PUBLIC CAPITAL INVEST-
MENT —CONFERENCE REPORT
P ROJECTS
Mr. BAKER. Madam President, I
submit a report of the committee of
conference on S. 1330 and ask for its
Immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
report will be stated. -
‘ 7 w,

-------
Ju1y25, 1984
the statutory standard by which the
mandated regulations were and contin-
ue to be measured Is pr3tecti.r of
public health and the en iicnr nt.
Tnc statute estabhsh”d a fraaic. crk
— for Ihe pre ention of h r’:: to b nan
beings and natural ruour ”s.
Today, we propose a se: e of mend•
nv’nts to the basIc statute.
The prevenu e iramev.ork of the
flcsot rce Conservatic n and Recovery
Act is sound. Today we propose modi-
fications b s d on the hnovJedge ac-
quired s:nce 1976. Al! of the changes
we are rt eenirnenthni to the Senate
will strei’gthen the ability of the Fed-
eral Gcvernr.ient to protect public
health and the “nurenment from has-
arc ous w tes. Thrv are deb.gned to
give EPA more s ecifv guid uce,
based on our e peric:ice wnh impte-
mentation of the iav:’s ge iera1 au-
thoritics since 1976.
What hare e learnccl In 7 years?
We have learned that the rnagniLude
of the problem is far greater than be-
lieved. We now know that over 264
million metric tons of hazardous wa.ste
are generated in this country each
year: this estimate is more than four
times greater than presiously thought.
We have learned that there are
thousands of waste sites across this
country which present potcntlal or
actual threats to hunisn health or
well-being. EPA now estimates that
there may be 22.000 sites in need of
some type of cleanup; 546 of these
sites have been designated as priorities
for cleanup. The Superfund law en-
acted In 1930 was a necessary response
to our past Inattention to the careful
disposal of hazardous wastes.
Simply put. past practices hase left
us a legacy of chem 1 cal contamination
which has poisoned our alt, our water.
and our land. The price of our Igno-
rance has been high, ln.hurnan terms
and in dollar value. Present practices.
unless modified, can only multiply
those costs.
The average cost of cleaning up a
hazardous waste site Is esimated to be
$6 million, according to EPA. If ju.t
the priority sites, known to present a
health hazard, were cleaned up, the
cost would be billions of doIla s. No
matter who pays the bill, whether it
be the respons:ble patty or the Feder-
al Government. that figure is too hi ti.
We cannot afford the stasus quo.
We also know now that the genera-
tion of hazardous a!te continnes to
grow and that most of thct waste—80
percent—Is clrrentiy dispos d of on or
In the land.
It has become evident that a strong
congrcssional expression of disapprov-
al of EPKs slow and thoid irnpl-’men-
tatian of the exisLing law Is ncc s;ary.
as wcll as a clear congressior.al dir ’ c-
tive mandating certain bold, prevci-
tire actions by EPA ‘Inch iil rot be
taken otherwise, dr-spite the exI ting,
broad authorities contained in RCRA.
- EPA has not implemented the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act
aggressively, The Agency has missed
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
deadlines, proposed Inadequate regula-
tions, and esen exacerbated the haz-
ardous waste problem by suspending
certain reiulatioi:s.
It has become evident that this slov .’.
p)c’iding course ‘ .;lll be continued in
th absence of a clear congressional di-
rective. ‘1 .Is is nut acc p able. Accord.
ingy, S 57 provides more SPCCLfIC
guidance to EPA as to how the bro’id
grants of authority of the ex st:ng
RCRA law should be used.
The bill declares as congrcx’ional
POI CY that—
T. a o d substantal risk to human heattl
and the ci. ironnieni, relianc e on lani dis-
po’.al should be nunim zed a ,i land dispos-
al. particularly landfill and surface Im’
po’mdmer,t. should be the least favored
method for managing hazardous ?.SSWS.
It specifically reaffirms the Adminis-
trator’s authority to prohibit land dIs-
posal methods that cannot be shown
to be protective of human health and
the environment, and directs the Ad-
mhustrator to use that. authority.
Deadlines are established by which
EPA must evaluate all wastes listed as
hazardous and subject to RCRA regu-
lation, as to the appropriateness of
thair disposal on land.
The bill establishes minimum tech-
nologual standards for land disposal
facilities and inc;nerators to Insure
that EPA requircs the use of the heat
technology available at hazardous
wa.stc disposal farlliUcs.
Henceforth, the use of landfills will
be circu inscribed by str:ct rules gov-
erning, ftrst, under section 5, what
kinds of materials may be Iandfilled,
and second, under section 6, what the
physical character of the landfills
themselves will be.
The minimum technological require-
inent,s under section 6 for new and,
eventually, for existing landfills will
start with double liners, a leachate col-
lection system, and a monitoring
system—as a modicum of protection
and integrity. But it is necessary to do
more. In its section 5 technical evalua-
tions, EPA will match certain wastes
to certain land disposal technologies
or determine that no match is feasible.
Within the framework of those evalua-
tions. Congress under the terms of this
legislation is also directing EPA to
take into account certatn locational
characterisucs with respect to all land
di-posal fa i)ities In the country In
ord f to establ ’sh a performance range
fur landfills TI,e locational character-
istics to be far.tored In’o EPA’s analy-
ses include. amoru others, the hydro-
ge’ logy of thc site, and climatological
and d”mcgraphic effects. Landfills
thus w U be ahle to be assessed accord-
ing to theIr hyrogcc.logic perform .flce
and cla’sified as fully acceptable. ac-
ceptable for C talr% lim tcd uses, and
unacceptable. \\‘:‘li a phaseout of tifl
acceptan 1 e laridlills and a highly ana-
lytic evaluation of the remainder ac
ccrd ng to their highest and best uses.
I anticipate that the health and safety
of the American people will be sign:tf-
cantly enhanced with respect to their
S 9151
potential exposure to harmful toxics
In the environment.
The bill expands the cot erawe of the
I S A It’ tlios ’ - uho generate bi uetn 100
and l,OiiO h.logramS of waste a r. ’nnth
In 1u 0. EPA e .cmpted all generators
of less tnar. 1 OOJ kilograms, sO!ei)’ or.
the baa ’s of its workload, a!ld sat-d
t nat it mittended to initiate ru!eniakug
to expand the law’s coverage witl.in 2
to 5 years.
This has not occurred. Accordingly.
the comnuttee proposes to implement
EPA’s 1980 commitment. This will
bring Into the regulatory system an
additional 15 mi’Iion tons of hazardo is
waste.
The bill strengthens signIfIcantly
the role of citizens in enforcing the
law. As the sponsor of this protision. I
bt’tiet’e that It ‘a ill provide an Impor-
tant and necessary supplement to
EPA’s efforts.
The bill expands the law to present
the export of hazardous waste to for-
eign countries witnout the receisirig
country’s consent.
I would like to discuss In greater
detail two provisions of S. 757 which I
sponsored.
CiTI7EN SUITS
The citizen stilt amendments con-
tained In S. 757 provide an Important
supplement to the efforts of the Fed-
eral and State G.s-ernments to abate
the most serious hinds of hazardous
waste situations: Those that may
present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to human health or the
environment.
I reiterate: These amendments are a
supplement to. not a substitute for
Government action.
Under current law, a citir.en may
bring suit to enforce a permit or other
similar RCRA requirement If EPA
fails to do so. However, citizens are not
now a,.ithorizcd to sue to abate an ‘im-
minent and substantial endanger-
ment” to health or the environment.
Only EPA can sue to abate an immi-
nent hazard under current law. If EPA
does not act, the endangerment con-
tinues.
In light of the thousands of known
hazardous waste sites across this coun-
try. thi simply does not make sen e.
The Environmental protect ion
Agency clearly does not have the re-
sources to deal w th all of these sites.
nor do the States.
Citizen suits to abate Imminent haz-
ards can expand the notional effort to
minimize these very real threats to
our well-being.
This bill authori:es clth ens to br”’g
Imminent hazard suits In the a en ,
of EPA actton. The lirovislon is .j:r ’
tured earefuly In the following
to Insure that cItizen suits dn not
Interfere with ongoing Fc’1 - ! or
State enforcement efforts:
Citison action cannot occur until 123
days after EPA. the affected State and
the alleged defendant have been given
notice of Intent to sue.

-------
S 9152
If EPA or the State is pursuing an
enforcement action, administratively
or Judicially, citizens cannot bring suit.
but can in ten ene in the Federal or
State action; and
if EPA or the State has settled an
action to abate an activity hich may
present an imminent and substantial
endangerment, citizen suit is barred
with respect to that activity.
Tho safeguards against frivolous
suits have been added to the bill, in re-
sponse to concerns expressed by coin-
mittee members. First, attorneys fees
are authorized to be awarded by a
court only to a “substantially prevail-
ing” party. A citizen who brings a suit
which has little or no merit does so
only at his own expense, which may be
considerable.
Second, citizens are prohibited from
bringing an imminent hazard suit to
challenge the siting of a hazardous
waste treatment, stat-age or disposal
facility. This precludes the use of this
new authority solely as a delaying
tactic. Concerns about the proposed
siting of such facilities are more ap-
propriatcly raised In the context of
the law’s permitting process.
The citizen suit amendments to S.
‘157 also clarify the intent ci the cur-
rent law that citizens do hate a statu-
tory right to intervene In inininent
hazard cases brought by EPA. This
right of inten’ent ton has been an im-
portant mechanism for insurzng citi-
zen involtement in litigation and pro-
posed settlements between EPA and
defendant companies.
However, recent court opinions have
held to the contrary. There is now a
conflict in statutory interpretation
which needs to be resolveo.
It is important that the statutory
intent with respect to int2rtention in
Inuninent hazard csses be clarified for
a number of reasons.
First, the citizens of a community in
which a hazardous waste site is located
are the persons most affected by t he
health and environmental hazards It
presents, The citizens of that coininu-
nity therefore have the most at stake
in the adequacy of the Government’s
litigation efforts In court or in a settle-
ment agreement between the two par-
ties. It is an issue of fundamental fair-
ness that those most affected should
be permitted to participate In the judi-
cial resolution of such important prob-
lems without the burden and expense
of seeking permissive inten’entian by
shouing that the Gotcrnmeiit is not
adequately representing the citizens
interest.
Second. citizen Involvement pro’. ides
an Important set of checks and bal-
ances in the enforcement process. By
overseeing the Government’s efforts.
citizens can assure themseltes and the
public at large that aU views are repre-
sented in the process, and that the
outcome is based on all available
kno’A ledge. This gives the outcome ad-
litional credibility, which is particu-
larly needed after the events of recent
years.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
Third, a statutorj’ right of Interven-
tion is not a unique concept In enviro-
mental law, It is explicitly conferred
by ECRA for eases brought by EPA to
enforce RCRA permits and regula-
tions. The right also exists in enforce-
ment cases brought under the Toxic
Substances Control Act, the Clean Air
Act, the Clean Water Act, and the
Safe Drinking Vater Act.
EXPORT or iuzsaooua wsstzs
The hazardous waste export provi-
sion In S. 757 seeks to substitute a
tightened export control process for
the notification procedure which has
been in effect since 1980.
The section is based ott the belief
that foreign nations which receive
U.S. hazardous wastes should give
their consent before the shipments
occur. At the presc-nt time, only an
annual nolice Is prot ided to receiving
countries prior to the initial shipment.
This notice does not give the receiving
nation any Lndieation of the quantity
of the waste proposed for export, or of
the frequency of shipments. Moreover.
It does not indicate where the waste is
to be treated or disposed.
If I were the environmental minister
of a foreign nation. I would want to
know as much as possibie about the
hazardous waste coming into my coun-
try. If I were the U.S. Secretary of
State. I would want to be sure that no
Amer Ican ally or trading partner is
saddled with U -S. wastes It does not
want or does not have the capacity to
handle in an environmentally sound
manner.
The export provision will guarantee
that the wishes of foreign states are
considered and tbat U.S. International
interests are safeguarded. It estab-
lishes a more contprehens’ve and re-
spons ble waste export policy with a
minimum of additional regulatory
burden on US. generators,
The proposed permit system is quite
simple. In the absence of a bilateral
agreement between the United States
and the government of the receiving
country setting forth specific notice,
export, and 1 enforcement procedures
for the transportation, treatment,
storage, and disposal of wastes, no
person shall export hazardous wastes
unless— -
First. Such person has notified the
Administrator of the plan to export:
Second. The Government of the re-
cehing country has agreed, In writing
to the plan;
Third. A copy of the receiving coun-
try’s written consent is attached to the
manifest accompanying each waste
shipment: arid
Fourth. The shipment conforms
with the terms of such receiving coun-
try’s consent.
When this program becomes effec-
tive. it will at long last become possible
for the executive branch to determkiie
the amouras and ultimate desttnation
of U.S.-generated hazardous waste
which are exported each year. Once
this information is available, EPA and
the Congress will be able to gauge
July 25, 1984
whether the export right Is being
abused and whether further controls
are necessary or desirable,
This important new provision incor-
porates suggcstions made by EPA and
industry. I i. will, I believe, ensure that
the right to export does not become a
right to circumvent RCRA.
concausioli
Mr. President, we have worked long
and hard on thic package of amend-
ments. I believe that we have ach Ieved
a workable balance between two con-
flicting con sith’rat ions
First. The recognition that unless
the status quo with respect to the han-
dling of hazardous wastes is altered
radically, we will be condoning the
eventual chemical contaminat’on of
all elements of our natnral life-sup-
port system—air, water. and lend; e.nd
Second. The reality that because the
pervasit e nature of the hazardous
waste problem Is largely a result of a
successful industralized society, the ul-
timate solution Is a basic change in the
operation of large acgnients of our in-
dustries—a course that should be
chartec’ carefully and brought about
at a deliberate but measured pace.
S. 757 represents a mandate for
change in the El atus quo. It also rep i e-
scnts a mandate for Infor med regula-
thin which does not threaten precipi-
tous disruptions which could ultimate-
ly doom our legislative strategy to fail-
ure.
The bill before us is a compromise in
the best sense of that term. It at-
tempts to aceomniodate the many
varied concerns expressed by hundreds
of persons over the past years. It is
also a compromise m the sense that
probably no one person or interest
supports every siigie element of the
legislation.
We hat-c had to make difficult Judg-
mcnts as to how the results we desire
can be best achieved. 5, ‘157 represents
that judgment. I urge my colleagues to
support the legislatIon beforc the
Senate. If approved It will be another
simficant achievement by this body
in assuring a safe environment for all
persons of this country.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President. when
the Committee on Environment and
Public Works considered amendments
to the Solad Waste Disposal Act, it was
confronted with the increasingly diff i-
cult problem of legislating in a com-
plex technical arena. When the com-
mittee first developed the landmark
Resource Conservation and Recciery
Act of 1976, I I. recognized that quick
solutions to the problem of enuron-
mentally harmful waste di. posal
would not be possible. There are mil-
lions of tons of waste generated in the
United States, much of wh ich is con-
sidered hazardous under the criteria
created by the Resource Conservaiton
and Recovery Act. Eliniir,at ing this
‘aaste or assuring its disposal In the
most environmentally protective
manner depends upon a regulatory ap-
proach that alters the cost and avail-

-------
Jul ) 25, .7984
ability of Improper alternatives. Regu-
latory development and implementa-
tion has beer. slower than expected. In
part due to the difficulties of assuring
the ai’al!abilzty of disposal or treat.
tneiit alternatives.
Over the years. evidence has been
presented to the committee that cer-
tain types of land disposa l techniques
do not. constitute sound long-term dis-
posal options. In particular, landfills
and surface impoundments will ulti-
mately leak no matter how secure
their original constriction, no matter
how well they are initially lined. In
this context, the committee was faced
with considering whether landfills and
surface impoundments shtMd be al-
lowS to receive certain types of waste.
It is a troubling dilemma ‘ethen Con-
gre2s must address detailed technical
problems as a matter of public policy,
Unfortunately, e do not have the ex-
pert isc to acquire and assess the infor-
mation on these problems in the same
iashton as a regulatory agency. Gener-
ally. we are not scientists, we are not
engtneers. we do not have the derailed
experience in the des!gn. construction.
and operation of various technical al-
ternatives. Nevertheless, when public
pctic’y demands it. Congress must be
prepared to squarely confront these
difficult decisions.
Within this legislation the commit-
tee compe ls the EPA Administrator to
determine whether certain wastes
should continue to be deposited in
land disposal facilities. The bill pro-
vides a rmgorous time schcdule for
these decisions. If the Administrator
fails to adhere to the nehed’Ue, the till
reQuires that the waste be deposited in
the most technoiogicaliv advanced
land disposal facillties until a decision
Is made. In adopting this approach,
the comnu ti Ce rcjected arguments
that failure of EPA to make a timely
jud nient should result In the prohibi-
tion of placement of these wastes In
land disposal stes.
It makes little sense to create a forc-
ing mechanism which, if it fails to
work, would drastically disrupt the
fundamental waste disposal aystern.
There is too much reliance on laud dis-
posal and too long a leadtime to get
adequate alternatives into contnu’reial
operation to believe that the prohibi-
tion of land disposal as a penalty f or
EPA failing to conclude a regulatory
study for unknown reasons is a proper
environmental res ult, Consequently,
the conin’mlttee acted to assure that f
EPA could not meet the ambitious de-
cision schedule included In tIus bill,
wastes would be deposited in the most
advanced disposal facility to enhance
enrirnnniental protect on.
Aitnough the committee bill p laces a
difficult test for the Administrator to
meet In making a decision to allow a
waste to continue land disposal, it rec-
ognizes that certain types of land dis-
posal can be appropriate and environ-
mentally sound. For example, land
treatment may be an acceptable din
posal alternative for those hazardous
wastes which can be biodegraded or
transformed directly by the land treat-
ment proeras or, If hazardous sub-
stances remain after land treatment,
where the hazardous substances o
be immobilized.
Similarly, In requirIng a showing
that there Is no migration of a ;saste,
as long as the waste remains hazard-
ous, from the disposal unit or the in-
jection acne, the bill recognizes that
underground Injection of hazardous
wastes can be safe environmental tech-
nology. Underground Injection of haz-
ardous wastes Is regulated through the
Safe Drinking Water Act. These regu-
lations require so-called class I wells to
inject below drinking water sources
and to assure that no migratloti will
occur from the injection zone. This
bill speeifica!ly refers to the term—in-
jection r,one—as It is used in the Safe
Drinkir’,g Water Act and Its regula-
tions.
Thus, operators who can demon-
strate that their wells meet the under-
ground injection control regulations
would be able to show that the waste
that they dispose of would not migrate
from the Injection zone. Similarly,
States that operate approved under-
round Injection control programs
could make such a dcmor.stratmon for
all approved wells within the State.
This is an important element of the
bill. While there is consideiab!e anxie-
ty over the use of the land for the dis-
posal of hazardous waste, It is equally
Important that the law provide an ade-
quate distinction between those tech-
niques that can be environmentally
sound and those that cannot. This dis-
tinction is provided (or class 7 under-
ground injection wells that meet exist-
ing regulations which require no liii-
gration from the injection zone; it is a
proper distinction.
Mr. CHAFEE- Mr. President. we
h;;e some how,ekeeping details, but I
would just taken one of them and
then I know Senator Buansex, Senator
Baamsv, stud Senator Lau’rn aaaG
have amendments,
Let me just take this one first:
Mr. Piesident. on October 28. 1963.
the Committee on EnvIronment and
Public Works favorably reported S.
75? with an amendment in the nature
of a substitute,
Mr. President, I ask unaninious con-
sent that the committee amendment
be agreed to and that all subsequent
ameniKineruts be to the text of S. 757 as
reported on October 28. 1963.
The PRESIDING C)flWER. With-
out objection, It Is so ordered.
The committee amendment In the
nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Rhode Island re-
quest that the amendment agreed to
be considered as original text for the
purpose of amendment?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, It Is so ordered.
S9 153
asizworflifl NO. asos
(Purpose’ This amendment Insinicts the Ad.
ministratcr of EPA to study methods (or
cQending the useful lire of sanitary land-
fills and to explore more elf.cient n sa to
use fi ltedorciostdl&tidflUsI - -
Mr. BURD 1CK, Mr. President. I
send an amt’ndinent to the desk and
ask for its immediate cor,sideration.
The PRESiDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report , -
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows;
The Senator from North Dakota tMr,
Busnics) proposes an amendment num-
tiered 5405.
Mt BURDICK. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with,
The PRESiDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it Is so ordered.
Thc amendment Is as follows:
S 57 is amended by aodrng the folioa ifl
new sectioit
Ste. . Section E002 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is amended by inuertlng after
subsection p) the Collov,lng 110 % subsection.
and redesiglating succ’ecdlng ai,bsertionii at.
cordmirly
‘(q Exrniamc Luicpiu. Un awo Rays’
I N C LcimriLLiNc Ai.zss.—The Aurninistral or
shall eondu t detailed. contprchunsse stud-
ies of methods to exicnd the useful life of
aanktary iendlttts sort to trUer use ,sitea iii
‘aiilclt : i:s Or clo tS tandiblis ate located.
Such studiesshall address—
‘ f l ; met hods to rrt’ ce the volume of ma-
lerials before placenral in lar’d!:!ls:
“(2) more efficient systems for doposit,ng
waste rn isndjilis;
‘Gl) methods to enhance the rate of de’
rompositiof o f solid aas e in lan.Jfiils. in a
safe and entironmentaib acceptable
manner
“(41 rneitiane production trots closed land-
fill units,
‘15) innouatne uses of closed la-itfill sites.
including use for encrgy produetLon such as
solar or wind energs and use for natals re-
cosery.
“(6) potential for use of sewaae treatment
sludge in reclaiming landfilled areas: and
“(7) methods to coordinate use of a land-
fill owned by one munic:paliiy b nearby
municipal t ttes, end to cstabi’stu eq-jiiatjle
rates for such use, taking Into account the
need to prot ide future IaiicThiI capacity to
replace that so used
The Aduiioistrator is authorized to conduct
demonstrations in the areas of study pro ud-
S in this subsection. The Athniitistrator
aIialt periodically report on the results of
such studies. sith the lirst such report sub-
mitted not later than Octobet t, 1986
Mr. BLJRDICK. Mr. President, I am
Introducing an amendment to S. 757,
the Resource Consen’atucn and Recov-
ery Act. Tilts amendment instructs the
Administrator of EPA to study meth-
ods for extending the useful life of
si’nutary landfills and to explore more
efficient won to use filled or closed
landfills.
In North Dakota and all over the
country there are thousands of mu-
nicipalities with landfills that are
filled or nearly filled to capacity. Find-
ing sites to replace these landfills is
becoming ncreasingl i more difficult
and expensit’e. Cities In my State can’t
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
2o/

-------
S 9166
major concerns that I felt had to be
addressed before the bill was palatable
tu i e. Those points were:
First, deadlines for EPA action must
be attainable;
Second. a provision to consider
mining waste differently than other
waste because It Is, by nature, high
volume waste with low toxicity;
Third. a provision to exempt second-
ary and tertiary ponds from the
double liner requirements of the bill;
Fourth. opposition to the House
amendment requiring landfills to con-
duct risk assessment surveys that are
too expensive and questionable In
value: and
Fifth, support for EPA’s current
study of underground storage tanks
and opposition to efforts to tie the
Agency’s hands with requirements
that are unnecessary and which pre-
suppose the outcome of the study now
underway.
First, I v. ish to say that without the
cooperation of Senator CHAVEz. it
would not have been possible, as far as
this Senator Is concerned, that I could
be here on the floor supporting this
legislation. And on these criticisms,
which I think have been corrected, he
certainly deserves a lot of commenda-
tion for his able leadership and his
able staff to make these corrections
and work these things out.
Let me address these points individ-
ually. Although they are not the only
problems I have with S. 757, they do
constitute the lion’s share of those
concerns.
First, the committee bill originally
established some 35 deadlines for EPA.
Now all of us know that EPA has
never seen a deadline It could not miss.
The problem is that oftentimes, EPA’s
resources are limited, and their prior-
ities are not always In harmony with
the demands of Congress. The result Is
that the moment EPA misses a dead-
line, they are In litigation, and the
Court mandates timetables or makes
decisions that are not always In the
best Interests of good rulemaking.
When EPA originally proposed the
deadlines in the biLl, they were acting
under the assumption that they had
unlimited resources. When those dead-
lines were Incorporated Into the bill,
EPA realized how very unrealistic
they were. I joined the battle In their
support, and the result of those ef-
forts is the committee amendment re-
vising those deadlines. I feel that it Is
important for this body to be delibera-
tive, especially In the case of highly
emotional Issues like this one. The
committee amendment does that In
this case— it substitutes deadlines that
are workable for deadlines that were
simply unattainable. It Is my sincere
hope that even these deadlines are not
overly optimistic, because If they are
the courts will make the decisions
EPA Is directed to make. Nonetheless,
the House bill retains deadlines that
are more unrealistic than those In the
Senate bill. This body should adopt
the more reasonable deadlines of the
committee amendment, and It must
stand firm with the House to see that
the deadlines that find their way into
law will result In deliberative-and sup-
portable rulemaking by the Agency.
I think this Is most critical that this
happen and that all Senators under.
stand the critical nature of this and
that the Senate be able to stand by Its
position on this particular issue.
Second, the bill as passed by the
committee contains provisions that
relate to banning certain land disposal
practices. During committee consider-
ation, Senator SIMPSON and I proposed
an amendment to recogmze that, for
the purposed of this amrndment,
mining waste is not the same and
should not be treated as the same as
other wastes covered under RCRA. By
its nature, mine waste must be dis-
posed of In surface Impoundments be-
cause of the sheer volume of waste
rock, mill tailings, slag, and overbur-
den generated on a daily basis In the
extraction. beneficlation, and process-
ing of ores and minerals. The double
liner requirement of S. 757 Is Impracti-
cable for these surface Impoundments,
and the effect of this requirement
could be to shut down certain parts of
the mining industry altogether. Al-
though the language that the commit.
tee adopted originally left ambiguity
In Its application to the mining com-
munity, the committee has since
agreed to offer an amendment to recti-
fy that ambiguity, and I urge the
adoption of this very important com-
mittee amendment.
In a related issue, my third concern
revolved around the Imposition of
double liner requirements on second-
ary and tertiary treatment facilities.
By nature, these facilities are also very
large, often acres and acres In size.
Double lining these ponds would be
impractical, and most companies
would simply opt to close them down
altogether. This concerned me primar-
ily because the ponds are usually used
for secondary treatment of water
which is close to being clean, and con-
taining few of the hazardous wastes
that this bill Is designed to address.
Tertiary ponds are often used only to
cool the water before it is discharged
into the receiving waters or to control
the flows of those discharges. In
either event, It is simply unnecessary
to double line these facilities. Again, I
commend Senator CrrMtE and Senator
STAFFORD for their efforts In resolving
this concern. The committee amend-
ment would waive the double liner re-
quirements If the NPDES permit re-
quirements were being met by the fa-
cility.
My fourth concern revolved around
an amendment that was passed by the
House relating to risk assessment sur-
veys. This amendment would require
each of 450 landfill operators In the
United States to choose and pay con-
tractors to perform complete health
risk assessments at their sites, withIn 1
year. The assessment would have to
Include Comprehensive air and water
July 25, 1984
monitoring and the taking of medical
histories of all persons living or work-
ing within 2.5 miles of the site. It Is
doubtful whether EPA and all private
contractors combined could perform
these amendments. In addition, the
studies would be highly questionable
because of the small size of the sam-
ples, the lack of any consistent expo-
sure at the site, and the lack of any
meaningful control group. In short.
what seems to be a good concept, is se-
verely flawed. The risk assessments
would be expensive—at least $300,000
a piece—and since the operator pays
for the study, It Is questionable wheth-
er anyone would believe the results.
Senators HUMPRREY and CRANSTON
have come up with an amendment
that is satisfactory to me. and I hope
the Senate will adopt It and stick to it
In conference.
My final concern was one which was
only resolved today. It deals with un-
derground storage tanks.
First, EPA Is currently doing a study
to determine the extent of this prob-
lem. The Agency testified to the com-
mittee that it had the authority to es-
tablish a regulatory program if It
deemed it to be necessary.
Second. the Agency and I opposed
Initial efforts to go beyond that, and I
still have concerns over the extent of
the Durenberger amendment. None-
theless, I want to commend the Sena-
tor for his accommodations to the con-
cerns we raised. Although his amend-
ment still binds EPA to a regulatory
program that Is specific, he has come a
long way to resolve the concerns I had
over this problem.
Third, the amendment Is not yet
complete or reviewed by me or the
committee. Consequently, I ask the In-
dulgence of the Senate and the floor
leaders that we have an opportunity to
review it. for its technical accuracy.
Fourth, In addition, since the lan-
guage was only agreed to this after-
noon, and I feel that a legislative his-
tory accompanying the amendment is
essential, I hope the RECORD could
remain open for a period of time ade-
quate so that the Senate could clarify
the legislative record as to exactly
what Is Intended If there Is no prob-
lem.
I thank the Senator very much.
I commend my colleagues on the En-
vironment and Public Works Commit-
tee for their hard work and persever-
ance on this piece of legislation. It Is a
highly technical piece of legislation, I
think we made substantial Improve-
ments from where we were 6 months
ago with this. I thank all my col-
leagues.
Mr. DURENBERGER addressed the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DURENBERGER, Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
SPECTER] be added as a cosponsor to
this amendment.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

-------
S9168
cation to locate a hazardous waste dis-
posal site In Noxubee County. In my
y q ”i P! i bill provides the needed
revisions and restrictions on hazardous
waste disposal that more fully protect
the lives and well-being of the public.
The bill provides the necessarily
strengthened framework which estab-
lishes guidelines that take the “guess-
work” out of hazardous waste disposal.
If property administered, this should
prevent disastrous and tragic environ-
mental contamination.
- This bill will also aid us In our ef-
forts to control mismanagement of
hazardous waste. We have Superfund,
which Is a remedial solution to past
mismanagement, and is in markup
right now for its reauthorization. Mis-
sissippi has, until recently, been lucky
enough to have only one site which
needed to call on Superfund for clean-
up. I am sad to report today that we
have another potential chemical waste
mess on our hands.
By passage of this legislation, we
take another step toward wiping out
the violators of hazardous waste dLs-
posal regulations. By tightening the
monitoring of hazardous waste genera-
tors, we take preventive measures
which 1l work with those remedial
measures already In place. Mississippi
will benefit from passage of this bill:
the people of the United States will
benefit from passage; and, future gen.
ei-ations are protected from current
abuses and mistakes.
I commend the managers of S. 75’l
and the members of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works for
their work in fashioning this consen-
sus environmental protection legisla-
tiort, I am pleased to support Its pas-
sage.
• Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise in
support of the amendment offered by
Senator DURENDERGEIt to regulate most
commercial underground storage
tanks.
According to the General Account-
ing Office (GAO] report on Federal
and State efforts to protect ground
water, published in February 21, 1984,
Michigan State officials believe that
ground water contamination Is a sig-
nificant problem. An assessment of
ground water contamination in July
1982 showed that there were 441
known contaminauon sites in Michi-
gan. 456 suspected sites, and thou-
sands of potential sites. Of those 441
contamination sites. 171 or 38.8 per-
cent are contaminated by petroleum
products storage, Including under-
ground gasoline storage tank leakage.
Surprisingly, fewer of these sites are
contaminated by industrial waste than
by leaking petroleum products.
While the bill before us today ad-
dresses many problems with the cur-
rent law, It can be strengthened by ac-
cepting the Durenberger amendment.
Ground water is the primary source of
drinking water for about 50 percent of
the population In Michigan. Accept-
ance of this amendment can assure
the citizens In Michigan that the Fed-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
era! Government is concerned about
their ground water contamination and
will do something about it. EPA
should have the authority to require
owners and operators to monitor the
leakage in these tanks arid require
proper cleanup. It Is the responsible
action to take. The amendment grants
EPA wide discretion to deal with this
problem and allows the EPA to tailor
its regulations to different categories
of tanks depending on the location
and size. The amendment also gives
special consideration to small business-
es and special problems they may en-
counter with the new regulations.
I urge Senate adoption of this
worthwhile amendment.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi-
dent. I move approval of the amend-
snent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate on the amend-
ment? If not, the question is on agree-
ing to the amendment of the Senator
from Minnesota (Mr. Duaznaancratj.
The amendment (No. 3408) was
agreed to.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DUBENBERGER. I move to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
A E14DMfl (T 505. 2194. 3785. 2796. 2797, 2800,
2801. 2803. 2805. AND 2806
Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. President, I see
no more Senators on the floor that
have amendments. We have some com-
mittee amendments. The Senator
from Alabama has an amendment.
Mr. President, I send amendment
Nos. 2794, 2795, 2796, 2797, 2800. 2801,
2802. 2805, and 2806 to the desk and
ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The bili clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island. Mr.
CRAFEE Uor himself, Mr. Swrosn. Mr. RAN-
DOz.PH. and Mr. Mzrcaeu.). proposes amend-
ments numbered 2794, 2795. 2796. 2797,
2600, 2801. 2802, 2805, and 2806, en bloc.
Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendments be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
A2ceNusn ’r No. 2’94
(Purpose: To make conforming amendments
to title and short title)
A Esaaiexr To TITLE
Amend the title to read as follows:
“To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act
to authorize funds for fiscal years 1985,
1986, 1987. 1988, and 1989. and for other
purposes.”.
SHORT TITLE
Strike the phrase “Solid Waste Disposal
Act Amendments of 1983” each place I I ap-
July 25, 1984
pears and Insert In lieu thereof “Solid
Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984”.
1 DMENT No. 2795
(Purpose: To make conforming amendments
to change years and amounts of authori-
zations for appropriations)
*ornoaxza TioN
Amend S. 757 by striking sections 2 and 3
and Inserting in lieu thereof the lolIoa ma:
“Sec. 2. Section 2007(a) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act Is amended by striking ‘and’
Immediately fol1o . Lag ‘1981’, and by insert-
ing Immediately before the period at the
end thereof’, $70,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1985, and $80,000,000
per fiscal year for fiscal years ending Sep-
tember 30. 1988. September 30. 1967. Sep-
tember 30, 1988, and September 30. 1989’.
“Sec. 3. Section 3011(a) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act Is amended by striking ‘and’
immediately following ‘1981’, and b Insert-
tog Immediately followIng ‘1982’ the follow-
Ing: ‘, $55,000,000 for the fiscal year 1985.
and $60,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal
years 1988, 1987, 1988 and 1989’,”
Asszsvgssi’r No. 2106
On Page 35, line 8. strIke “standards are”
and Insert In lieu thereof “variation is nec-
essary by reason of the smaller size and the
technical and managerial capability of such
generators, and Is”. -
Ammusr No, 2197
(Purpose: To clarify which dioxin-contain-
ing aastes are Included in the first catego-
i’y of hazardous wastes to be considered by
the Administrator for land disposal limita-
Uons)
On Page 39, line 13, Insert “(Proposed
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. P020. P021,
F022. and P023r’ Immediately alter “dioxin
containing hazardous wastes”,
M zwawzxr No. 2800
(Purpose: To make technical and clarifying
amendments to Section 13 regarding
export of dangerous waste)
On page 68, lIne 22, insert ‘and the ship-
ment conforms with the terms of such
agreement” Immediately after “(I)”.
Page 69. line 10. strike “concern” and
Insert in lieu thereof “contain”,
Page 71, lIne 2. strike “subsection” and
Insert In lieu thereof “subsections (81(5)
and”,
Page 71, line 19, Insert “(A)” limnediately
before “without”.
Pz- e 71, line 20. Insert “or, (B) where
there exists an International agreement be-
tween the United States and the govern.
ment of the receiving country establishing
notice, export, and enforcement procedures
for the transportation, treatment, storage.
and d sposai of hazardous wastes, in a
manner which is not In conformance with
such agreement” tmmediateiy after “coun
try”,
AMENDMENT No. 2801
(Purpose. To make miscellaneous technical
and clarifying amendments)
On page 33, line 4, Insert “without a
permit” Immediately before the comma.
On page 46, lIne 10, insert “; Frovtdrd
That the Administrator “shall not be pre-
cluded from requiring” Installation of a new
liner when the Administrator has reason to
“believe that any liner installed pursuant to

-------
July 25, 1984
the requirements of this subsection is leak
lug” immediately titer “such facility”.
AMEN D? ENT No. 2802
(Purpose: To clarify authority of Adxnlnls-
trator to enter into cooperative agree-
ments with Slates to assist in the adminis-
tration of new requirements and prohibi-
tions)
On page 85, line 18, insert immediately
after “requirement.” the foiloaing new sect-
tence: “Pending authorization under this
section of a State program which reflects
the amendments made by the Solid Waste
Dtcposal Act Amendments of 1984, the Ad-
miriistrator may enter into an agreement
with the State under which the State may
assist in the adiniuustratlon of the require-
ments and prohibitions a hlch take effect
pursuant to such amendments.”.
AMENOS D4? No. 2805
(Purpose: To grant Interim status to facili-
tIes not previously required to have a
permit under Section 3005 of the Act)
Amend S. 751 by adding the following new
section :
# 17 55tH stArts
See. . Sect Ion 3005 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is ascendcd by amending para-
graph (1) of subsection (e) to read as fol-
teat
“(1) owns or operates a facility required to
have a permit under this section —
‘MA) which facility was in existence on No-
vember 19, 1980, or
“(8) which facility is in existence on the
effective date of statutory or regulatory
changes under this Act that render the fa-
cility subject to the requirement to have a
permit under this section, Provided. That
the faci jity has not been pretiously denied a
permit under this section and authority to
operate the facility under this section has
not been presiously terminaLed,”,
(Purpose: To extend deadline for npiration
of Interim authorization of State hazard-
otis waste programs)
Amend S. 757 by adding the following new
section:
nnnrx *uTHoRsz*tioie 0!’ slAt s nazaaoous
WA5TS PROGRAMS
Ste. - Section 3006Cc) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is amended by stri¼ing
“twenty-four month period beginning art
the date sis months after the date of pro-
mulgation of regulations under Scctton 3007
through 3005” and Inserting in lieu thereof
“period ending no later than January 31.
1986”.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the
Senator asking for consicieration of
those amendments en bloc?
Mr. CHAFEE. The answer Is yes. I
move the adoption of those amend-
ments en bloc.
Mr. President. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the following explanations
of amendments No 21u4. 2195 2198.
2797. 2800. 2801. 2802. 2o05, and 2805
be printed In the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER With-
out objection, the explanations sill be
Included in the Racono.
There being no objection, the expla-
nations of the amendments were or-
dered to be printed in the R Ecoito, as
follows:
Aissrcaisnn No. 2195
(To make confor ming amendments to
ehange years and amounts of authorizs-
Lions for appropriations)
As Introduced In March 1983 and reported
in October 1983. 5. 751 authorized tunds for
fiscal years 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986. and i987
at let els based upon the administration’s
budget requests for fiscal years 1983 and
1984.
To account for the delay In Senate consid-
eration of the bill, this amendment a ill
retain the 5-year reauthorization cycle that
was ens isioned by the Committee and au’
thorize funds for fiscal years 1985 through
1989. The amounts authorized are also in-
creased to reflect the fact that both actual
1984 appropriattcns and Administrator
Ruckelshaus’ fiscal year 1985 budget sub-
mission to the Olfice of Management and
Budget exceed the figures in 5. 157. The Ad-
msnisr.rator’s budget submission is the best
estimate of funds needed for this program
and, as such, form the basis for the amounts
set forth in this amendment to sections 2
and 3 of 8.157.
There are no “Implied authortzations” In
5. 757. Agency actions that are directed b$
this bill, Including reports to Congress. are
to be carried out with funds that are avail-
able under the authority of other existing
law’s or are explicitly authorized bY this bill.
Ar,trnsintrNo. 2196
(To clarify authority oi AdmInistrator to
promulgate regulations for small quantity
generators that differ from those applica-
ble to iarge quantity generators)
-As reported, the bill explicitly provides
that the requirements that are to be pro-
mulgated by March 31. 1986 for small quan-
tity generators ‘may vary from the require-
ments applicable to hazardous waste gener-
ated in quantities neater than one thou-
sand kilograms during any calendar month.
to the extent the Adm.nistrator determines
such standards are adequate to protect
human health and the environment.” That
phrase is explains at page t l of the Com-
mittee Report.
Concern kiss been expressed that reten-
tion of the laws underlying requirement
and ultimate standard that ECRA regula-
tions assure protection of human health
and the ens ironnient might undercut the
explicit authority to vary for smaU quantity
generators the requirements applicable to
hazardous waste generated In quantities
greater than one thousand kilogrsnts per
month. Such a concern is based upon an Im-
proper reading of the law’. It Ia based upon a
mistaken belief that the Administrator is re-
quired by law to select a single regulatory
approach that Is applicable to all hazardous
wastes and generators of hazardous waste.
Hating promulgated a regulatory program
for large generators of chemical hazardous
wastes, a program that EPA contends Is pro-
tective of human health and the ens iron-
ment and is necessary to assure such protec’
tion. it is argued that the same regulatory
proe:am must be used ahene’er EPA is dl.
rected to proiiiulgate re;.ilatlona that
assure prot ection of hu man htalth and the
environment from hazardc’,,c wastes The
notion is that if EPA Is authorited ann capa-
ble of developing different regulations for
different situations, then the eitisting rcgti-
Lauons icr large generators are not “neces-
sary’ to protect human health snd the ens i-
ronment and are, therefore, not legally de’
fensible.
Such an argument assumes that use of the
word “necessary” In section 3004 Imposes
upon EPA a responsibility to select and pro-
mulgate only regulations that are ‘essen-
tial”, -‘vital” or “Indispensable”. How ever.
S 9169
“necessary” denotes that w-hlch fills an
urgent need, but not invariably an all-com-
riling need The stronger “essential” arid
“vital” are apphed to that without which
son-irthing, oy its nature, cannot e.’ust. ‘in-
dispensable” even more sv’eciCicatl dcnotes
that which cannot be ssrrificcd. fre’ljcntl )
it Is applied to part of a whole. there are tin-
dojbtedly portions of e,.isting regulations
that are ‘ ndispensabte’ and cannot be
sarued when faced with a rcqiiremri’.t to
“protect human health and the ens:ron-
ment’. To recognize that there are portions
of exifling regulations that are not ‘ Indis-
pensable”. however, does not In any asy
suggest that those portions are not ‘neces-
sary’ and, therefore, unlawful.
This amendment is a c lar lficatior of the
Administrator’s existing authority As with
mining a astes, the administrator is able to
choose from a range of regulatory options
that will satisfy the mandate that protee-
ttcn of human health and the ensiroismeat
be assured. When faced with a spec.fic prob-
lem, the Administrator can often identify
several options, each of which could protect
human health and the ens ironmont. The
Administstor Is not required to select th
option that would satisfy the statutory
mandate in the moat simple or most cost-e l-
fectise manner, He has a responsibil.tv to
protect human health and the environment.
and, am such. may choose among set cr51 ap-
proaches. The selection of a particular ap-
proach shall be lawful provided it satisfies
the statutory mandate and is not an arbi-
trsry or capncious decision. Distinctions
often can be and are made on the basis of
waste charactenstics, waste management
practices and locational criteria. This
amendment will simply clarify the Adrnin:s-
trator’s existing authority to make such dis-
tinctions in the specified instances and to
consider whether variation is necesatry by
reason of the smaller size and the technical
and nsanagei ial capability of small quantity
generators.
It is recognized that many #naIl quantity
gencrators may be small businesses that
may be adsersely affected if the fuil set of
subtitle C regulations are required. Nesef-
theless. these quantities of wastes from
smaller Individual generators may cause po-
tenttal harm if they are lniproperl man-
aged. Given these considerations, the
Agency should determine whether require-
ments for small quantity generators can be
varied from those applicable to other gen-
eratora white assuring protection of human
heaitn and the ens ironmer.t. In particular.
the Administ!ator ahould examine a hether
Ills possible to simplify, reduce the frequen-
cy of. or eliminate the existing reportirg
and record keeping requirements and still
provide adequate prptcctiun of human
heEth and the ensironment. Distincticr,s
may te made from requirements for larger
generators, and among classes of sn’atl
quantity generators or of tastes produ ced
by then.
Aurio Lcst No. 2191
(To clarify which diowin ontsining snat-’s
are included in the f:rst cait’gor, n li-i ;-
ardnus wastes to be ccns:der°ci hi’ tI’c Ad
mui,istra’or for land dizposr.i lintitatuer...
In hearings before the Consrncttee, EPA
statcJ that it planned to begin to pu: i il-
gate land disposal limitation reguiatien, rd
wouid mn,tia 11 y ret ira d:owin’cciitairi’it’ tin-
arc oi.s wastes and hazar&us siasres tL’iu-
bcrcd P01 11. P002. P003. P004. and P005 in
regulations promulgated pursuant to section
3001. Reco niaing that such waates arc
propcrly candidates for early ret iea, tP’r bill
specifies that these wastes hate been aeicct’
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

-------
S9170 -
S to be reviewed first and on a “fast-track”
basis.
On February 15. 1984. the Agency pub-
lished an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to announce the Agency’s cur-
rent activities to det eiop regulations to it-
strict or prohibit the land disposal of haz-
ardous wastes (49 FR 5854). On page 5858,
the Agency stated that the dioxin-contain-
ing hazardous wastes included in the “last
track” study are those identit led and pro-
posed to be added to 40 CFR 261.13 in an
April 4. 1983. Federal Register notice. Those
are proposed EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
P020, P021, P022 and P023. This amend-
mcnt clarifies the reference to ‘dioxin-con-
taming hazardous wastes” in this section of
the bill by adding specific reference to the
proposed hazardous waste numbers that are
set forth in the April 4, 1983. Federal Regis-
ter notice and cited in the February 15,
1984. notice.
It is noted that by including hazardous
wastes numbered F003. the universe of
wastes selected by the Congress for a “fast-
track” review under this section Is some-
a hat larger than that identified In the Feb-
ruary 15, 1984, Federal Register notice.
AssznMvn No. 2900
(To make technical and clarifying amend-
snents to Section 13 regarding export of
hazardous waste)
This amendment does not change the
meaning or original intent of the provision.
As stated on page 48 of the Committee
Report “(sthipments must conform with the
terms of the (internmttionall agreement to
satisfy the requirements of this section.”
The language added by this amendment
clarifies and codifies that original intent.
AssareaMEw? No. 2801
(To make miscellaneous technical and
clarifying amendments)
This amendment makes two clarIfying
amendments and one technical amendment
to correct a typographical error.
This first clarifying amendment relates to
on-site storage by small quantity generators
and the second relales to preservation of
the Administrator’s authority, in the con-
text of permit issuance or otherwise, to
order new liners at landfills or surface im-
poundments which Installed linen during
Interim status.
Araimian No. 2802
(To clarify authority of Administrator to
enter into cooperative agreements with
States to assist In the administration of
new requirements and prohibitions.)
This amendment ratifies the current prac-
tice of using State-EPA agreements to
enable States to participate as mi:’ h as pos-
sible in the Implementation of RCRA prior
to authorization of a State program under
Section 3006. For example. States that do
not yet have adequate authority to obtain
authorization may atiil hate auffic ent State
authority to be able to enter into agree-
meiits to conduct inspections and draft per-
mits for EPA. Other States may have made
the necessary statutory and reguiatory
changes to implement an independent SLate
regulatory program for small quantity gen-
eraLors between 100 and 1.000 kilograms
that EPA can acknowledge In an agreement.
In thoce cases, the Administrator may well
%ish to arrange to desote his pnorlties and
resources to other areas a here there Is not
ai-eady considerable State actitity and/or
to other States.
The agreement or existence of an operat-
big State program does not mean that the
Administraior relinquishes his authority or
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
responsibility. Until a State reeeives interim
or final authorization for a program compo-
nent, the Administrator alone is charged
with the legal responsibility under subtitle
C, We do not intend agreements to be
viewed as a de facto, more lenient type of
authorization,
A3WNDatENT No. 2805
(To grant interim status to facilities not pre.
viously required to hate a permit under
Section 3005 of the Act)
New paragraph (1)tB) amends RCRA See.
tion 3005Cc) to allow facilities in existence
subsequent to November 19. 1980 to qualify
for interim status if those facilities become
subject to the subtitle C requirements as a
result of amendments to the RCRA statute
or regulations issued pursuant thereto. Fa-
cilities subject to this provision include fa-
cilities in existence subsequent to Not ember
19, 1980 which treat, store or dispose of
newly listed hazardous wastes, including
mobile treatment units, and facilities which
treat, store or dispose of hazardous wastes
which were previously exempted from cer-
tain ECRA requirements but subsequently
became subject to these requirements as a
result of legislative amendments (i.e., small
quantity generator wastes). Facilities for
which RCRA pennits have been previously
denied or interim status has been previously
terminated would not be able to qualify for
lntenm status pursuant to this pro ision
under any circumstances.
AMENDMENT No. 2808
(To extend deadline for expiration of inter-
bit authorization of State hazardous waste
programs)
This amendment will assure that the
States have adequate time to fulfill the nec-
essary requirements so become fully author-
ized under Section 3006. Without this
amendment, the States’ Interim authoriza-
thins with expire on January 28, 1985. It Is
my understanding that approx’mately 7 to
14 States will not be able to meet this dead-
line. and so would lose their interim author-
izations, Therefore, this amendment glies
the States until January 26, 1986 to fuifill
their requirements before they lose their in-
terim status.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Is
there further debate on the committee
amendments?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I with-
draw amendment No. 2794.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it Is so ordered,
Mr. CHAFEE- Mr. President, I move
adoption of those amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ments.
The amendments (Nos. 2795, 2q96.
2797, 2800. 2801, 2802. 2805, and 2806)
were agrecd to en bloc.
AMfl DMENT NO- 34(19
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send
a series of 18 committee a’nendments
to the desk and ask for their inirnedi-
ate consideration. I ask that they be
considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, It Is so ordered. The
clerk will report the amendments.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr,
CHArECI proposes an amendment numbered
3409. en bloc,
Mr, CHAFEE. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
July 25 . 1.984
Ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
alit objection. It isso ordered.
The aniendment is as follows:
A’btznMsrir No. 3409
(Purpose: To extend deadlines in varIous
sections of the bill)
Proposed by Mr. CHAFEE (for himself
and Seiiators Smnoaa, Ranoisis. and
Mt’rcitsu.).
5 flON 5 LAND atseosM. azr.tir&tmores
On page 39. lIne 11. strike “July 1, 1985”
and insert in lieu thereof “twenty-four
months after the enactment of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984”.
On page Ii. line 11. strike “twelve” and
insert in lieu thereof .‘taentyJour”.
On page 41. line 18. strike “thirty-two”
and insert In lieu thereof -‘forty-eight”.
On page 41. line 20. strtke “forty.two” and
insert in lieu thereof “sixty”.
On page 41. line 21. strike “ftfty’two” and
Insert in lieu thereof “ses-enty-two”.
On page 41. line 22, immediately following
“enactment” add the following new sen-
tence- “The Administrator shalt base the
schedule on a ranking of such listed wastes
considering their intrinsic hazard and thetr
vohune such that decisions whether or not
to prohibit the land disposal of high volume
hazardous wastes with high intrinsic hazard
shall. to the maximum extent possible, be
niade by the date 42 months after the enact-
ment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Amendments of 1984 and decisions regard-
ing how volume hazardous wastes with lower
intrinsic hazard shall be made by the date
72 months after the date of such enactS
ment.” ,
On page 43, line 23, strike “one year” and
insert in lie u thereof “fifteen montha’.
SEcT ION a U5TINO/DflI5TINO MODIflCATION5
On page 51. lines 12 and 13. strike “twelve
months after the date such petition is
granted or six” and insert in lieu thereof
“twenty-four”.
On page 51, lIne 15. strike “, whichever is
later”.
On page $3. line 22. strike “two years” and
insert, in lieu thereof “twenty.emght
monthf.
5ECflON I 5Wt111N0 AND 5LENDINO OF
hAZARDOUS WAsTEs
On page 54, line 16, strike “twelve” and
insert in lieu thereof “fifteen”.
On page 60, line 12. strIke “twelve” and
insert in i eu thereof “fifteen”,
5E TiON 24 Alit EMI5StON5 FItOM LAND
DIsPOsAL FA iLIflE5
On page 85. line 22. strike “thirty” and
insert in imeu thereof “thirty-six”.
sEc-non 25 REpORT TO conoaEsa
On page 90, lIne 24 and 25. strike “March
15, 1984” and Insert in lieu thereof -‘Jane
15, 19SF
AMENDMENT No. 3409
(Purpose’ To charity Administrator’s author-
ity to require a permit to construct a haz-
ardous waste treatment, storage, or dispos-
al facility)
Amend S 757 by adding the following new
section
Sec. - Section 3005(a) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is amended by—
cli Strik ng “a” immediately after
“oc ning or operating” in t he first sentence
and inserting in lieu thereof “an existing fa-
cii ty or planning to construct a new”;
(2i inserting in the second sentence “and
the cortctrnctlon of any new facility br the

-------
S 9172
health and the entironment auid may take
Into account the practicable capacity of
such facilities. At a minimum such ret isions
tu e Iaci.ities potentially receiving such
wastes should require grou’idwater monitor-
lr.g as necessary to detect contaiiiination. es-
tabii 3 h criteria for the acceptable location
of new or eusting facil,ties. and protide for
corrective action as appropriate.”.
On page 72. bcgir’.ning line 20, strike all
throuwh page ‘3. line 16. and Inst rt In lieu
thereof the following:
(c) CoxtROi. or Ihnsaotrs Dis posaL—
(D IAl Not later than t1’ irt -six months
after the date of enactment of the Solid
Waste Diaposal Act Amendments of 1984.
cacti State shall adopt and implement a
permit program or other s stem of prior ap-
protal and conditions to assure that each
solid wasse management facility within such
State which may recene tazardous house-
hold waste or hazardous waste due to the
pro%iston of section 30t)2 1b for small quan-
tity generators (othcnise not subject to the
reqi .rcment for a permit under section
3005i tilt comply with the applicable crite-
ria promulgated under section 4004taJ and
sectit’n lOO3(ai l3k
‘f B I Not later than eighteen months
after the promulgation of resised criteria
under subsection 4004taV2), each State
shall adopt and lmplemcnt a permit pro-
grsin or olher system or prior approval and
coqditiona. to assure that each sniid waste
management tacility within auch State
‘chic” n’sy receive hazardous household
waste or hazardous waste due to the provi-
sion of section 3002 1W for small quantity
generators fotherwi, e not subjict to the re-
q;iirement for a permit tinder secion 3005)
will comply with the criteria revised unoer
sectien 4004faX2).
tCi The Administrator shall determine
wP’etlit.r each State has deseioped an ade-
Qi’ate program unoer thu. paragraph The
Administrator may make such a determina-
tiun in conjunction with approial. disap’
p’otal ur partial appro a1 of a StaLe plan
under ection 4001.
(21 In any State that the Administrator
d’ tenni:,cs has not adopted an adequate
prcitra;n for siirh faci lities undei paragraph
ili lBi by the date protided in au t h para-
gn’ph. the Administrator may use the au-
tho’-itiea a ’ai’able under sections 3007 and
3008 of this title to enforce the prohibition
In subsection (a) of this section witn respect
to such facilities. In no etent shall the Ad-
nunistrator or any other person be author.
Ized to bring a civil action under paragraph
is) of this section against any person sub-
ject to a compliance schedule Issued by the
State under a program that the Adininistra.
tur has deterniined to be adequate under
this paragraph. For purposes of this para-
grapn, the term requirement of this sub-
title in section 3008 shall be deemed to in-
elude criteria promugated by the Adnimia-
trator under sections lOO8iau3i and 40041 a)
of this tii I c. and the term ‘hazardous
wastes” in section 3007 shaU be deemed to
kicli.de sol;d waste at faciiit.es that may
handle haaarjoiis household tastes or has
arcloiis wastes from small quantity gencia-
tars,’.”
AMENDMENT No. 3409
tPt’p..%e. To clarify when common carrier ’
b I rail are subject to citizen suits)
Prvposrd b Mr. CHAFES (for himself
and Senator RaynoisiO.
On pag e 62. line 25. strike out “and”.
On page 63. line 4. strike out the period
(ar.d insert in l ru thereof “tand”. -
- On page 63. after lute 4. insert the follow-
ing-
5i InsertIng alter the first senlence
thereof the following.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
“A transporter shall not be deemed to
have contributed or to be contributing to
such handling. storage, treatment, or dispos-
al taking place after such solid waste or haz-
ardous waste has left the possession or con-
trol of such transporter. If the transporta-
tion of such waste was under a sole contrac-
tual arrangement arising from a published
tariff and acceptance for carriage by
common carrier b) rail and such transporter
has nercised due care in the past or present
handling, storage, treatment. traneportatton
and disposal of such waste,’
On page 80, tine 10, Insert immediately
after “tg).” the follow tng:
“A transporter shall not be deemed to
have contnbuted or to be eonlributirtg to
such handling, storage, treatment, or dispos-
al, taking p’ace after such solid waste or
hazardous waste has left the possession or
control of such transporter, if the tianspor-
tatton of such waste was undcr a sole con-
tractual arrangement aris,ng from a pub-
lished tariff and acceptance for carriage by
common carrier by raIl and such transporter
has e’cercised due care in the past or present
handling, storage, treatment, transportation
and disposal of such waste.”.
AMaraMErit No. 3409
(Purpose: To clan! y the Uniform Manifest
requirements)
Proposed by Mr. C IIAFEE (for himself
and Mr. R4xooi.nt)
On page 30, line 18. after “manifest”
Insert rpromulgated under this Act”.
On page 31, beginning lIne 1. strike alt
through page 32. line 9.
On page 32. line 10 stnke “(3)” and insert
in lieu thereof “(2)”.
On page 32. line 11,strike’ tI E’ each pI .tce
It occurs and Insert In lieu thereof “(6)”.
On page 32. line 20, strike “t i)’ and insert
In lieu thereof (31” and strike - paragraphs
12) and 13)” and inseri in lieu thereof “para-
graph 12)”.
On page 32, line 24. strike “(S E’ and Insert
In lieu thereof “(41” ,
On page 33. line 9. strike “(Si” and insert
In lieu thereof’15)”.
On page 33, line 18. strike ‘17)” and insert
In lieu thereof “(6E’, , -
On page 34. line 10. strike all after “prac-
tices-” through line 14.
On page 35, tIne 15. strike “(Si” and Insert
In lIeu thereof “(4i” ,
On page 35, tine 25. strike “(31” and insert
In lieu thereof “(2 1’,
AMrnDatzn No. 3409
fPiirpose’ To snake a clan fy lne amendment
on the u sc of absorbents)
Proposed by P-fr CHAFES (for hImself
and Senators Stsrroito. RtsooLflt. and
M.rcitasJ.
On page 44. begin—iiig on lit. ,. ‘ strike
“(including the minim:aat ion of tree licu ds
by other means than the addttion 01 a5sorb-
ent material, where technotogi’ttly fetisi
On page 44. line 6. Insert Intniedia,ely
after “landfills.” the following new sen-
tence’ “Such regulations shall a6o prohIbit
the disposal In landfills of liquids ttat ha v
been absorbed In materials that biodegrade
or that release liquids when compressed as
might occur during routine landfill opt-r.
ation.”.
July 25, 1984
On page 44, line 6. strike “of” immmedis’
tely after “disposal” and insert In lieu there-
of “In”.
,ASIrNDMnT No- 34li9
iPurpuse. To substitute the phrase’ oil ) ma-
terials” for the more narrowly ocfined
term ‘used oil”)
Proposed by Mr CHAStE (for himself
and Senators Sranon. RANDOLPH and
MITCHELL i.
On page 60. tines 4 and 8. strike ‘used oil”
each place it appears and Insert in lieu
thereof r.fly materials”.
On pa;e 60. line 4. insert a comma imme-
diatet after ‘-refining”.
As5flDMENT No- 3409
fPurpos- To delete deadline for EPA to de-
terranie appropriateness of using e irac-
t lon procedure toxicIty characteristics for
evaluating deltsling petItIons)
Proposed by Mr. CHAFES (for himsclf
and Stnators STseroap. RAsooLex. and
Mntisca).
On page 53, lInes 15 through 22 and insert
In lieu thereof the folloc ing’
“ D 1 not later than twenty-eight months
after the date of enactment of tile Sol,d
Waste D: pocal Act Amendments of 1964,
make”
AME S t’MENT No, 3409
(Purpose To rake locational criteria appli-
eabie if Ad’ninistratc.r faits to meet land
disposal limitation deadlines)
Proposed be Mr CHAFES (for himself
and S,natori. Snrroso. RAsooLi’x and
24 ncaE-i-)
On pace 43. lines 19. strike “il i” imrneoi
atel& after’ 3004 iti”.
AMENDMEST No 3409
iPurpose To clarify authority of Adminis’
trator to eatabl,sh treatment star.dards
app1icub e to land disposal practices ,
Pronosed by Mr CHAFES (for hImself
and Senators Srcrrcwo. RkNooLPH, and
MrrciiELi-).
On page 38, tine 7. Insert “(other than
paragraph (71’ immediately after “subsec’
tion”.
On pagc 42, line 19. insert “let eta or” im-
ntedately a :er “those”-
On psge 42. lInes 19 to 22. strike “are nec-
essary before such method or methods of
dtspo-.al of such ha?aroous waste would oe
protec’.ise of human health and the en.i-
ronmcr.t” and Insert in lieu thereof - sub-
staiit,’i’ y d’m’n,sh the toxicity of the naMe
or siibtaniia y reduce the like!ihood of mi-
gration of ha:ardous constituents from the
waste so fliat short-term and lone-term
threats to human health and the ent iron.
rent ar minimt:td”.
On paic 42, l:nes 22 to 25. and on p’ige 43,
lines I and 2 strike all after eniironment
and in 5 ert in l.eu thereof the folloning
“If such hazardous nate has been irtaied
to Lhe leie cr b a nteil,od sriec:fied in reg-
u.atiors prurn..yated under this para;rap;i.
such waste or residue thereof shall not oe
si,biect to any prot’itttion promiiigated
unot-r paragraph II) of this subsection and
ma) ot’ d’cposed of in a land disposal f’.citi:;
which meets the requirements of thi 5 sub-
title Any reguiation promulgated under
this paragraph for a particular hr,za-dc’us
w’s.stt shall become effectite on the same
date as any applicable prohibition prontul
‘ “ 7 1 : /u

-------
S 9174
whether such surface Impoundment Is leak-
ing. As part of such evidence an owner or
operator relying on subparagraph (A)(i) or
( I I) shall provide a certification by a regis.
tered professional engineer with academic
training and experience in ground water hy-
drology that (I) such surface Impoundment
Is not located In an area of vulnerable by-
drogeology, (Ii) the liner of such surface tin-
poundinent Is de.singed, constructed and op-
erated in accordance with the requirements
of regulations, and (iii) based on a reiiew of
ground ‘ater monitoring information and
other available information, there is no evi-
dence such liner Is leaking. A.s part of such
evidence an owner or operator relying on
subparagraph (C) shall provine a certifica-
tion by a registered professional engineer
with acadcmlc training and expertence in
ground water hydrololgy that auth surface
Impoundment satisfies the conditions set
forth in clauses ( I), (ii). and (iii) of subpara-
graph (C). based on analysis of those toxic
polluntnnLs and hazardous constituents that
are likely to be present In the untreated
waste stream, and that hazardous constitu-
ents are not likely to migrate from the tin-
poundrnent Into ground water. Within
twelve months after the receipt of such evi-
dence and not later than 36 months after
such date of enactment, and after notice
and opportunity for comment, the Adminis-
trator (or, If appropnate, the Slate) shall
athise such owner or operator on the appli-
cability of subparagraph (A) to such surface
Impoundment,
“(E) In any case In which a surface Im-
poundment is initially determined to be ea
cluded from the requirements of subpara.
graph (A) but due to a change In condition
subsequently becomes subject to subpara-
graph (A). the period for compliance In sub-
paragraph (A) shall be two years after the
date of discovery of such change of condi-
tion. In any case In which a surface tin-
poundment becomes subject to subpara-
graph (A) after the date of enactment of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments
011984 due to the promulgation of addition-
al listings or characteristics for the Identif I-
cation of hazardous wastes under section
3001. the period for compliance in subpara-
graph (A) shall be four years after the date
of such promulgation, the period for demon-
stations under subparagraph (B) and for
submission of evidence under subparagraph
(D) shall be not later than 24 months after
the date of such promu!gatlon, and the
penod for the Administrator or. If appro-
priate, the State) to advise such owners or
operators under aubparagraphs (B) and (D)
shall be not later than 36 months after the
date of promulgation,
“(F) In the case of any surface impound-
ment Is which the liners and leak detection
system have been installed pursuant to the
requirements of this paragraph and In good
faith compliance with section 390411) and
the Administrator’s regulations and guid-
ance documents governing liners and leak
detection systems, no liner or leaf detection
syatem which Is different from that which
was no Installed pursuant to this paragr ph
shall be required for such uiut by the Ad-
min su’ator when Issuing the first permit
under this section to such facility. Nothing
In this subparagraph shall preclude the Ad-
ministiator from requiring mstalatton of a
new liner when the Administrator has
reason to believe that any liner installed
pursuant to the requirements of this para-
graph is leaking.
((.fl For the purposes of subparagraph
(A’ ii). a surface impoundment is located In
I an area of vulncrabFe hydrogeology if the
Impotinoment is over or h3drologicaliy con-
nected to—
“(I) a sole source aquifer, or
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
“(Ii) a formation which contains an under-
ground source of drinking water If such for-
mation or the unsaturated soils hydrologi-
cally connected to such formation are char-
acterized by high hydraulic conductivity of
permeability (including karat formations,
and medium-to-course-grained materials or
fractured rock) or are geologically unstable,
and there Is no Intervening natural barrier
lormamtion that would significantly restrict
migration of waste constituents.”.
On page 49. line 2. before the quotation
marss insert the following:
“The Adminstrator shall promulgate regu-
lations or lssule guidance documents imple-
menting the requirements of paragraph (1)
within two years after such date of enact-
ment. Until the effective date of such regu-
lations or guidance documents, (lie require-
ment for the installation of two or more
liners may be satisfied by the lnstallatlQn of
a top liner designed, operated, and con-
structed of materials to prevent the migra-
tion of any constituent Into such liner
during the period such facility remains In
operation (including any post-closure moni-
toring period), and a lower liner designed,
operated and constructed to preient the mi-
gration of any constituent through such
liner during such period. For the purpose of
the preceding sentence, a lower liner shall
be deemed to satisfy such requirement if it
is constructed of at least a three.foot thick
layer of recompacted clay or other natural
material with a permeability of no more
than lx 10-’ centimeter per second.”.
On page 43. line 7, strike “section” and
inset-f In lieu thereof “subsection”.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate on the amend-
ment? If not, the question Is on agree-
ing to the amendment. -—-— -
- The amendment (No. 3409) was
agreed to. ---------— -—. - - -
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I send
to the desk a series of explanations of
the amendments which have just been
agreed to. These explanations are In
the same sequence as the amendments
sent to the desk and cons.dered en
bloc and can be identified by the title
at the top. I ‘hsk that they be printed
In the Rzconn,
There being no objection, the mate-
rial was ordered to be printed In the
RECORD, as follows:
AI NDME?lT TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN VARIOUS
SECTIONS OF T SILL.
8. 757 contains numerous statutory dead-
lines for various actions and decisions by
EPA. Since reporting the bill, we have met
on set eral occasions with repreaentattvcs of
EPA to assure that the deadlines are reason-
able and attainable. EPA requested several
deadline extensions and assured us that
they could meet the new deadlines we have
agreed to. This amendment will make those
changes.
As mod.fled by this amendment, new sec-
tion 3t’0 b,(6)cA) requires EPA to publish,
not later than 24 months after enactment, a
schedule for decidir.g whether or not to re-
strict the land disposal of wastes listed
under Section 3001. This schedule must pro-
vide for review and decision on at least one-
third of the listed wastes w.thln 48 months
after enactment, for at. least two thirds of
the listed wastes wIthin 60 months after en-
actment, and all listed wastes not later than
the date 72 months after enactment. These
fractions refer to the number of wastes
listed, and not the volume of wastes listed.
The schedule mandated by subsection
(b)(61(A must be based on environmental
“ns1derations and objectives. II IS not ax-
July 25, 1.984
pected’that EPA will know which wastes It
Intends to propose to ban prior to publica-
tion of the schedule, therefore We do not
expect EPA to place In the first third wastes
which will be restricted and in the last third
wastes which will not be restricted. How’ev-
er, In establishing the schedule, EPA must
consider factors such as the intrinsic hazard
of a waste, In evaluating the intrinsic
hazard of a waste. EPA should consider a
w asta’s toxicity and may consider other fac-
tors such as mobltty. persistence and pro-
pensity to bioaccumulate. In addition. LPA
must 5 pnsider the volume of a waste gener-
ated or managed In land disposal. Accord-
ingly, large volume wastes with a high In-
trinsic hazard shall be placed In the first
third and so on. with low hazard, low
volume wastes in the last third. Because of
the relatit ely short time frame for publica-
tion of the schedule, w&expect EPA to rely
on.. xIstmngdaLaj for determining waste s’ol-
times.
As introduced on March 15. 1984. amend-
ment numoer 2804 would have simply ex-
tended the deadlines in sectIon 5 on land
disposal limitations, Concern was expressed
that, without the imposition of a statutory
standard, pressure would be placed on EPA
to establish a schedule that would place
high-volume wastes and wastes with high
intrInsic hazard In the last third and that
decisions whether to prohibit the land dis-
posal of such wastes would not occur for 72
months. Such a result would be unaccept-
able. Therefore, the amendment. was mcdi’
fled to include a mandatory, judIcially en-
forceable, statutory standard for the sched-
ule.
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY ADMINiSTRATOR’S AU’
Th RITT TO REQUIRE A PERMIT TO CON-
STRUCT A HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL FACILITY
On May 19. 1980, EPA promulgated regu-
lations establishing procedures for permit-
ting hazardous waste management facilities.
Among oilier things, these regulations pro-
hibit the construction of new facilities
before the Issuance of a RCRA permit. See
40 C.F R. 1270,1O(f)(1). This amendment
will clarify the Administrator’s authority to
require a RCRA permit to construct a haz-
ardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal
facility and codify that. portion of the May
19, 1980 regulations.
One purpose of this provision is to provide
the Agency with an opportunity to review
the choice of location for such facilities
before there has been a significant commit.
ment of resources. Recent studies have con.
cluded that locational characteristics and
requirements are at least as Important to
protection of human health and the cml-
ronment as are minimum technological
characteristics and requirements, For exam-
ple, although double iiners and leak detec-
tion systems are an mmpro ement oser the
current most widely used technology, the
fact that double liners are known to esentu.
ally Icak means that eten such double .lined
facilttics may not be protective of human
health and the environment If thea are lo-
cated In areas of vulnerable h dro cology,
The need for EPA to establish and enforce
locational criteria is as essential to protec-
tion of human health and the eririronment
as Is the need for periodic reiision of tech-
nological standards.
As Introdjeed on March 15, 1984, this
Runendr:wnt revealed an inconristenrv be-
tween the EPA regulations um.d r the Toxic
S ’ih tapc s Control A ’t T CA) an the reg.
ulations tinder RCRA affecting the con-
struction and operit,on 01 laad-base incin-
erators, Under RCRA. no construction may
begin prior to receipt of a final RCRA

-------
July 25, 1984
financial guarantee that qualifies as evi-
dence of financial responsibility pursuant to
the EPA’s regulations. Second. the amend.
rrtent pro tdes that evidence of financial re-
sponsibility may be provided by any one, or
any combination, of the folloair.g: Insur-
ance, letter of credit, gdarantee. surety bond
or qualification as self-insurer.
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY WHEN COMMON CARRI-
ERS BY RAIL ARE SUBJECT TO CITIZEN SUITS
New section 7002(a)(1)(B), added by S.
757, allows citizens to sue any persons v.ho
are contributing to the trax-.sportation or
disposal of hazardous wasts which may
present an imminent and substantial eridan-
germent to health or the environment.
Under this section. transporters performing
mere transportation functions potentially
may be sued for dangers presented by haz-
ardous aaste at hczardous asste facilities.
Common carrier U ansporters of hazardous
waste must aeccpt for transport shipments
of hazardous aaste, They cannot choose
which shippers or consignees they would
like to serle. However, under section
7002a)UXB), such transporters may be
sued even though they properly transported
the hazardous uaste and had no other role.
This amendment would correct this inequi-
ty.
This amendment would be cor.sistent with
the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse. Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). CERCLA provides that a trans-
porter may be liable [ or damages resulting
from the release of hazardous waste from a
facility, which the carrier transported to
that hazardous waste facility—but only If
the carrier actually selected that facility.
Under new section 7002CaXDB, however, a
citizen could bring an action against the
transporter for contributing to the past
transportation of this hazardous a aste even
though it did not select the site. The action
could include a claim that an innocent
transporter should undertake or contribute
to site cleanup. CERCLA recognizes that
such a transporter should not be liable
under those circumstances. With this
amendment section 7002(a)(l)tB) will also
deal with transporters in the same manner.
AMENDMENT TO CI,AIIIFY THE UNIFORM
MA INFEST REQUIREMENTS
Since the Committee reported S. 757 the
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest regula-
tions have been promulgated, in March of
this year. The Department of Transporta-
tion has indicated that several conforming
changes to the bill would be desirable, par-
ticularly to the small quantity generator
provisions.
This amendment responds to the concerns
raised by the Department, principally by
striking new section 3002Cb)(2 This aill
avoid confusion about the applicability of
the Hazardous Materials Regulations as to
conlaineiization of aastes Also, it aill
eliminate the suggestion that States can
impose manifesting requirements other
than those consistent aith the Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest regulations.
Undcr those regulat.ons, hoaever, thre
are a numbi’r of regulatory options relaurig
to man .fesL requirements that are avail:ibe
to the States and that are not preempted by
the rules.
Although no other form may be requirrd
b3 a State to accompany a asste shipment,
the Uniform Mantfcst form contains snace
to allow the entry of certain or.timal State
Information itern.s in addition to the federal-
ly-required items These itemc include Slate
mar.IfcsI numbers; State Idvncification num-
bers for generators, transporters, and treat-
ment. storage, or disposal (TSD) fac ,lities:
telephone numbers for the transporter and
TSD facilit . EPA or State hazardous aaste
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
numbers; additional waste descrlptions and
handling codes. SLates may require genera-
tors to complete any of the informational
Items Included in the optional State section
of the form prior to the transportation of
the hazardous waste, and may require
owners or operators of facilities to complete
any of these State information items as a
condition of the acceptance of waste at TSD
facilities.
States may also require generators or TSD
facilities to send the Uniform Manifest or
other information related to the shipment
under separate cover (e g,, by mail), as long
as this does not interfere a ith the actual
movement of the waste. By this means,
Stetes In alilch hazardous waste disposal fa-
cilities are located may obtain information
from all generators using those facilities. In-
cluding generators located in other States.
These requircment,s may be imposed both
by the State in ahich the generator is locat-
ed and the State in which the designated fa-
cility is located. States may unpose sanc-
tions against generators for failing to pro-
vide required State information.
In addition to shipments that are subject
to the Federal manifest requirements,
States may require the Uniform Manifest to
accompany shipments of waste that are not
subject to the Federal requirements. For ex-
ample. States may require the Uniform
Manifest for shipment.s of wastes that are
defined as hazardous wastes under State
law, but not under Federal law, Further-
more. States may require the Uniform
Manifest for shipments by generators quali-
fying for the Federal small generator ex-
emption.
In addition to the additional Information
which States may require, a State may also
require, aith some limitations, generators to
use forms printed by the State; and the
State may print its name. State-assigned
document number, and other inlorlnatlon
on the required form. For example, a State
may print on Its form a notice to generators
that they are required to submit copies of
the Uniform Manifest to the State.
AMENDMENT TO MAKE A CLARIFYING
AMENDMENT 015 THE USE OF ABSORBENTS
The regulations to be promulgated under
new 13004Cc), “Liquids In Landfills,” shall
prohibit the disposal of liquids In landfills
that have been absorbed in material that
biodegrades or releases liquids when com-
pressed as might occur in routine landfill
operations. The use of absorbents should be
consistent with the purposes and objectives
of this Act and particularly with the finding
that land disposal in general Is the least de-
sirable form of aaste management because
of the problems associated with assuring
long-term containment of hazardous aastes.
The bill’s current language regarding
“m’ lmization of free Uquids by other
means than the addition of absorbent mateS
rial. a here technologically feasible” does
not clearly state the intent of the protision.
In additton, the language only refers to con.
taincrized llqutds. Thts amendment aill
clai ty the intcnt and ni ke the protision
applicable to centalnerixco as aell as buik
or rioncontainerized liqu!d hazardous
aastes -
The goal or mir’imlatng liquids Is to reduce
the reaay migration of liquid wastes a rn the
potential for subsidence To this end, the
preferred liquids aaste management meth.
ods are, (1) reduction In liquid waste genera-
tion by process design cha!’ges (e g, using
less liquid or recirculating rinse aater) and
by not miaing hazardous wastes aith liq-
uids. (2) rec)cl lng and recovery Ce g , soltent
extractloni. (3) treatment by destruction
(e.g.. incineration). (4) treatment to render
the aaste or liquid fraction nonhazardous
S 9177
(e.g.. coagulation and precipitation). (5)
treatment by removing liquids e g.. decant-
ing, centrifuge, vacuum drum or conveyor.
filter press, distillaUon. reverse osmosisi and
(6) treatment by mixing aith agents (e,g,
chcmlcal reagents asid certain at;eri ’crtt)
that remove “free tiqulds,”
Chemical reagents soiidzfy and stabilire
liquid aastes by such reactions ca encapsu-
lation, ion exchange. precipitation and
chemical transformations. They also teno to
reduce tile leachability of chemical eon titu-
ents, E.’tamples of chemical reagents include
cement—or lime-based materials. pozzo!anic
materia!s, and thermoplastic or or an;c
binders. By contrast, absorption Is priinaiily
a ph sical process goterned mainl by cap;l.
lary action, surface tension, and filling toid
space, Absorption does. ho-seter. also in-
volve chemical and elcctroma nctiC reac-
tions, and Includes many chemical resgents.
Some absorbents are utiaeceptsble for
treating liquids before landfill disposal be-
cause they either biodegrade or fail to pro-
vide structural stability, Absorbents that
biodegrade (e.g., Sca dust, municipal t. acte
and shredded paper) are unacceptable be-
cause ahen they btodergrade they collapse
and release free liquids. Absorbents that fail
to protide structural stability Ce g - saadust,
shredded paper and ceitain vermiculitcs)
are also unacceptable because of their
sponge-like behatior i.e., they absorb liq-
uids but readily release them under pres-
sures that may occur in landfills. Examples
of absorbents that are likely to be found to
be acceptable are the chemical reagents dis-
cussed above and find-grained earthen ma-
terials (e,g,, bentonite. montmoriliionite, ka-
olinite, and Fuller’s earth). Fine-grained ma-
terials have a large-capillary potential a hen
unsaturated, and may be acceptable if they
protide structural stability as well as remov-
al of “free liquids,” The atillty of absorbent
materials to retain liquids under pressure is
a function of the amount of pressure. the
percent of votd space filled with liqutas, and
the structural strength of the material lie -
the percent of void space retained under
pressure).
EPA is expected to develop and formulate
criteria distinguishing betaeen acceptable
and unacceptable absorbents. A list of unac-
ceptable mixing agents Ce g, biodegradabie
materials and materials that readily retease
waterl or unacceptable chatacterlstics may
be developed to exclude certain absorbent.’,
altogether from use In hazardous aaste
management practices. Absorbents n t
listed as unacceptable. e,g.. fullers earth,
would have to pass specific performnr,ce
standards or test criteria to be proven ac-
ceptable Each material from each so 1rre
projected for use aould hate to be sub,ectcd
to testing to determine that it aill pert crm
adequately during transport and in the
landfill entironment. Such criteria might
also be ap ,lied to specific hazardous aa.’ ,tis
and speduied absorbents to determ;ne corn-
paLihI: y on a ca.se by case ba .s under con-
trolted pres:ure and tempei attire test cct’di-
tlons r;mulating the ir, LLd etniror.mcnt
In addition to performance criteria. tPA
is etpected to detelop orieia;irg g t ,dL.l ,i%cc
for use on a case by cake basis to contrul
man gemer.t and dispci sLt iart’tes For c-
ample, eten an aiccgtablc ahz)iber ,t mat
become unacceptabi: if used in lim’ivj
quanuties for a 1 sorbing a relatneI lai..e
quantily of hazerdous ar sie ‘lr,e ma’e-:iai
could then become saturatici a, h the lkidIJ
aaste and subject to read tt rt’leas;ng fiU,
Use of a larger quantity of absorbcnt a .t id
be needed In this case to preteni the absnrb-
ent from yielding free liqutos. Hence the
quantity of absorbent per Unit quantity of
hazardous waste used in determining Ittat

-------
S 9178
the material Is acceptable on the basis of
perfonnance tests should be also be used.
The operating guideline pertaining to the
relatite q4antlties would, therefore, be di ’
revtl ba..ed on test results used to etaliiate
perforreance.
EPA should specify standards for per-
forin’ng and etal’.iating tests for absorbent
esaiiiation and acceptability. As experience
and correlations with prrformance are de’
veloped with time on gt;en products, the
specific surface area of the absorbent and
degree of saturation or fluid cuntent which
control soil suction may be used in lIeu of
actual tests to produce and. hence. evaluate
performance.
AMENDMENT TO 5V5STITUTE TN! PHRAsE “OiLY
(4ATEPIAi.S” FOR TM! MORE NARROWLY Vt-
FiNED TEAM “USED OiL”
The statutory definition of “used oIl” In
RCRA makes use of that phrase In this sec-
tIon of the b ll Inappropriate. The defined
term Is. for the purposes of this section. too
narrow and use of it would result in less re-
cycling of valuable petroleum materials.
Set eral types of oily materials are recov-
ered but would not be Included in the term
“used oil”, For example:
On off’;hore platform’s crude Is some-
tImes spilled and caught fo a waste water
system. This Is skimmed and put Into the
crude line to the refinery:
Gas pipelInes hate liquid condensates
wh,eh may be dn a n off and put Into the
crude line, and
A well may be treated or flushed with
water or oil and the oily material can be re-
cotered and sent to the refinery via a crude
line,
Use of the tern “oily materials’. In com-
bination with the existing restrictions (“re-
sulting from normal petroleum refining,
production, and transportation practices’)
would be broad enough to encompass the re-
cycling of appropr!ate materials and yet re-
atrictit’e enough to prevent undersirable
practices,
AMENDMENT TO DEterS DEADLiNE P05 EPA TO
DflCRM1NE APPROPRiATENESS OF 051 50 LX’
TLnTON paocgavaa toxicin c)tsaAcTvt-
55T (C FOR £t’ALVAT(NG DELI5Tfl’fo PETITiONs
S 757 adds a new paragraph 5Rth to sec-
tion 3001 (b ) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act. New subparagraph (Di requires EPA to
evaluate, within 6 months, the appropriate-
ness of using the extraction procedure toxic.
ity characteristic (EP) when determining
whetrier to exclude a waste generated at a
particular facility from regulation as a has’
ardous waste, The new aubparagraph also
requires EPA to modify, within 2 years, the
EP.
A statutory requirement that EPA evalu-
ate the appropriateness of using the EP
within 6 months after enactment Is no
lonçer necessary, particularly In l;ght of the
recently announced Agency position to re-
quest add:ttonal Information from petition-
ers prior to taking action on petItIons to n-
ClL,.1e, or dekst. a waste generated at a parS
tici.l, r fgcil,ty. The Agency now recogn r ’
t int the 32 should only be used In etaluat-
Ing e;rluaion petitions to the e’itent the
proteciure is totalls appropriate. In those
cases where, for example, the oily nature of
a waste might impair the efiectneness of
the C ?. another procedure is used that
mra,,ures the metisls In the waste. For i nor .
ganic wastes that are treated to retard the
iii’;t..lily of inorgaiiic constituents, a multl
pIe ex ract on procedure is applied to simu-
late the potent:al for release that might
otcur oter thousands of years. For the or
ganic.containlng wastes where the £2 may
not be an effectite tool, the Agency uses the
total concentration of the contaminant In
the waste, rather than in the extract, wl,en
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
considering the petitIon. EPA’s recent adop-
tion of a policy to request information on
additional constituents In the waste, a
policy codified in this bill, assures that the
Agency will basc its decIsion on all poten-
ttaUy harmful constituents. Finally, because
each petition must be separately etaluated
on the merits and data from each facility,
looking at such thIngs as volume of waste
and planned disposition, the Agency must
go beyond looking at Just the wastes’ con-
stItuents and mobility In reaching its denS
a ba.
This amendment will, therefore, delete
the requirement that EPA evaluate, within
6 months, the appropriateness of using the
EP when determining whether to exclude a
waste generated at a partIcular facil ty from
regulation as a hacardoiss waste. The re
qu:rement that CPA make such changes as
are ntceasary In the EP to predict the leach-
Ing potential of wastes upon exposure to
lcach:ng media more aggressive than the
med:a currently utilized is retained In the
bill. The only change this amendment
would make to that requirement Is an ex
tension of the deadline from not later than
2 years after enactment to not later than 28
months after enactment. The extension was
requested by EPA with assurances from the
Agency thaI 23 months Is a reasonable and
adequate amount of time to complete the
task.
AMENDMENT TO StIR! LOCATtO l.tt carrERta ap.
puctaL! IF ADMiNISTRATOR FAiLS TO MEET
LAND DI5POSU. LIMiTATION DEADLINEs
New subsectIon (bIi9I of section 3004 pro-
vIdes that if the AdminIstrator fails to pro-
mulgale regulations establishing land dis-
posal limitations within the time frames es
tabliahed by subsection b) for certain
wastes. the wastes in question may continue
to be land disposed pending promulgatIon of
such regulations, pro; ided that disposal of
such wastes in landfills or surface Impound-
ments occurs or iy at landfills or surface im-
poundnients that are In compliance with the
requirements of new aect:on 3004(f)(lL New
section 3004 ’fvl) establishes minimum
technologies requ,rernents for new landfills
and surface Impoundments. As such, only
landfills and surface impoundments that
are equipped with the tcchnology required
for new facilities can be used to satisfy new
subsection (bX91 of section 3004.
A key component of new sectIon 3004(f) is
the mandate that EPA snecify criteria for
the acceptable location of new and existing
facilities. Adding technology to land dispos-
al facilities is not the cure-all many would
hate us beliete. All liners will eventually
leak and, as such, locational criteria are a
much more Important and effecti;e method
to protect human health and the en ; iron-
meat. Indeed, such criteria are a necessary
component of any program designed to
assure such protection.
This amendment will modify new subiec’
tion iuii9i of crction 3u04 to make It char
that a facil lt s fitted with doLble liners and
leschate collection sysirms, or come ap
proted alternatite technology, will not nec-
esssrii satisfy new’ subsection ibi(Pi. In ad-
oition to being equIpped with acceptable
technology, such landlills and surface an-
poundmtnts must satisfy EPA s locational
criteria.
As stated In the Comm ltlee Report at
page 21. this pro; ision is intended to pro; ide
temporary protect Ion against the mIgration
of particularly dangerous wastes. However,
It shouid not be considered a substitute for
the land disposal prohibitions Intenoed by
Section 5 of the bIll. The Agency is expected
and required to meet Its statutory deadlines.
July 25. 1984
AMENDai E PT TO cLaRiFY Atrr)toarrv OF Aoaetx.
15TRATOR TO ESTASLI5iI TREATMENT STAN >
ages APPLIcA5LE TO LAND DisPOSAL PRA .
TicEs
Under S. 757. land disposal of hazardous
wastes, particularly in landlills and surface
Impoundm ents, should be the management
method of last resort. New sectIon 3004(bi
provides for the prohibition of land disposal
of certain hazardous wastes unless It is de’
termined to be protective of human health
and the envIronment,
For eerta;n v.’astea, such as metals and In-
organic.s, there are no practical treatment
technologies at this tune that permanently
elImInate their toxicity. Also, residues of
other treatment processes must be land dis-
posed. S. 757 makes Congressional intent
clear that land disposal without prior treat-
ment of these wastes with significant con-
centrations of highly persistent, highly
toxic, hIghly mobile and highly bioaccumu.
lative constituents Is not prot.’ct:te of
human health and the en; Ironment. Under
paragraph (71 of new section 3004 (b) as re-
tised by th la amendment, In order to allow
land dlsposal of these restricted wastes with
metals and Inorganics. EPA Is authorized to
specify lesels or methods of treatment to
assure that when the treated wastes is
placed In the ground. Its toxicIty or mobilI-
ty, or both, are substantially minimized.
Pre-disposal treatment standards are nec-
essary f or wastes containing metals and
other inorganic constituents becwiise’ltnown
treatment technologies cannot destroy
these hazardous constituents. The migra-
tion of metal finlshlr.g and other hazardous
Inorganic wastes may be pre;ented or mini-
mized through treatment processes that im-
mobilize the constituents, Hazardotis wastes
that are organic which have significant con•
eentrstions of organics In combination with
significant concentrations of inorganics that
are highly toxic or highly mobile should be
treated so that land disposal Involves pre-
dominantly inorganic constituents, and only
those for which mobilIty is aubstantialty re-
duced.
Treatment should substantially dimintsh
the toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the lIkelihood of migration of has’
ardous constituents from the waste so that
short’term and long-term threats to human
health and the en;ironment are minimized.
This test cannot be satisfIed through the
use of absorbent matenal as a sole means of
treatment prior to land disposal. Treatment
Is required not only for purposes of protect.
Ing ag;inst the short term or acute risks as-
sociated with the land disposal of hazardous
wastes, but more importantly focuses on the
long-term hazards associated with migration
of the wastes and subsequent contamination
of ground or surface water.
The requisite letels of methods of treat.
ment established bY the Agency should be
the best that has been demonstrated to be
achiet able. ThIs does not require a BAT.
type process as under the Clean Air or
Clean water Acts whIch contemplates tech.
nolog).forcing standards The Intent nere is
to require utilization of available technolo.
gy in lieu of continued land disposal without
prior treatment. It Is not intended that
eiery waste receive repetitive or ul:n’sie
levels of methods of treatment, nnr must all
Inorranic constituents be reclaimed In es
tablishing particular levels or methods of
treatmtnt. EPA may, for example, ccuastish
a performance standard for leacnabihty of
Inorganic constituents. EPA should a’so re
qiiire the maximum reduction of certain
toxic constituents, f or example, the rrduc.
t lon of hexavalent chromIum to its Icas
toxic form of trivalent chromium, D’ruc.
tlon of total cyanides should be req’i r.1 as

-------
July 25, 1984
a precondition to land disposal. For wastes
with a high organic content, incineration
should be required in lieu of land disposal,
ai:d iiucinerator residues with small amounts
of inorganic hazardous wastes may be land
disposed a ithout further treatment.
Determinations for treatment require-
ments prior to land disposal do not have to
be on a a aste-by-waste basis The Adminis.
trator is not required to wait for the sched.
ule established under paragraphs (4), (5),
and (6) of new section 3004(b) tO make de.
terminations for wastes with similar con-
stituents. The Administrator may make ‘ge.
neric” determinations of appropriate levels
or methods of treatment for similar wastes.
CERTAIN LAND DISPOSAL PRACTICES
• Mr. JOHNSTON. My question con-
cerns the scope of paragraph C?) of the
land-disposal provisions as modified by
amendment 2798. For example, the
drycleaning industry has developed
new treatment technology and tech-
niques which reduce the perchloroeth-
ylene content of its wastes below 2.8
percent. Preliminary testing Indicates
that leachate from such wastes con-
tains very hitle perc. Would paragraph
(7) be applicable to this type of treat-
ment’
• Mr. CHAFEE. Yes; one objective of
amended paragraph (7) is to give EPA
the discretion to authorize the land
disposal of wastes which have been
treated. The focus of the amended lan-
guage is the protection of health and
the environment by diminishing toxic-
ity of wastes or reducing migration of
hazardous constituents in wastes.
Thus, if wastes treated as you describe
are of low toxicity or if leachate from
them contains safe levels of hazardous
constituents, EPA may, in its discre-
tion, promulgate regulations specify-
ing the cirumstarices in which land
disposal is authorized. In considering
such questions, EPA will almost as-
suredly take into account whether vast
quantities or only small amounts of
such wastes are generated. I would an-
ticipate that EPA will promptly deter-
mine whether such wastes meet the
criteria In paragraph (7) and then pro-
mulgate the necessary regulations
within the specified time. In making
this determination, EPA will certainly
use the best Information available to it
at the time.s
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY APPLICATION 0? RE-
QUIREMENT TO cONDYCT caouxo WATER NON-
STORING
This amendment will provide an incentive
for the detelopment of safer and more pro-
tective land disposal methods for hazardous
waste. It would do so b git ing the Adminis-
trator of EPA the authorii . under certain
limited circumstances, to exempt facilities
from the groundwater monitoring require-
ment now Included in S. 757.
The requirement for groundwater moni.
toring at conventional landfills, surface im.
poundments. and other treatment, storage
or disposal facilites as set forth In the Bill.
Is retain This amendment would authorize
waiver of these requirements only when
EPA can find that they are unnecessary. In
order to make this finding, the Administra-
tor would have to conclude that the facility
would. in essence, be designed to incorpo-
rate the functional equivalent of ground-
water monitoring within its self.contained
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
structure. EPA could not make such a find-
tog for a conventional land disposal facility.
A facility which could qualify for the ex-
emption under this amendment must first
of all be an engineered structure which re-
ceives only waste that is in solid form, such
as contaminated soil or debris, or has been
solidified. A facility accepting liquid waste.
or waste containing free liquids, would be
disqualified from further consideration for
the exemption. A qualifying structure would
also have to be engineered to have inner
and outer layers of containment enclosing
the waste.
The facility would also have to meet an
additional series of stringent protective
standards. It must be designed and operated
to keep out water from precipitation or run-
of f. This means that the Intrinsic engineer-
ing of the structure must keep water away
from the waste. A conventional clay or syn-
thetic cap would not be good enough. The
facility would also have to incorporate inter-
nal leak detection and leachate collection
systems. These systems, which would be
built Into the structure at each internal con-
tainment layer would provide the functional
equivalent of groundwater monitoring. In
the unlikely event that any leachate did
form, the detection systems would signal
the operator before any leachate reached
the outer layer of containment.
An example of such a structure could be
an above grade concrete bunker or vault
within which waste would be placed, toLally
surrounded by multiple liners, and which
would include internal leak detection sys
tems above, between, and below the internal
liners. An abos e grade bunker can be de-
signed so that rainfall would run off the
structure away from the waste. This would
be in contrast to traditional below grade
landfills where the rainwater can penetrate
through the surface above the waste and
move down through the waste, carrying
leachate to groundwater.
Finally, the Administrator could not
exempt any structure unless he was reason-
ably certain that no hazardous constituents
from the facility would get out of the struc-
ture and reach ground, groundwater, or sur-
face water. In other words, he would have to
be sure, under reasonably foreseeable cir•
cumstances, that the structure would safely
contain the waste and Its constituents.
Thus, the amendment does not gire the
EPA Administrator unbridled discretion to
ignore the basic intent of the Bill. It does
give him the authority to exempt ground.
water monitoring when he finds that such
monitoring would be unnecessary or redun.
dant. It also gives the hazardous waste dis-
posal industry an incentive to design facili-
ties which are inherently safer and more
protective.
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY SCOPE 0? NEW SECT’ N
3004 El DAN ON CERTAIN WELLS
New Section 3004(e) as added by S ‘157
would preclude the injection of ground
water contaminated with hazardous waste
into or above formations containing under.
ground sources of drinking water even
where such injection is part of a clean-up
action under the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response. Compensation and Liabil.
ity Act of 1960 (CERCLA) or RCRA. This
amendment will clarify the intent of that
provision and give EPA the discretion to
allow the use of Class IV wells in certain
limited circumstances to conduct clean.up
operations
The injection of hazardous waste into or
above drinking water sources is an inherent.
ly dangerous disposal practice that poses an
unacceptable risk to human health and the
environment. This amendment does not
alter the intent that such injection facilities
S 9179
be properly clo ed in short order and that
new facilities not be allowed in the future.
While we seek to establish a complete pro-
hibition on such injection as a disposal tech.
nique. we recognize the potential talue of
such injection practices as an Integral part
of some clean-up actions at hasardou wa.;te
sites The pumping, treatment and re-in j c.
tion of already contaminated water may be
the preferred removal or remedial tech-
nique to assure adequate clean-up in a cost
effectite manner. We do not intend to bar
such Injections when they are eiwironmen
tally beneficial and conducted solely a.s a
means of clean-up, rather than as a form of
initial disposal. The prohibition, therefore.
is not intended to e tend to those situations
where injection into or above drinking
water sources is used as a method to clean-
up contaminated aquifiers at hazardous
waste sites and the clean-up plan has been
appro ed under the procedures establtshed
under this Act or under the Comprehen.si e
Ent ironinental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act.
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY AUTHORITY OP ADMIN-
ISTRATOR TO MODIFY APPLICATION OF CER-
TAIN REQUIREMENTS TO SOME MINING
WASTES
This amendment would modify and
expand a provision of Section 6(a) of S ‘157,
as reported, concerning the authority of the
Administrator of EPA to modify certain re-
quirements that might become applicable to
some mining wastes under Subtitle C of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act.
The amendment provides that, if certain
mining wastes become subject to regulation
as hazardous wastes, the Administrator of
EPA has the authority to modify the re-
quiremenLs of new subsections (b). (f)(l),
and (g) of section 3004 regarding land dis-
posal limitations, minimum technological
requirements for new landfills and surface
impoundments (other than the groundwater
monitoring requirement), and correctI e
action for releases of hazardous waste, as
they apply to landfills and surface impound’
ments receiving such mining wastes, to take
into account the special characteristics (e g.
high’volume, low.toxicity) of the mining
wastes, the practical difficulties associated
with the implementation of such require.
ments. and various site-specific factors. The
modified requirements would contmue to be
subject to and must satisfy the law”s under-
lying requirement and ultimate standard
that RCRA regulations assure protection of
human health and the environment, Praeti.
cal or economic considerations can only be
used to select among alternative require-
ments which assure protection of human
health and the environment.
The purpose of this amendment is simply
to assure that if the Administrator of EPA
decides to regulate mining wastes under
Subtitle C, he is not limited to the regula.
tory framework or standards that are devel-
oped under sectIon 3004(b), (f)(1), and (g)
for hazardous chemical wastes. The Corn.
inittee Report tat p. 28-29) Includes a de.
scription of some mining wastes and some of
the reasons it may be inappropriate to sub.
ject them to the same requirements which
apply to other types of waste.
Retention of the requirement that protec.
tion of human health and the entironment
be assured is not intended to in oke a spe.
elf Ic technical standard of containment.
Such as a “no migration” standard Such an
interpretation would in fact completely
frustrate the purpose of the amendment In
this context the phrase is used in a broad.
over-arching, nontechnical sense, which can
only be translated into technical standards

-------
S 9192
but not operated by a State or by one
of its political subdivisions. Only the
10-percent cost-sharing requirement
would apply in such a case. While I be-
lieve that State cost sharing is desira-
ble, a heavier burden should fall on
the State only when it or one of Its po-
litical subd tislons actually operates a
site where hazardous waste was stored,
I believe that my amendment would
make the cost-sharing provisions of
the Superfund law more equitable.
The Seymour problem arose at a time
prior to the recognition of the need
for stronger hazardous-st aste regula-
tion, Neither the State of Indiana nor
the city of Seymour had any special
responsibility for supervising its man-
agement merely because It happened
to be located within an Industrial park
on land leased to the facility’s owners
by the Aviation Board of the city of
Seymour. To Impose a SO-percent cost-
sharing requirement In this case could
Interfere with the expeditious cleanup
of the 8CR site and with the cleanup
of othcr sites in Indiana In a rational
and expeditious manner,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate on the amend-
nieiit?
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No, 3414) was
agreed to.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to,
Mr. MITCHELL. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 34i5
(Purpose To delay the eifectn’e date of cer-
tain staiuiory deathtnes applicable to hal-
ogenated organic compound es.stes if the
Administrator fails to promulgate certain
regulations)
Mr. CHAlEt. Mr. President, on
behalf of Senator JoawJsTorJ, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask for Its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
ameudment will be stated,
The legislative clerk read as fo uows:
The Senator from Rhode Island. for Sena-
tor Joarzsroy. proposes an amendment
numbered 3415.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFF ICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows.
On page 43. line 12. strike ‘If” and insert
In lieu thereof “Esccpt as provided in para-
graph 110). ii” ;
Cr. page 43. lane 20, Insert “and paragraph
cior immediate)) after ‘This paragraph’.
and
On page 43. followIng line 22. Insert the
folion ing n r a paragraph:
“(10 ) if the Administrator falls to prornul-
.gate regulations under paragraph (1) a th
espect to non-liquid hazardous sastes con-
taining halogenated organic compounds In
total conr’entration greater than or equal to
1.000 mg/kg by the date thirty-two months
after the enactment of the Solid Waste Dia-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
posal Act Amendments of 1984. effective
twenty-four months after such date, and
until the AdminIstrator promulgates such
regulations under paragraph Ci ). such
wastes from the refurbishment of textiles
and apparel containing halogenated organic
compounds In total concentratien less than
28.000 mg/kg may be disposed of in a land.
fill or surface Impoundment only If such fa-
cility Is in complIance with the require-
ments of section 3004(1) of this Act. All
other such wastes shall be subject to the
provisions of paragraph (9)?’.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
have been contacted by a number of
drycleaners who have expressed con-
siderable concerns about S. 757. This
Industry has always used recycling and
has recently developed new technolo-
gy and techniques to reduce the haz-
ardous constituents of its wastes. Fur-
ther, the Laundry Cleaning Council
has been actively pursuing additional
recycling measures. Since drycleaners
have made and are making sincere ef-
forts to reduce any hazards presented
by their wastes, they should be enti-
tled to additional time to comply with
the bills land disposal provisions If,
and only if, EPA fails to promulgate
regulations In a timely manner. Ac-
cordingly. I am offering an amend-
ment which would give drycleaners ad-
dltional compliance time if EPA does
not act, and if the wastes in question
are reduced below 2.8 percent in perc
content. In such circumstances, my
amendment would give drycleaners 24
months beyond the period specified
for promulation of regulations before
they would have to shIp their wastes
to a facility which meets the require-
ments of section 3004(f).
Mr. CHAlEt. Let me ask the Sena-
tor from Louisiana about his amend-
ment Is it his intention to provide
that if the Administrator fails to take
actIon ithin the prescribed period of
time, that wastes from drycleaning 1 a-
diities which are reduced to concen-
trations of less then 28,000 mg/kg may
continue to be disposed of under cur-
rent methods for a period of 24
months?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, that is the
Intent of the amendment Reductions
to 28.000 kg/mg would continue to
qualify for current disposal methods.
At the end of the 24 month period
these and all other halogenated organ-
ic compounds for which the Adminis-
trator has not acted must go to an up-
graded faeil ty.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator
for his expla nation, and his amend-
ment is accept able to me.
Mr. President, I urge adoption of the
amenument.
The PRESIDING OFFiCER. Is
there further debate on the amend-
ment?
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 3415) was
agreed to.
Mr. CHAlEt. Mr. President. I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MITCHELL. I move to lay that
motion on the table-
July 25, 1984
The motion to lay on the table wa.s
agreed to.
D1J’.PWELL iNJiL ZION
Mr. JIENTSEN. Mr. President, I
should like to seek clarification of 11w
intent of section 5(b) of this bill uitla
regard to the use of dcepwcll injection
in disposing of hazardous wastes Ii om
the distinguished Senator from liliode
Island. In section 5(b) of the bill, limi-
tations on the use of certain classes of
land disposal facilities—specifcally
landfills and surface impoundments—
can occur, if the EPA Administlator
rails to determine whether such dis-
posal facilities will be protective of
human health and the environment
for certain hazardous wastes bY the
specifed deadlines in the bill.
The terms “landfills” and “surface
impoundments” for the purposes of
section 5(b) are not defined, but it ap-
pears from the provisions of this sec-
tion that disposal of hazardous wastes
In class I Injection wells would not be
prohibited if EPA should fail to act by
the specified deadlines. Is this correct?
Mr. CI{AFEE. The interpretation of
my colleague from the State of Texas
regarding section 5Cb) of this bill is
correct. Under this section, land dis-
posal methods for certain hazardous
wastes, other than landfills or surface
impoundments, are not prohibited if
EPA should fail to act by the specified
deadlines. Properly permitted class I
Injection wells would be allow S to
continue receiving hazardous wastes if
EPA does not act within the specified
time.
Mr. BENTSEN. I thank my col-
league for clarification of this matter
Mr. DsCONCINI. Mr. President, the
amendment sponsored by Senator
Kasnn and myself requires the EPA
to establish procurement guidelines
for Federal agencies In the acquisition
of recycled materials, when economi-
cally feasible, That section not only
relates to paper products but tires as
well. I interpret the provision to in-
clude scrap and retreaded tires. I be-
lieve for clarification sake, we should
Include language in the conference
report further defining the term
“tires’ and additional language giving
guidance to the Defense Acquisition
Regulatory Council and the Cis ilian
Agency Acquisition Council in earn-
ing out the purposes of this section.
When this legislation goes to confer-
ence cotnmittee, will the chairman
support the inclusion of langusge on
scrap and retreaoed tires and acconi-
panying interpretive language on ti c;
asphalt materials for road cons.iuc-
tion and maintenance?
Mr. CHAFEE. I beliete the pr curt
ment section on the procurement of
recycled materials Is quite exptic t in
its inclusion of tires Hone er I r rec
that v-c should further define u l,nl
the Congress intended to ineitam in
this prosislon and will suppoit lan
guage in the conference report on the
development of a preference program
Including scrap and retreaded tires

-------
August 4, 1983
this serious and troualesome problem
in our environment.
Additionally we discovered, as we
went along, that we had to do some-
thing about the problem of existing
disposal sites containing numerous
and unknown hazardous materials.
It was not long after passage of our
act. for example, while disposnig’ some
matenals into a current site one of our
young citizens was overcome by fumes
and died as a result. This heightened
In the minds of our citizens their trial-
ety over hazardous waste disposal, and
I think in a large measure contributed
to our efforts to revise and in prove
upon our act.
I want to compliment the chairman
of our subcommittee, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Ft.oazo) (or h s
ongoing efforts to improve upon the
19’i 6 actions of this Congress In adopt-
trig a comprehensive national system
for controlling hazardous wastes
The effort has been ongoing. The
chairman has been relentless in his
ptrsutt of making sure the act is corn-
prehensive and covers all of the prob-
lems that are envisioned by our citi-
zens. This current bill proposed by
him and the subcommittee is I think a
very far-reaching and very Important
step in ‘the direction of making sure
the nauonal act works well and works
to complement the efforts of oc var-
ious States In controlling this problem.
There are some aress in th bill
taday where we hope to linpruve upon
e act. The small generator problem
one that we will address and which I
11 have other comments on,
will be offering two addi:ional
ienaments. one to deal with the spe-
cial situation of mines and the ósiosi-
two of materials left over from the
niir•’ng process. manly rock and other
materials, and the other to deal with
the- problem with Impoundments of
lIquid hazardous wastes in land dispos-
als. which is a serious one.
Under current conditions we can
only find out that a leak Is occurring
in one of these impoundments when it
has Impacted upon a water system or
when It ,has already dane something
harmful to drinking water supplies
The amendment I will propose will
require EPA to do a better job of de-
ternining when In fact those leaks
occur, before a water supply is con-
taminated.
I again wish to add my voice In great
support for the action of the gentle-
man from New Jersey (Mr. FLoaso)
and the subcommittee.
Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman. I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania (Mr._Rn-rn-)
(Mr. RIY1TR asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
01340
Rintit. Mr. Chairman,. I agree
the Resource Conservation Re-
Act (RCRA) enacted in 1976 is
fLnite need of revision. We need
.,.ose existing’ 400pholes In the law
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
in an effort to further protect the
American people, the environment:
and there are many provisions in KR.
2267 which address those concerns.
However, I do not agree with all the
means used to accomplish those ends.
As a member of the Commerce, flaris-
portation and Tourism Subcommg.tee
I have spent a fair amount of time on
the legislation.
I voted In subcommittee and in full
committee to pass this legislation al-
though I did not have serious reserva-
tions which were expressed Li the ml-
nonty news which accompanied the
bill. Let me outline a few. They are
founded on a basic concept. I feel
strongly that we should not here in
this Congress, mostly lawyer’s and poll-
tiezans, be in the business of regtLia-
tion. Congress should pronde ade-
qnate guidelines to the executive
branch to enable compliance with the
law, but Congress should not write de-
tailed instructions on how to comniy
with the regulations in legislation.
The means of accomplishing the goals
set forth in the law should be left to
the experts.
Two examples of regulaton via legis-
lation contained In 2267 are the provi-
sions for small generators of hazard-
cm waste and the complete prohibi-
don of land disposal of hazardous
waste. The small generators provision
In section 3 regulates by Imposing the
full weight of the RCRA program on
small companies Li EPA falls to act
within a specified time.
The second exarr.ple, land disposal
provision, section 5, presents provi-
sioris which automatically prohibit
wane from al l forms of land disposal L I
the Adrnnactra,tor has not made a neg-
ative finding, again within a certain
period of tune,
I submit these are unprecedented
provisions and they set precedents of
requiring negative findings and tbey
contain absolute deadlines by which
the agency must act or prohibitions
take place by law,
This can be referred to as “regula-
tion by operation of law?’ The Interest
In promoting regulation statutorily 11
deadlines are missed has come about
bemuse If arid wten Congress set urn-
realistic guidelines in ad min istrative
laws then we have in this body delayed
and delayed In so many different cases
or even sometimes when the deadlines
were realistic and EPA (ailed to meet
them. The result was that affected in-
dustries, workers and products are
punished with a legislative require-
ment that lacks technical basis, when
the culprits might really be Congress
and/or EPA. I am reminded of a simi-
lar approach to legislation which was
attempted, not successfully, In the last
Congress in the proposed amendment
to section 112 of the Clean Air Act
dealing with hazardous air pollutants.
It also recuired negative findings and
contained absolute deadlines by which
the agency had to act or prohibitions
would have taken place by operation
of lawS
H 6503
The problem Is that science and the
development of a science base to these
regulations is not as neat and as tidy
as we’ politicians or lawyers would like
them to be.
The Administrator In this ease was
required to determine whether or not
each of 37 Listed pollutants was a hat-
zardous pollutant. There was a lot of
quest Ions about where these 37 caine
from. if such a determination was not
mace within a year. it was to be lined
as a, hazardous waste by operation of
Law and the full regulatory structure
woulc have to come into play. This
type of approach to legislation Is dan-
gerous because politicians are assum-
ing tbie role of technical and medical
scier.wfic experts in drafting leg-ala-
tion. And I submit we in Congress do
not have the technical expertise to de-
clare such prohibitions merely because
EPA is missing an aroitrary deadline
We have go to give the expert
agency gtndelmes and then flexibility
to address the important questions.
I do not feel the affected industnes,
in any even l, whatever we may think
about -she performance of EPA. I do
not feet industries should be penalized
by eftetctive prohibition when a techni-
cal basis is lacking because Congress
set certain deadlines that EPA has not
met. wtether it is on a technical or
othennsa basis.
My colleagues, we have a chance in
these very controversial subjects to
take a new v.luch understands that we
are in ‘the 20th century, we are very
much involved with the products- of
the 2C:zh centnry and we must not
turn oLt LiditlcuaUy. one by one, those
valves. nne of them is a vital chemical
Industry in this cotmtry, those valves
which provide the basis of our pros-
peity.
Mr. PWRIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 minirtes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Ms. Mxxutsxn.
(Ms. MTKULSKI asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
her rensarks.)
Ma, MIKVLSKI. Thank you very
much. li&r. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman. I rise In support of
this legislation to reauthorize the Re-
source Recovery Act. I would like to
compliment the subcommittee chair-
man. the gentleman from New Jersey,
as well as the ranking minority, the
gentler an from New York. in arriving
at this bipartisan improvement of the
recovery resource legislation.
Ladles and gentleman of the House,
we often hear a lot about the horror
stones and disasters that focus on the
tnappro pr1ate disposal of hazardous
waste. We are all familiar with the
horror stories of the Love Canals and
the Times Beaches. We also then
know the enormous amount of re-
sources that goes Into Superfund
cleanups when the law Is either delib-
erately riot obeyed, or Ignored.
The resource recovery legislation is a
framework of prevention. It is one of
the most important pieces of leglsla

-------
August 4. .t23z?
H 653.
tion that we have in ternt : -
ronmental issues before us.
the framework for prevent :t -
en. for prevent:ng those h err :: .
auons that end ifl Su er:unc o .
that are both costly (err_s r ...:e 1..
nancial resources of our Ge
as well as cost l :: iri terr..c )f t: rrian
impact.
This legts!ation dces
holes have emer ?d .r
We also ma e so’-
steps forward. We lint: :re ::-
ties for m idn ight dumpers to e
our oornnumtles and ;e r:-
framework for a;prctrt:e nc -
of the sur_shite uttoarers -
sure tney comply v..cz :ta C
;art]cusar aspect that - - :
:::_s :eg iatlon inc:t t3 a
for EPA to be tnvc! ec wzn c
zens in a respons ible .r
One of the tri:ngs -
our hearings is that often ::: ‘ieop e
wno have been affectec c
ties with hazardous ----e an reated
as t. they are the pro:.cn. n: than
the nLd.night drnnners anc c. e ;ho
improperly dump hazardous r e
This legislation eu us a :re-
shop in EPA where c.::zer. :ari go
with their concerns. . c orn-
platntz. for answers ba ec -
tiLe ln uiry about wriether :rgers
exist In their cornniu.n:ty or r -
This legislat on pro; des good
framewor for oun to t— : ble to
comply and yet at t n t sane pro-
tact our ;ubl.c z:i:-’ -tc c w citi-
zer.s the oppcr;ur. :: the r:;rit to
know the :0n:t:oits n £$atr :nrninl.
ty.
I am goL’tg to vote 1X t. - ‘egtsia.
non. I look torwa:: tr.t :s2cage qf
trus bill.
I yield back the oa atce o. ry time.
Mr. LENT. ).fr. C : .rtaz, yie!c 4
nunutes to the ;enteman . : -n New
York (Mr Ftsx),
Mr. FISH Mr. Cha:ntL. dur i ng
cons deration of a R. S6T June.
ro;Iowing sequent ai re erra fniin the
Ccmm ttee on Energ- aria Cxrnerce.
the Judiciary Ccmm:ttee made a
couple of significant char.gas iich v.e
on our stde believe should ;r dopt-ed
by the whole House. er.airman
RooI o cad the Derocrat:L r ember-
ship of the Judiciary Cornr:tee feel
i:kewise.
First. ui subcorr rntttee, we struck
section 1l(dl from u’.e bill. This sec-
tion would have set up s;c-. :.c time-
frames w th n which the jittorney
General would have to f: e a civil
notion in Federal court upon the re-
quest of the Adrn tustrator of the En-
v ronrnental Protection Agr.c; (EPA).
If the Attorney General f Cs :o notify
the Ad nxnis:rator of his or .: :r inten-
tion to file Lthln 150 da:.s after the
transmittal of the request. the EPA
would then have toe exchis.ve author-
ity to commence and consuct litiga-
tion. except in the Supreme Court of
the tTh ted States.
We believe that. wh:le the concern
which brought about sect cn 11(d) Is
GRESSIONAL RECORD—MOUSE
r.derzanca:le. it Is a move wh cn
sets an unfortunate precedent and rep-
resents at. enormous overreaction to
last fall’s proolems. Even current EPA
Administrator W illiam Ruckelshacs.
woo ;efl knocs the interrelationship
between the Department of Justice
and the EPA. having sened in top PD-
salons wahin both agencies. vig-
orously opposes the shift in litigation
control which l iE. 2867 would permit.
In test:mony during his recent Senate
conf:ratior. hearings. and again in a
letter to Chairman P.oouio. dated
June 14. 1983. Mr. Rucke lshaus under-
scored the mponance of bcencrai!zed
arid coordinated litigat on by the De-
partment of JustIce of all tiatters to
h ch the t7r, ted States :s a party” If
:i-. s sect;on rerr.a ns intact. it v,iil
coi.is::ess oe, a s gnai to otriers to
O::ow suit. and eff c en: management
of Got erri ntent :it ga: on w il no
longer exist.
Mr. Rucxelshaus has consistently
pledged to nmke the EPA an e!fective
environmental voice in thts country
once agatri, and I. have rest faith in
his ability to follow through in his
promise. I also have no douot toat. if
the transfer of Litigating authority
were necessary to achieve this goal, he
would be the first to encourage it. In
fact, he has done just- the opposite.
and I believe that the Nouse should
follow his judgment in so important a
matter.
In sum, I believe It is s:gnificcat that
EPA is not requesting this shift in au-
tlicr::y. and that every one of the ait-
r.vsses who testified before zne Sub-
:;n2ttee on Monopoiies ar.d Com-
rnerc:a. . oppotec the inc st3n of
section- il d) :n the bi1. The :n :: .e
wh,cn section 11(d) sets forth creates
oeadi nes which are arsitrary. in the
opLnion of both agenc:es. and would oe
un orkable and unrealistic in the con-
text of normal titigative procedure.
Moreover, not one witness has come
forward to indicate that the Depart-
ment of -Justice has performed in
other than a professional manner with
respect to EPAs referrals.
The subcomrrut.tee also struc] the
law enforcement authonty which the
bill would grant to EPA agents. Sec-
tion lice) provides that any officer or
employee of the EPA would be author-
bed to cai- ’ fu-eanr.s, execute arid
serve warrants. subpenas and sumS
mor.ses, make arrests without war-
rants. and administer oaths. Needless
to say, the Department of Justice op-
poses this provision as well. lithe EPA
believes it has any difficulties with
being able to make arrests at toxic
waste sites, arrangements can always
be made with the Department of Jus-
t ce to des gnate EPA officials as tern-
porary deputy U S. marshals.
it is noteworthy that SPAs concerns
about the safety of Its officers has
been the topic of discussion in meet-
ings held by FBI Director William
Webster. Re and the Bureau have
made it clear that they intend to co-
operate fully with the EPA and Its
mission. We simply-cannot allow each
independent agency in the Govern-
ment to have its own police force, with
all the authority assoctated thereto. If
we do. we are ask_sig for comp;ete arid
utter chaos, and eUective law enforce-
ment. which is what we say ce wanL
wiU inevitably suffer.
Both of these amenonents were
adopted by votce vote in the subcom-
mittee. and seconded b7 the full com-
mittee. When the time comes. I will
urge my colleagues to endorse them on
the floor of the House as well.
Last my collearie. TOM EIYDSES5.
offered a clarifying amendment to the
criminal sanct;ons containea in section
11 (h ). The Committee on Energy and
Corrnerce has for some unexplained
reason fa:ied to include the aoro
“krmoazng in some, but riot a l. of the
vioiattons eririneratec in sec t ion ItCh).
thereb:: leat .ng the unpress:cn tnat
knozieage of the alleged offense
woulo no longer be necessary in sortie
instances The Kindness arsencnent
clarif es the law, and I support it also.
0 1350
Mr. FtORIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Lou-
isiana Mr. E rnst).
(Mr. BREAUX asked and was given
permission to revise and extend nis re-
marks.)
Mr. CORRADA. Mr. Chairman. will
the gentleman y leld?
Mr. BREAUX I yield to the gentle-
man from Puerto Rico.
CMr. COPLRADA asked and ‘aas
given pei-m:saion to reuse and extenc
his rernarics.)
Mr. CORR.4DA. Mr. Chacztan.
commend tne gentleman from Nea
Jersey Mr. Pto ro) and the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. Lz.-c-i-, for this
bill and I urge passage by the House.
Mr. Chairman, the leg sation pend-
ing before us tooay is of great iznpor-
tance t.o our Natron.
Public interest -tad concern over the
health oroblenis crated by hazardous
wastes continues unabated. ER. 2387
will reauthorize the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act through 1986. It also makes
a number of changes to the law in
order to address these concerns.
No one can dispute that the purpose
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Is a
solid one, that Is, the establishment of
a safe and reliable method of pro’-id-
ing tracicing and disposal of hazardous
wastes. If this goal is achieved, we can
be reassured that the health arid well-
being of our people from the dangers
of hazardous wastes Is being protected,
This bill provides authori tion
levels of $154 million for fiscal year
1984; 5162 million for fIscal year 1935
arid $163 million for fiscal year issa.
KR. 2867 deals with three major con-
cerns: First. the fact that approxi-
mately 40 million metric tons a year ot
hazardous s aste escapes the existing
provisions of the law. Secona. the need
to provide incentives to develop alter-
natives to land disposal of these
c O1

-------
Augu.st4, 1983
. .a.stes. Third.. a recognition that the
nature of the problem requires swifter
action by EPA against violators.
Although this legislation is contro-
-. ‘iecause of its scope and sever-
al ,zig with the disposal of haz-
;a.stes. who amongst us would
It LI there were imminent
anger to our families and neighbor.
hoods? The Quantities of wastes which
are considered hazardous continue to
grow each year. We must insure that
the danger to the public health and
safety resulting from hazardous
.astes is controlled to the maximum
extent possible.
In Puerto Rico the danger presented
y hazardous waste Is compounded by
our condition as an overpopulated. in-
iustriaiized island. Func ng under the
Resou.rces Conser. acion and Recovery
Act has aUowed the Puerto Rico Envi-
ronmental Quality Board (EQB) to
ca.-ry on its work Insuring the well-
being of our population.
For fiscal year 1983. the EQB will re-
ceive$486.371 for the purpose of de-
veloping programs. issuing , permits
and ornp [ iance enforcement. In addi-
tion., we have submitted to EPA our
State plan under section 3012 of the
law. The appilcation is for $83,000
during fiscal year 1963 to allow us to
inventory and establish priorities
among sites to be cleaned up. The EPA
is In the process of evaluating the ap-
plication and I am confident that it
will be approved in the near future - -
these reasons. I urge my col-
to support E.R. 2867. the Haz-
Waste Control and Enforce-
rt of 1983.
BREAtYX. Mr. Chairman. I
would first like to comrnend the chair-
man of the subcommittee. the gentle-
man from New Jersey (Mr. Fx.oaio).
for the outstanding work that his corn-
rnittee has done in bringing this bill to
the floor. It Indeed is a marked Im-
provement over the previous RCRA
regulations that we have enacted in
the Congress.
I-would also Uke to commend the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lz rr)
for the work that they have done and
for working together to bring this bill
to the floor. -
I would also like to personally men-
tion the gentleman from Ohio (Mr
EcicARt) for the work that he has done
in coming up with a good plan.
Mr. Chairman, it is with pleasure
arid a sense of great ant:cipation that I
rise in support of the bill before the
House, HR. 2867, providing authoriza-
tions for fiscal year 1984, 1985, and
1986 for title III of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act. The law that this bill
amends, commonly referred to as the
Resource Conser.’atiOi i and Recovery
Act of 1976 or RCRA. has been, for a
number of years. the primary Federal
regulatory program for the disposal of
. .4f On’s hazardous waste.
become abundantly clear
.ne past several months, how.
number of problems have
aris with respect to the current reg-
ulatory scheme and Its implementa-
tion by the Environmental Protection
Agency. To their credit, the leadership
of the Committee on Energy and Com-
merce, particularly the chairman of its
Subcorsunirtee on Commerce. Trans.
portatton and Tourism. Mr. FLORIO.
the ranking minority member of the
subcommittee. Mr. Lzrrr, and Mr.
ECKART. have deco ted the greater part
of 3 years in an effort to amend this
basic statute to better protect the
health and welfare of the American
people and our environment.
Generally, the bill currently before
the House is a sound piece of legisla-
tion and deserves its full support. As
the distinguished floor manager, Mr.
Fr.oruo, has indicated, the bill before
us woul&
First, require EPA to regulate haz-
ardous waste from those generators.
currently exempted from coverage
under RCRA. that manufacture a
total quantity between 100 and 1.000
kilograms of hazardous waste per
month: -
Second. require EPA to regulate
fuels derived fr.om hazardous waste;
Third. correct several deficiencies in
the existing statute concerning the
regulation of interim status facilities
including limitations on the amount of
allowable growth under -existlng per-
mits. bb.sic permit duration and the
implementation of reasonable sched-
ules for final permit submissions by in-
dustry and permit deccsions by EPA:
Fourth. require the Administrator to
regulate the use, reuse, recycling, and
reclamation of hazardous waste;
Filth, decrease the required contri-
bution for Superfund sites owned by
States from 50 percent to 10 percent:
Sixth, amend the provisions for list-
ing and delisitmg of hazardous waste
to deal with deficiencies identified in
the existing EPA program:
Seventh, establish a fixed reference
date for a State wishing to be author-
ized to show that the State program is
equivalent to the Federal program;
and
Eighth, specify the Inspection fre-
quency for landfills and other private-
ly owned and operated treatment, stor-
age, and disposal facilities.
The bill also strikes new ground with
respect to the problem of managing
the treatment and ultimate disposal of
hazardous waste. particularly liquid
hazardous waste. Among- the provi-
sions contained in the bill are two that
would: First, prohibit the injection of
hazardous waste into or above under-
ground sources of drinking water and
second, require EPA to promulgate
final regulations to both minimise the
disposal of containerized liquid haz-
ardous waste into landfills and prohib-
it the landlilllng of bulk liquid hazard-
ous waste.
While these provisions go a long way
to address some of the concerns that
the American public has expressed
over our current we.ste management
practices. I believe that more stringent
guidelines for the placement of liquid
H 6505
hazardous waste into certain types of
land storage, treatment, and disposal
facilities are fully justified. When one
reviews the list of Superfund sites and
the accompanying documentation
pointing out the inherent health dan-
gers caused by the migration of such
wastes. we cannot justify the contin-
ued placement of liquids into these
facilities.
As the Members are aware, Mr. Foa-
s’rris.s and I introduced legislation ear-
lier this year. H.R. 1700. cosponsored
by a number of other Members of the
House, which would have banned, at
the end of a 5-year period, all forums
of land . and ocean disposal of liquid
hazardous waste. During the interim
period. it would have been incumbent
upon the generator of these hazardous
wastes to prove to the satisfaction of
EPA that no technologically feasible
alternative exists for the disposal of
such wastes, or if there were such an
alternative, that it was less protective
of human health and the environment
than the method of land disposal pro-
posed by such generator.
We believed that such a dramatic
change in Federal disposal policy for
liquids was necessary if we are to force
the full development of alternative
waste management technologies cur-
r nt1y in existence, but. which are
vastly underutilized. These alterna-
tives include chemical fixation, bio-
logical treatment, neutralization, sta-
bilization, and thermal conversion; to
name just a few.
It became evident during the course
of hearings on this bill before the Sub-
cornriuttee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and the Environment,
which I chair, that many experts
agree that a phased reduction In the
land disposal of hazardous waste, with
a definite cutoff point in the future, is
the correct approach for our Nation to
adopt.
In point of fact, the bill before the
House contains language developed by
Congressman EcxAar which would ac-
cornphsh, In large measure, many of
the same goals sought by H.R. 1700.
Thus, section 5 would prohibit the-
land disposal of 12 specific waste
streams, all but one of which are.
liquid hazardous waste, wIthin 12
months of enactment unless the Ad-
ministrator determines that the prohi-
bition on one or more land disposal
method with respect to a particular
waste Is not necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
Section 5 of the bill also requires
EPA to develop a schedule for review-
ing all other hazardous wastes, both
liquid and solid, to determine whether
a prohibition on the land disposal of
these wastes Is warranted. A waste so
reviewed shall be prohibited from one
or more method of land disposal—
If It may reasonably be anticipated that
such method of land disposal may not be
protective of human health and the cm i-
ronrnerlt for as long as the waste remains
hazardous, taking into account the long-
term uncertainties associated with land dis-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

-------
H 6506
posal the goal or managina sste iii an ap-
propriate manner in the First instance, and
the per tcnee, toincity, rnobtht), and pro-
persity to b irnulate of such bawdous
asies and their toxic consutuent.s.
dl reviews and determinations are
be completed within 4 pears of en-
tinent.
[ 1 the Administrator of EPA fails to
make a deternunation on any waste
within the specified time, such waste
shall aiitoumticaJ.Iy be prohibited from
all means of land disposaL The prov-
sion also allows the Administrator to
delay the effective date of any prohibi-
tion for up to 42 months m the event
adequate capa cy for alternative man-
agement is not available. In the case of
prohibitions for which an effective
date is not extended due to lack of al-
tet’nauve capacity, the Administrator
may grant a case-by-case variance for
up to 6 months, renewable twice, upon
a showing by the generator of severe
economic hardship.
Mr. Chairman. I would submit this
phased reduction in uai tional land
disposal practices is entirely defensible
and should be supported by every
Member of this body. In fact, there
are many of , including niysell. who
would have argued for an even shorter
time! rame—as was propcaed in E .R.
1700. While I am willing to yield to the
jud ent of. my colleagues on the
Energy and Commerce Commfiz.ee
that this provision will a pUsh om
common objective. I do not believe
t the House should accept any
keeiing of this schedule when it
fereuces this bill with the one
ig developed in the other body.
- urther, I will be off erir.g, at the ap-
propria .t.e time, an amendment that is
de gned to address my concerns th
this seenon of the bill. Generally, the
n.mendment would further limit the
disoretion of the Admm ’at .or in cer-
tai.c instances arid statutorily prohibit
the placement of liquid hazardous
waste into certain land facilities. Spe-
cifically, the amendment would.
First. ban, not later than February
1, 1984, the placement of containerized
liquid - ‘ -dous waste into salt dome
formations, underground mines or
caves. The amendment would also pro-
hibit, by February 1. 1984. the place-
r’ient of bulk or nonccntainerized
liquid hazardous waste into unlined
Ia fills, salt dome formations, under-
ground mines and caves, I believe this
action, which is consistent with cur-
rent EPA policy, should be statutorily
proscribed by Congress:
Second, ban, effectIve 6 months
after the date of enactment, the place-
ment of bulk or noncontatherized
liquid hazardous waste Into any land.
filL EPA has admitted that all land-
fills leak. This provision would allow
generators and/or disp ers of these
w tes 5 months to clean ‘all hiquid .s
if their existing laridfihls —-
rd. require the Administrator of
to develop regulations imnirnis-
to the extent technologically fea-
siole, the placement of containerized
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
liquid hazardous waste. This provision
is Intended to allow the continued
landlilllng, until such time as alterna-
tive management capacity is available,
of small containers, commonly re-
ferred to as lab packs, that result from
ongoing research at. medical and other
educational institutions:
Fourth, ban, effective 1 year after
enactment, the placement of any
liquid, whether hazardous or not, into
a landfill containing hazardous -waste.
It makes no sense for EPA or the Con-
gress to determine that the placement
of liquid hazardous waste into landfills
is a bad practice because of the prob-
lems associated with the migration of
such wastes and not to proscribe the
commingling of solid hamrdous wa.ste
with otter liquids: and
Fifth. establtsh a timeframe for the
issuance of final permits to existing in-
ter m status surface impoundments.
Such final permits must contain a
compliance schedule for the retrofit-
ting of those Impoundments that do
not meet the double liner standard as-
tabiished for new surface impound-
ments by section 21 of the reported
bilL
The amendment also probibit.s the
placement of nortliquid hazardous
waste bra salt dome formations, un-
dergTound mines or caves until the Ad-
ministi-ator of EPA issues permit
standards for the placement of these
hazardous wastes into such facilities
and the facility receives a permit pur-
suant to such standards.
- As I indicated, current EPA policy
generally prohibits the placement of
bulk hs.mrdous waste cortt,ain ng free
liquids into unlined tartdlilLi and con-
tainerized’ bulk waste containing free
liquids into an.y 1anr fmc Thus, the
ampndmp ’it sti uiates that until EPA
has time to promulgate final egula-
tr ans defining the term liquid hazard-
ous waste, -as set forth In the amend-
ment, or promulgate final regulations
mir irn ?ing’ the placement of contain-
erized liquid hazardous waste in land-
fills. the existing regulations will
remain in effect,
Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, the
Committee reported bill also contains
a meh nL rr1 by ahich the Adminis-
trator of EPA can decide to allow spe-
cific liquid hazardous waste to be
pLaced in certain land disposal facili-
ties. It is my understanding that th
intent of the Committee was not to
allow the Administrator to overturn
it.s determin Lion concerning liquids in
landfills. I certainly share that belief
and have included in my amendment a
provision that would so restrict the
Administrator’s discretion.
Mr. Chairman, there are three other
signiI cant provisions to the amend-
ment that I will offer that should be
noted at this time. They are:
First, a provision that will restrict
the ability of Government agencies to
obtain the so-called capacity waiver
for alternative waste management to a
period no longer than 18 months.
rather than the 42 months allowed
August 4, 1.93.2
pri. ate industry, Unanimous testimo-
ny received by ow committee Indicates
the appropriateness of having the Fed-
eral Government lead the way to the
full utilization of alternative waste
management practices
Second. a provision that requires
EPA to promulgate air emission moni-
toring and control regulations within 2
years for land storage, treatment and
disposal facilities and
Third, require Federal agencies,
within 1 year, to undertake annual in-
spections of their land storage, treat-
ment and disposal facilities.
This provision has been carefully
drafted to fill in the remaining gaps of
a generally comprehensive bin that
will, as I have previously indicated, go
a very long way to insuring t e long-
term health of the American people
and their environi’nent.
The issue of hazardous waste dispos-
al is one that should be, as we are
doing today, fully and openly denated
in the House It is certainly weU past
the time that all of us should come to
understand the extent of th probiem
we have created by the exist ir:g out-of-
sight, out-of-mind philosophy with re-
spect to liquid hazardous - ste. We
must understand that if It is -i ‘ .U pos-
sible, and it is, to destroy or t ’nt the
hazardous waste that we are gerierat-
Lug, we must do so.
Mr. LENT Mr. Chairman, I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman frum Ala-
barna (Mr. Srrnr ey.
(M x. S LEY asked and was given
permiss:on to revise and cxteno his re-
marks.)
Mr. S LBY Mr. Chairman, many
Members of this body and I agree hat
we should do the best we posstb1, an
to protect hrrn n health and th ivi-
ronment from the potential ::.
agement of hazardous wa.’: es. We
should approach this task, h - ever, in
a fair-minded and evenhaode ’ fashion
bearing in zmnd that ocerreg ation Ill
ser es the interests of all parties in-
volved—from those who l’ezulate, to
those who are regu.late to the public
at large.
I have several concerns abnut H.R,
2867, section 3, relating to generators
of small quantities of ha,zardo. w’uste.
The gentleman from New York, (Mr.
LExT). and I wifl be altering an amend-
ment to section 3 of the bill designed
to bring into better balance the needs
of erivu-onmental protection and the
need to main.t.a,in a reasonable ’ regula-
tory and financial cost. to sr, a.ll busi-
ness.
Mr. Chairman, ow’ Naticu’s small
businesses are the backbone of Ameri-
can society: they are the source of the
greatest number of jobs and they are
the key to a sustained economic recov-
ery. In this light, it Is vital that we
look very closely at the potential nega-
tive ramifications on small business
embodied in the bill before us. It has
been estimated that some 1.4 million
small businesses will be affectpd by
new requirements in H.R. 2867 which

-------
• August 4, 198S
War attention to the drycleaning in-
dustay to see what the concentrations
‘ ( the liquid hazardous waste really
e and to take those concentrations
account in his recommendation
eguiation.
, would also note that in a directive
suggested d forwarded to me from
the Neighborhood Cleaners ?.ssocl-
a oo. Mr. Seitz. the dfrector. indicates
that -
Pjthougia om organ tton supports t e
aeIbrfLe it a iendrnent to section 3 of
50U1 ci ii. we also support yotw amendment
reqmrtng gesera z who produce hi rd-
cus onate n qoenuues of more than 25 kIlo-
£I3 PCT “ “- £0 provide ‘r that
i eLr vasie is ha.zardous.
Mr. S TON. Thider sectIon 5.
wastca such as the perc which is used
extensively throughout The dry clean-
ing industry, must in all probability be
disposed of in an EPA approved incin-
erator. Since this compound is a halo-
genated organic, the banning of land
disposal would take place in 12
inonthe. However, the Administrator
would be empowered to exempt the
dzycleaners solvents for up to 42
mor:ths more if an altemstive to land
disposal did not exist The drycleaxie
testified before the subcommittee I
chair that the Thiited States currently
does not have the capacity to inciner-
ate this wa e-in anything close.to a
cost-effective manner. This s especial-
true for those dry cleaning estab-
ents which. because of transpor-
.ln costs do not have access to any
proved alternative. I ask the gentle-
man if the intent of the exemption au-
thority which his bill confers on the
Administrator is broad enough, so that
sitiiatio . such as this one which will
be for the drydleaners, can be
dealt with. In other words, can EPA be
flexible enongh to take in to account
the particular problems of an Indus-
try. such as drycleaners. while still
pedorzning their job to protect the
public he 1 • -
- Mr. PLOR !O. In response to the
gentlemen’s -question, the answer fs
-- -. .. .
- What -we call Callfornia wastes” In
other words, those wastes which are
extremely hmardous and are banned
by. Law in California would be banned
by the law we now have under consid-
eration In 12 months after Its enact-
ment. Hajogeriated organics constitute
one of the waste streams on the Call-
!ounm lu.st. The gentleman Is correct.
however, that the Administrator Is
grveu the flexibility to delay this ban
for np to 42 months so that he can
take lii to account the realistic needs
cf the industry and the capacity avail-
able for alternative disposaL to the
case of the drycleariers. I would recoin-
ad that the Admirustrator pay spe-
attention to the ability of these
.sll businesses to meet the require-
enu of the law and to take cogrul-
zarice of their efforts to solve their
waste problems.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
-------
H 6510
(Mrs. LLOYD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her re-
marks.)
Mrs. LLOYD. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question for
the chairman of the committee, and I
would like to commend him for bring-
ing this legislation to the floor. I do
rise in support of this legislation, and
also the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
I would like to ask the chairman a
question. Is it the Lntent of this legis-
lation that Federal agencies comply
with the regulations enforced by this
legislation?
Mr. FLORIO. II the gentlewoman
will yield, the answer is unequivocally
yes.
Mrs. LLOYD. I thank the gentleman
for his comment.
Mrs. LLOYD Mr. Chairman, one of
the more in.sidious problems with toxic
waste disposal is the potential for con-
tarnination of important underground
aquifers which are used by many
.peo le for drinking water, irrigation.
- and for other domestic pi.irposes.
In my own district in Tennessee. as
in many other locations throughout
our nation, we have a potential prob-
lem from groundwater contamination
that should be studied and evaluated
in terms of the impact on public
health and safety. My Subcommittee
on Energy Research and Production
recently held a hearing near the site
of the Oak Rzdge National Laboratory
in Tennessee. This hearing brought at-
tei t.or. to potential groundwater con-
tarulnation problems from the use of
out-moded pollution control measures
at the Oak Ridge complex. We will
make recommendations regarding
these problems in a forthcoming
report which I hope will be considered
by the committee in September.
If we need national policies to ad-
dress this potential pollution problem.
then this groundwater commission will
help In recommending them to the
Congress and the administration. I,
therefore, urge my colleagues to Join
me In supporting this amendment.
0 1420
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs.
LLOYD) has expired.
The gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Ftoaxo) has 2 minutes remaining.
• Mr. MARKET. Mr. Chairman. I rise
today to support E.R. 2867. reauttior
Izing the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. I rise today to support a
bill this country needs to insure pro-
tection of our eniironment. This bill
contains tough language for hazaroous
waste generators and disposers. This
language is needed and I urge my col-
leagues to support H.R. 2861 and
defeat any weakening amendment to
this much needed bill.
As a member of the Engery and
Commerce Committee. I have worked
closely with the sponsor of this legisla-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
tion, my friend and colleague, Jrat
Ftoiuo. to establish a comprehensive
system to address the hazardous waste
problem. The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act forced many firms
to dispose of their waste in an appro-
priate manner, ending some of the
hazardous waste disposal practices
which endanger many communities.
This body should be proud to have en-
acted such tough and enlightened leg-
islation on hazardous waste before the
Issue was on page 1 of the newspapers.
RCRA established a cradle-to-grave
system for hazardous waste generated
by large producers. This law has
pushed many generators to Incorpo-
rate the environmental arid social cost
of hazardous a.ste into their business
decisions. As a result, we have seen
more firms doing just what the law
states: Recovering and’ conserving
their hazardous resources. Come-
uently. our disposal problem Is not as
severe as It would be if this body had
not had the !ores ght to enact RCRA.
My colleagi.ie from New Jersey de-
serves some -redit for that success,
and today we consider legislation
which completes the cradle.to-gi-ave
system. We sl’ ‘i:ld pass this legislation
and show the s -te fortitude and fore-
sight this body cercised when passing
RCRA.
Many Members iave expressed con-
cern about the provisions affecting
small waste generators. These groups
contend that ne provisions of H.R.
2867 present an unfair burden on
these small quantity generators. The
problem with this argument is that
hazardous wastes can be dangerous in
any amount, arid t to 1.000 kilograms
represents a sub. ‘antial threat to
people as well :.s .he environment. I
support the ri.. .e to include gener-
ators of wastL-. 5etween 100 arid 1,000
kilograms under the purview of
RCRA.. I wan, to call the attention of
my colleagues to the carefully con-
structed langrage of the bill. By giving
the EPA 1 months to draft regu1a
tions uniqueiy appropriate to small
quantity gener ttors. the bill recog ’
,nlzes the pocition of small quantity
generators and defers to the EPA on
the proper rc ul2 ions. The bill does.
hc ever. not iust depend on the good
will of the EPA to promulgate such ,
regulations. By subjecting small quan-
tity gerieratori to the tough provisions
affecting large generators. if there are
no EPA regulrtions in 2 years. there is
clear incentive for small quantity gen-
erators and to expeditiously draft
small quantity generator regulations.
In plain tern’.s. the carrot and stick
system is estaolished, matching incen-
tives with interest.
Mr. Chairman, there are two other
important pr vtsiOns I want to call to
the attention of my colleagues. The
first is the pro’ isions on enforcement.
In many conversations with chemical
and waste generators, the one thing I
hear repeatec is that we do not need
new laws: we just need better enforce-
ment.
- August 4, 198J
Well. I cannot say that I agree with.
them on the former point, but the ar-
gun’.ent that we need better enforce.
ment cannot be denied. EPA needs in.
creased enforcement powers, and EPA
needs the ability to take offenders to
court if the Justice Department does
not act quickly. I L is important to keep
some enforcement power with the
EPA. for frequently the Justice De-
partment has been slow or unwilling
to act. In those circumstances, the
EPA. if the case warrants it. can move
forward on their ca-n with a suit.
We should not tie the hands of the
EPA on enforcement. As a member of
the Energy and Commerce Subcom-
mittee on Oversight and Investiga-
tions. I have witnessed claims that
EPA would act cmi a suit, but they
cannot without the Justice Depart-
ment. Some of the cynical among us
may suggest that the Justice Depart-
ment presented a convenient answer
br EPA employees. I will not draw
any such conclusions. I do know that
the next time the situation arises, this
provision wifi enable this Member to
ask. Where is the suit?
In addition. the blU grants EPA em-
ployees investigative and enforcement
powers. I I we expect EPA to be thor.
ough and diligent in enforcing the
provisons of RCR.A. as I am confident
all Members do, then we must give
EPA employees the powers to carry
out their charge. To deny investigators
the power to execute and serve war-
raflLs or summons, or to make arrests
for offenses is a disservice to the EPA
employees and creates illusory en-
forcement at best.
The other important provision of
the bill I want to comment on. Mr.
Chairman, is the restrictions on land
disposal of hazardous waste. LandfilLs.
waste piles, and impourithnent ponds
are ugly monuments to our inefficient.
if not dangerous handling of hazard-
ous wastes. In a nation i.-ith as much
open land as we enjoy, I think many
people believe that all you have to do
is take your trash a few miles out Into
the country and dump it on some
empty lot, and It won’t hurt anybody.
Incredibly enough, dumping hazard.
ous substances In open pits or in some
empty fields has been the accepted
practice of industry for the past 100
years. This practice has produced sites
which emit such a stench no one will
move near, and produced leaks into
water supplies no one will drink. The
original RCRA language moved us
toward more environmentally sound
disposal of hazardous wastes. But It
did not go all the way. This bill will
close many of the loopholes left open
by RCR.A and will begin phaseout
dumping in landfill arid waste piles.
In conclusion. Mr. Chairman. I want
to urge my colleagues in the strongest
terms to support this legislation and
oppose any weakening amendments.
This bill is a matter of the utmost ur-
gency, and we must see that hazardous
wastes no longer threaten our citizens.
-------
August 4,1.988
As a membex of the Energy and Corn-
merce Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations. I was involved In a
most thorough investigation of the
EPA and their mlcrnanagement of the
hazardous waste program. I am con-
vinced more than ever that we must
enact tough standards for hazardous
vaste generators, and we must give
EPA the ability to carry cut the law.
This bill closes many of the loopholes
in RCRA. and gives EPA the power to
enforce the Law we have passed. This
bill deserves the support of my col-
leagues for it offers enforcement of
present law and tough restrictions on
unsound dumping. The past several
months have demonstrated to all
Members the seriousness of our haz-
dous waste roblem and the poten-
ual for abuse. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill and make a.strong
statement for control of hazardous
wastes.•
• Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chabman, con-
tinued reliance on land disposal of
hazardous wastes is a dangerous policy
which threatens the health of Ameri-
cans now and in the future.
As more and more contaminated
sites are being dIscovered and people
are displaced from hometowns such as
Times Beach and Love Canal, the
mandate or legislative and adminis-
trative actrnn to set forth guidelines
for the disposal of h rdous ‘wastes
-becomes clearer and clearer.
H B.. 2867. the Hazardous Waste
Control mid nforcement Act of 1983.
outlines a plan for managing the .coun-
trys 250 million tons of hazardous
waste generazed each year. In my
judgment, the bill is a good start, but
there are some provisions with which I
take issue.
Dry cleaners, gas stations, hospitals,
painters, and other rna il generators of
wastes will be severely burdened and
perhaps put out of business if we allow
theta to be suojected to the regula-
tions now governing larger generators
just because the EPA failed to write
the small generator regulations within
the statutory deadline. The ±igr,n Pr
provision should be removed from see-
tion 3 of the bilL The .Shelby-Leut
amuidm t would provide for the re-
moval of the hammer. It should be
supported.
Requiring notification manifests for
25 kilogram/month producers while
the regular-ion requirement threshold
is 100 kilogram/month is confusing
and burdezsome The enforceability of
the manifest provision is questionable.
Representatives Sirtr.ay and Lss
should be supported in their attempt
to readjust the requirement so that
both the manifest requirement and
the generation provision v ill be con-
sist.ent at 100 kilogramJmonth..
M.r. Chairman, the members of the
House Energy and Commerce Commit-
tee and the House Judiciary .Cornznit.-
tee are to be commended for their
work on this bill, Pa, ’-dous waste
managemen is not an issue that Is
easily resolved.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
I intend to support the bill, whether
or not it is improved by the Shelby-
Lent amendrnezir., This bill is too im-
portant and too long overdue. It must
be passed how.s
Mr. FAUNTROY. I rise in support
of ER. 2867, the Hazardous Waste
Control and Enforcement Act of 1983.
ILR. 2867 reauthorizes and ennances
the Resource Conservation arid Recov-
ery Act (RCRA which governs the
treatment, storage, transportation.
arid disposal of hazardous waste.
Toxic waste is a threat to the health
and well-being of all Americans in our
great Nation. Each year, our industries
generate approximately 250 million
tons of hazardous waste. Alarmingly,
the disposal of a great proportion of
this waste is unregulated.
Mr. Chairman, on December 16,
1982, my colleague, the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Transportation, and Tour-
mm of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. and I requested the Gener-
al Accounting Office to determine the
correlation between the location of
hazardous waste landfills and the
racial and economic status of ‘the sur-
rounding communitIes.
We asked them to focus their review
on offslte landfills—those not part of
or contiguous to an industrmi faci-
ty—found In the etgbt Southeastern
States comprising the Envb-onmental
Pro on Agency’s Region IV. We
also asked for information on site loca-
tion standards, public part1c pation re-
quirements tar siting offsate hazardous
waste landfills, arid EPA’s class permit
proposal whtch addresses the permit-
ting, s a group, less complex waste
management facilities such as storage
tanks,
The - General Amounting Office
found that -
There ‘are four offsite hazardo ,is waste
landflU in ftegion IVs eight States. Blacks
make up the maiortty of the population in
three of the four comxuunrties where the
landfills are located. At least 26 percent of
the population in au four commm ’nties habe
Income below the poverty level and qiost f
this population Is black. - -
This study confirmed our suspicion
that those who are both poor and
black are being forced moz-e than
others to - live with the potential
health risks posed by hazardous waste
landfills, -
This is yet another example which
Illustrates that the problems which
affect all Americans are most acutely
reflected in the black experience.
There is a compelling national inter-
est In improving strong legislation
such as that before us that would
make the land disposal of hazardous
waste inappropriate.
No one—black, white, Hispanic, or
Native American, poor or affluent—
should be forced to l ve near a hazard-
otis waste landfill. There is no such
thing as a “safe’ hazardous waste
landfill,
I am In agreement with the holding
of H.R. 2867 that safer alternative
H 6511
forms for disposal are available and
their capacity Is being underutilized.
Incentives must be created to shift dis-
posal from the land to other ter.imoi-
ogles. Most disturbing is the finding
that many Land disposal facilities do
not even comply with current law. A
current EPA study found that 109 of
171 sites examined were in violation of
RCRA regulations.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2867 is deserv-
ing of support because it conve:.-s a
clear and unambiguous message to the
regulated community and the Em’iron-
mental Protection Agency: Reliance
on land disposal of hazardous waste
has resulted in an unacoeptable risk to
human health and the envircriment. ”
r der this legislation, land disposal
woiijd be authorized only as a last
resort and only under conditions
which would insure the full proteccon
of human health and the environ-
ment.
I urge support of this most Impor-
tant Iegislation.e
• Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman. I appre-
ciate the cooperation of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Encz.a) and
the manager of the bill, the ger .tleixmn
from New Jersey (Mn Ftoazo) in con-
sidermg ray concerns with respect to
the National Groundwater mis-
sion-
The amendment which Mr. Enc.
sponsored would establish a National
Groundwater ComFni cion. The Com-
mission is assigned the duty of exam-
imrig 21 specific matters relating to
ground water quality and qunntiiy
wh!ch are listed in subsection 26 ( 0).
The Commission is to report to the
Presitient and each House of Congress
its findings and recommendations for
legislation and administrative actions
no later than October 30. 1985. -
Some of the matters which the Com-
mission will address, and relating to
which it may be expected to recom-
mend legislation, are matters which
are within - the legislative jurisdiction
of the Committee on Interior and in-
sular Affairs.
For example, the Comrniq ,cion is to
assess generally the engineering -and
technological capability to recharge
aquifers.
I would call your attention to the
fact that the House has r nLty
passed and sent to the Sonate H.R. 71,
a bill which would establish a program
within the Department of the Interior
I or the construction of demonstration
plants to test various techniques for
ground water recharge. HR. 71 was re-
ported to the House by the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs.
The Committee on Interior arid In-
sular Affairs has jurisdictIon over in-
terstate compacts relating to water.
The Commission will have the duty to
assess the use and effectivenms of in-
terstate compacts to address ground
water protectIOn from contaminatiOn.
Water research programs have trac-
tiooaily been within the legislative P-
risdiction of the Committee on Inteil
-------
October 6, 1S&?
Brown, with a Senate amendment
thereto, and concur In the Senate
amendment.
The Clerk rend the title of the bin.
The Clerk read the Senate amend-
ment. as follows:
Page2arlui e2 l.bsert
Ssc.tSecUssi 2oftheActofJuly 12,
1983 (Public Law 98-44). - amended by
striking ‘July 1. 1983.” and substituting
“August 1. 1983.”.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objsct inn to the request of the
gentleman froan ,North Carolina?
Mr. FORSYT . Mr. Speaker, en-
serving the right to object. I do so
solely to yield to my chairman to ex-
plain the reason we need this.
Mr. JON} of North Carolina. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield to
me? ________
Mr. POR rnae.. I yield to the gen-
tleman from North Carolina.
Mr. JON of North Carolina. Mr.
Speaker, the amendment added by the
Senate merely changes by 1 month
the date by which a resident alien who
Is an officer of a corporation subject to
the dthenshlp requirements of the
Shipping Act must have declared an
Intention to become a citizen of the
United States In order to retain the
exemption provided by section 202 of
Public 1 w 08-44. Normally, ill offi-
cers of shipping companies must be
citizens of the United States, but this
Congress created a narrow one-time
exemption so long as declaration was
made by July 1. 1983. ThIs amendment
changes the daLe to August 1. 1983. All
other provisions of the bill. ILR. 1556,
remain as they were when iy’
passed the bill on July 19. 1983.
Does that answer the question of the
gentleman ( Mr. Possrrzx) ?
Mr. FOR y rrie . That is very satis-
factory.
Mr. Speaker. I withdraw my reserva
tion of objection.
The SPEA pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL
AND ENFORCEMENT AC OF 1983
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-
ant to House Resolution 274 and rule
II. the Chair declares the. Rouse
In the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the fur-
ther consideration of the bill. R.R.
2867.
THI COamXT!en OV vex WHOLS
Aomrdingly the House resolved
Itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the tate of the
Union for the further consideration of
the bill (ER. 2867) to amend the Solid
Waste Dlapoea.1 Act to suthorine ap-
PTOPrL%LIOnS for the fiscal years 1984
through 1988. ased for other purposes.
Ii Mr. Bameasia In the chair.
he Cierk read the title of the bilL
she A1RMAN. When the Cesn-
knittee of the Whole House rose on
Thursday. August 4, 1983. section 4
was open for amendment at any point.
Are there any amendments to sec-
tion 4’
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Lass DesPosAL cv asisasoca wasra
Sm. 5. Section 3004 Is amended by Insert.
big “(a) Is OxilinAL.— ” after ‘3004.” and by
adding the following at the end thereof:
“ (b) Liqums ne Lasaru.Ls.—Not later than
six mOnths alter the enactment of the Eat.-
ardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act
of 1983. the Administrator shall promulgate
final regulations which min,mles (to the
extent technologically feasible) the disposal
of containerized liquid hazardous wastes In
landfills. and which prohibit the landfill die.
pcaal of bulk or noncontalnerized liquid
hazardous wastes. Such regulations shall
become effective tmme.” - ”ly upon promul-
gation. Pending promulgation of such regu-
lations. ‘the Admlnistrttor shall maintain
the requlrement.s tas in effect c m April 30.
1933) in regulations under sectIon 3004 re-
specting the disposal in landfills of liquid
hazardous wastes and free liquids contained
In hazardous wastes.
9e) Paoammoics oi e LASS DIapow. or
S zsa WasTis.—(1) The A.i.nIr’ trator
may promulgate regulations prohibiting one
or more methods of land dispoml of s-
fled hazardous wastes fin addition to the
wastes referred to In paragraph (2) of this
th et loa) which are Identified or listed
under sectIon 3001. The Administrator shall
specify each such hazardous waste for
which It may res nrsh1y be anticipated that
one or more methods of land lispnsa1 may
not be protective of human health and the
environment for as long as the waste re-
mains hazardous, taking Into account the
long-term uncertainties associated with land
disposal, the goal of managing hazardous
waste In an appropriate manner in the first
and the persistence, toxicity, mo-
bility, and propensity of bioaccumhiate of
nseb hazardotas wastes and their toxic con-
stituents. In promulgating such regulations.
the Administrator shall consider each haz-
ardous waste which Is prohibited from one
or more methods of land disposal by any
State.
“(2) Not later than twelve months after
the enactMent of the Hazardous Waste Con-
trol and Enforcement ‘Act of 1983, the land
dlspi I of the following hazardous wastes
is prohibited unless the Administrator de-
termines the prohibition on one or more
methods of land disposal Is not required In
order to protect human health and the envi.
rooment for as long as the waste remains
hazardous, taking into account the factois
referred to in paragraph (1):
1A) Liquid hazardous wastes. Including
free liquids associated with any solid or
sludge, containing free or complex cyanides
at concentrations greater than or equal to
1.000 mg/I.
‘IS) Liquid hazardous wastes, including
free liquids associated with any solid or
sludge, containing the following dissolved
metals (or elements) or compounds of these
metals (or elements) at concentrations
greater than or equal to those specified
belo w
“(I) arsenic and/or compounds (as As) 500
mg/i;
“(lit cadmium and/or compounds las Cd)
100mg/I:
“(hi) chromium (VI and/or compounds (as
VI)) 500 mg/I:
‘(Iv) lead and/or compounds (as Pb) 500
v) mercury and/or compounds (as Hg)
118133
“ (vi) nickel and/or compounds (as Ni) 134
mg/I:
“(vii) selenium and/or compounds (as Se)
100 mg/I: and
“(Till) thallium and/or ninipounds (as Th)
130 mg/I.
(C) Liquid hazardous waste having a pH
lees than or equal to two (2.0).
“CD) Liquid hazardous wastes containing
polychlorlnated biphenyls at concentrations
greater than or equal to 50 ppm.
“CE) Hazardous wastes containing I’.aloge-
mated organic compounds In total concen-
tration greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/
kg.
Where necessary to protect human health
and the environment, the Administrator
may substitute more stringent concentra-
tion levels than the levels specited in sub.
paragraphs (A) through (E).
“to) 8 w.m pus Ansnlci.sx , Psonisi-
oa Dwruxzaarzoiis.—41) Not later than
six months after enactment of ths Hazard.
otis Waste Control and Enforcement Act of
1083. for all hazardous wastes listed in 40
C.F.R. 261.31 and 261.32 ( In effect on the
date of the .a1ment of this subsection)
which are not covered by a prohibition
wader subsection (b) or Ic). the A .I ” ln’ntra.
to, shall submit a schedule to Congress for
reviewing those wastes under this subsec-
tion. The AdmInistrator shall complete such
review and shall promulgate regulations In
accordance with paragraph (2 for the per.
omtages of such wastes set forth in the fol.
lowing table before the expiration of the
corresponding period set forth In such table:
Pecentaic of listed has. Period alter enactment
s vestes’ for by which determina.
which $ delsrmlna- lion must be made
lion of land dsp — — ’ sad regulaflon pro-
prohIbIi must be muigated
24 months
34 months
44 months
54 months
The AdmInistrator shall add to the schedule
required under subsection (dXl) any haz-
ardous waste identified or listed under sec-
tion 3001 after the date of enactment of the
Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement
Act of 1983 and before flf t )-.four months
after such date of enactment. The Adminis-
trator shall also determIne, WithIn ilfty.f our
months after the enactment of such Act,
whether all remaining hazardous wastes
Identified or listed under sectIon 3001
should be prohibited from one or more
methods of land disposal in a rdance aith
paragraph (2). In the es.se of any hazardous
waste Identified or listed under section 3001
alter fifty-four months after enactment, the
,tn ,Inictrator shall determine ahether
such waste shall be prohibIted from one or
more methods of land disposal In accord-
ance with paragraph (2) within six months
after the date of such identification or list.
tog,-
“(2) In accordance with the schedule and
tine periods set forth in paragraph (1). the
Administrator shall promulgate tt
latlons prohibiting one or more methods of
land disposal of hazardous wastes If It may
reasonably be anticipated that such method
of land disposal may not be protective of
human health and the environment for as
long as the waste remains hazardous. taking
into account the long.terin uncertainties as-
soelated with land disposal, the goal of man-
aging waste in an appropriate manner in the
first Instance, and the persistence, toxicity,
mobility, and propensity to bioaccumnulate
of such hazardous wastes and their toxic
constituents. In promulgating such regiala-
Uons, the Administrator shall consider each
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
—a
nfl
“a
‘‘ W I
-------
H 8134
hazardous waste which Is prohibited from
one or more methods of land disposal by
any State.
“(3) If the AdmIn trator falls to make a
determination for any hazardous waste
— 4 or Identified under sectIon 3001
‘i the time provided in paragraph (1),
hazardous waste shall be prohibited
.s land disposal.
‘(c) ‘rzc rvz DArns Um,xa (cX2) aiw
(d).—(1XA) Except as provided in subpara.
graph (B). the prohibition under section
(cR2) shall be effective on the date twelve
months after the date of the enactement of
this subsection and a prohibition In regula.
tions under subsection Cd) shall be effective
Immediately upon promulgation.
“(B) The AdvnlnLqt ator may establish an
effective date .other than that required
under subparagraph (A) with respect to a
specific hazardous waste subject to a prohi.
bitten under subsection (cR2) or (d) on the
basis of the earliest date on which adequate
capacity br alternative management will be
available. No such other effective date es-
tabllshed by the Administrator shall be
later than forty-two months after the effec-
tive date specified In paragraph (A) of pro-
mulgation.
“(2) For those hazardous wastes for which
no other effective date Is established under
paragraph C1XB), the Administrator may
grant a variance on a ease-by .case basis for
up to six months, renewable twice only,
upon a showing by a generator of severe
economic hardship. No such variance shall
be granted for wastes generated by any
agency or Instiwnentality of the United
States.
“(3) The Administrator may. from time to
time after the initial promulgation of regu-
lations required by this subsection, revise
such regulations to add additional hazard-
ous wastes to be prohibited from one or
methods of land disposal.
‘lsposzTzoN or Co!mmoNs.—The Ad-
ator may Impose such conditions as
.e necessary to accomplish the purpose
is section. Including but not limited to
, , ,eatment and detoxification prior to
land disposal, and limitations on waste dli ii-
tion.”.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that section 5 be
considered as read and printed In the
Racoan.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amend-
ments to section 5?
£ M1’r OTV ST MR. FLORIO
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. I offer
an amendment. -.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Pi.oszo: Page
11. line 15. after “5.” Insert: “Ca) LMcD Dis-
POSAl —”.
Page 12. strIke out lInes 24 and 25 and
substitute:
“(2) Effective on the date specified in sub-
section Ce), except as provided in paragraph
(3) with respect to underground injection
Into deep injection wells.”.
Page 13, line 1, insert “listed or identified”
before “hazardous”.
Page 14. after line 18, insert
“(3)(A) Not later than 32 months after the
enactment of the Hazardous Waste Control
and Enforcement. Act of 1983. the Adminis-
trator shall complete a revIew of the dispos-
hazardous wastes referred to in
)h (2) by underground injection into
Jection wells and shall promulgate
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
? ial regulations prohibiting the disposal of
any such hazardous waste into such wells If
it may reasonably be determined that such
disposal may not be protective of human
health and the environment for as long as
the waste remains hazardous, taking into ac-
count the factors referred to in paragraph
(2). In promulgating such regulations, the
Administrator shall consider each hazard-
ous waste referred to in paragraph (2)
which is prohibited from disposal into such
wells by any State.
“(B) If the Administrator falls to make a
determination for any hazardous waste re-
ferred to in paragraph (2) withIn the 32
month period referred to in subparagraph
(A). such hazardous waste shall be prohibit-
ed from disposal into any deep Injection
well. -
“(C) Not laler than 18 months after the
enactment of the Hazardous Waste Control
and Enforcement Act of 1983. the Adnilnls’
trator shall submit a report to the Congress
setting forth the interim results of the
review required to be carried out under sub-
paragraph (A).
“ID) As used in this subsection, the term
‘deep injection well’ means a well used for
the underground Injection ,of hazardous
waste other than a weU to which section
7010(a) applIes.
Page 14, line 20, strike out “six” and sub.
utitute “twelve”.
Page 15. line 1. after the period, insert:
“The submission of such schedule shall not
be treated as rulemaking for purposes of
chapter 5 of title 5 of the United States
Code or for purposes of the Paperwork Re-
duction Act of 1980.”.
Page 15. strike out the table following line
I and substitute:
Percentage of listed has- Period a lter enacteinent
srdous wastes for by which determina-
which a determina’ tion must be made
tion of land disposal and regulation pro-
- pyohibltlon must be mulgated
made:

,.,—....,—.
I nil
32 months
42 months
..,...... 52 months
Page 15, line 8, strIke out “subsection
(dRi)” and substitute “this paragraph”,
Page 18, after line 2, insert:
(b) APPLICATSOR OP AMx7IDMnsTS TO Au-
Txosizm STATns.—Section 3006 is amended
by adding the following new subsection
after subsection (f):
“(g) Asemmiezirra Mans Br 1983 Ac’r.—(i)
Any requlrement’or prohibition ahich is ap-
plicable to the generation. .transportation,
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous
waste and which is imposed under this sub-
title pursuant to the amendments made by
the Hazardous Waste Control and Enforce-
ment Act of 1983 shall take effect in each
State having an authorized State program
on the same date as such requirement takes
effect In other States. The Administrator
shall enforce such requirement, directly In
each such State unless—
“(A) the State program is authorized (or is
granted interim authorization as provided in
paragraph (2fl with respect to such require-
ment, or
“(B) the State has entered Into a coopera-
tive agreement with the Administrator
under which the State wiLl enforce the re-
qulrement In that State pending amend-
ment of the State hazardous waste program
to incorporate such requirement..
“(3) Any State which, before the date of
the enactment of the Hazardous Waste Con-
trol and Enforcement Act of 1983, has an
existing hazardous waste program which is
authorized under this section may submit to
the Administrator evidence that such exist’
lug program contains (or has been amended
to include) any requirement which is sub-
G ,, ’tober 6, 1983
stantially equlvalent to a requirement re-
ferred to in paragraph (1) and may request
an Interim authorization to carry out that
requirement under this subtitle. The Ad-
ministrator, If the evidence submitted ahoas
the State requirement to be substantially
equivalent to the requirement referred to In
paragraph (1), grant an Interim authoriza-
tion to the State to carry out such require-
ment In lieu of direct enforcement in the
State by the Administrator of such require-
ment.”.
(C) Iltruiw STATUS Facn,rvras.—$ection
3005(cX2), as amended by section 7 of this
Act, Is further amended by adding the fol.
lowing at the end thereof:
“CD) In the case of each land disposal fa.
ellity which has been granted interim status
under subsection Ce) before the date of the
enactment of this subsection. interim status
shall terminate on the date 12 months alter
the date of the enactment of this subsection
unless the owner or operator of such facili-
ty—
“(I) applies for a final determination re-
garding the issuance of a permit under sub.
section Cc) for such facility before the date
12 months after the date of the enactment
of this subsection; and
“(II) certifies that such facWty is In corn-
pliance with all applicable groundwater
monitoring and financial responsibility re-
quirements,”.
Cd) STATS Law RcouwiNc HAzarulous
WAsTZ MAlnnsr.—Section 3009 Is amended
by adding the following at the end thereof:
“Nothing In this title (or in any regulation
adopted under this title) shall be construed
to prohibit any State from requiring that
the State be provided with a copy of each
manifest used in connection with hazardous
waste which is generated within that State
or transported to a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility within that State.”.
Mr. FLORIO (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed the REcoin.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
(Mr. PLORTO asked and was given
permissIon to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment which I offer on behalf of
Mr. LENT and my colleague, Mr.
Ecgsn’r, a member of the subcom,nit-
tee Improves the schedule by which
EPA must decide whether to ban each
listed hazardous waste from one or
more methods of lar i disposal. Our
amendment would essentIally give
EPA a little more time in wh ,cn to
make the crucial decisions involving
the toxicity, mobility, and risk associ.
ated with each waste, as well as the
safety of various methods of treat-
ment, recycling, and disposal,
This amendi eflt has been fa .orably
reviewed by the envlronmeiital com-
munity and EPA, as well as the regu-
lated community, by providing for a
more orderly, and better targeted,
decisionmaking process, this amend-
ment will help assure that this pro-
gram will be Implemented the way
Congress Intended. Specifically, the
amendment:
-------
(ktober 6; J9&S €ONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
Reduces the number of rul i .Hi’g ’ The Clerk read as foflows:
from four to three for EPAs review of Amendmezg offered by afr. Basaux: Page
all hawdouz wastes; 11. line 15, after ‘s.” Imeru “Ca) 1 a Dts-
Gives EPA more time to set up a roSAL 07 TAZ% Rewmooe WASTES.—’.
schedule for the review of each w st Page 11. strIke out line 11 and all that fol-
and allows EPA to develop that sched- lOWS down through line 5 on page 1.2 and
siib st l lute
tile without formal rulemaking; ‘(b) SALT Pne rmss. Ureuza-
Shortens the overall Lime lox review ?txrs aan Cevxs.—(i) ffective
from 54 to 52 months; PchTUs.TY 1. 1984. the placement of any
Allows the “deep well” Injection liquid hawdoua waste or free liquids con.
method of disposal—normally 4,000 to tamed In hazardous waste (whether contaln-
8,000 feet below the surface—and erlzed. noneoataJnei-hed or bulk and wheth-
adthtlonal 20 months j er or not ainorbents have been added) In
prove that this method of disposal Is d0en formation, underground
safe with respect to wastes , mine, or cave Is prohibited. Effective on the
date of enactment of this subsection, the
otherwise be banned In 12 months; oment of any other hazardous waste in
Requires self-certIficatIon of ground a salt dome formation, uinierground mine,
water monitoring and f nci&1 1 - Os’ cave is prohibited until such time as the
sponsibiity requiremenLs and Administrator has promulgated perform-
Allows States to require disposers anee and permitting siandard for such
and generators to send manifests dl- f ’ % er this subtitle and a permit
reetly to that State. under section 3005(c) for
I believe this amendment Is carefully concerned.
“(3) The Administrator absil conduct a
crafted and will help EPA. accomplish stndy &nd, withIn 2 year, alter the date of
the important task we have directed ui enactment of this subsection, submit a
them to do. report to the Congress regarding the effects
Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, will the on “ health and the envfromaen&
gentleman yield to me? wh b ore with the p1 .l 1t of
- Mr. FLORIO. I yield to the gentle- liquid h rdous waste I lt dome forms.-
man from New York. tunis, underground mines, and caves. th
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman repset niaj include re meeafa*ions for
for yielding, the mothS fr t .n of the pruhiblt1 om-
Is It not a fact that the changes tamed In paragraph (1) an the placement of
liquid hmmrdous waste In salt dome forms.
being made by this amendment will tons. un& mines, and eaves.
change the land disposal rI dli? es In a ‘m so determination made by the Ad-
way that will assist EPA In making Its ministrator under suheeetion (d) or (el Of
decisions under sectIon 5’ this section r arthng any hmardous waste
Mr. FLORIO. The gentleman Is cor- to which such subsection (d l or (el SPPlies
.r°et. shell affect the prohibition contained In
‘r. LENT. This amendment, then, p ph (1) of this subsection.
“Cc) Laguzes se Ia anruaa.—( 1) fectlve
S a segment of the regulated corn- slzmsnths alter the date of the enactment
,nlty. those who utthze under- of’ tie pi ’ ’r of bulk or
ound th ,Ject lot for their waste dis- liquid b mrdcus waste or
,,jsal practices, some relief from the free liquids contained in hazardous waste
stringent deadlines contained In see- (whether or not absorbent., have been
tlon 5? sheedi In any I.ndf I I I is prohibited, Prior to
Mr. FLORIO. Under the appropriate SUCh dale the reqUU’eflieTits (55 In effect on
circumstances, that Is correct. - l D 30. 128 3 ) ps’omulzaitd under this see-
Mi-. LENT. My understanding is that tion by the ArImf. ’u.trator r.garding liquid
hazardous wag e slasH remain in force and
this amendment contains a change effect to the extent such requirements are
that Is essential to speeding the RCRA the placement Of bulk or con-
landfill permiLting procedures a1On containerized liquid hazardous waste, or
tbls change requires that all owners of free liquids contained in hazardous waste, In
hazardous waste landfill facilities ocr- la Ws.
Lily that they are In compliance with ‘ NOt later than aix moOths alter the
all applicable ground water monitor- date of the enac ent of this subsection.
the Adeslnlstrator shall pvomutp.Le final
Ing, postc losure and-financial responsl- wtiici —
bUlly requirements as a condition (or “(A) , ,,4ni,n ,, (to the extent technologi-
maintaining Interim status and 51110 cally feasible) the disposal of cont.asnerized
It will assist, It should assist EPA In liquid hazardous waste twhether or not ab-
pe -Iorm1nj Its responsibilities since aorbents have been added) In landfills, and
owners will now be forced to close “ (B) minimize (by means other than the
doa n LI they fall to certify that they iti0n of absorbent material where tech-
nolo lcalIy feasible) the presence of free Uq’
are in compliance with the basic ulds tn containerized hazardous waste to be
RCRA requirements. disposed of In landfills. -
Mr. FLORIO , Once again the gentle- Prior to the date on which such final regu
man is correct. latlons take effect, the requn’ements (as In
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman. effect on April 30, 1083) promulgated under
support the gentleman’s amendment. this section b? the Administrator shall
The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on remain in force and effect to the extent
the amendment offered by the gentle- such requirements are applicable to the dia-
man from New Jersey (M i, Fi.onio). posal of containerized liquid hazardous
The amendment was agreed to. waste, or free liquids contained In hazardous
The CHAIRMAN, Are there further waste. in landfills.
—Z Effective t year after the date of the
a o-”4men s to section 5? enactment of this subsection, the placement
IIDnUIT OrTUm If N M. DRMUI of any liquid which is not a hazardous waste
REAUX. Mr. Chairman. I offer in tmdffll for which a permh Is required
dment. under pectI 3005(c) or which is operating
H 8135
pursuant to Interim status granted under
section 3005(e) Ii prohibited unless the
owner or operator of such landfill demon-
strates to the AdmInIstrator, or the Admin-
istrator determines, that—
“(A) the only reasonably anilabte alterna-
tive to the placement iii such landfill Is
placement In a landfill or unlined surface
Impoundment. whethcr or not permitted
under section 3005Cc) or operating pursuant
to Interim status wider sectIon 3005(e).
which contains, or Inay reasonably be antici-
pated to contain, hazardous waste; and
(B) placement in such owner or opera-
tor’s landfill will not present a risk of con-
tainlnation of any underground source of
drinking waler. Ac used In this subpara-
graph, the tern ‘underground source of
drinking water’ has the same meaning as
provided hi regulations under the Sale
Drinking Water Act (Title XIV of the
Public Health Service Act).
“(4) No determination made by the Ad-
ministrator under subsection Cd) or (e) of
this section regardIng any hazardous as.ste
to which such subsection Id) or to) applies
shall affect the prohibition contained in
paragraph (1) of this subsection,
Page 12. line 5, strike out “cor and substi-
tute “Id)”.
Page 14. lIne 19. strIke out “(d)” and sub-
stitute “(e)”.
Page 14, line 25, strIke out ‘(b) or Ic)” and
substitute “Cd)”.
Page 15, lIne 8, strike out “subsection
(d xi)” and substitute “this paragraph”.
Page 16, lIne 21. strike Out “(e) DTzcrav!
Darns Uscuza (cxl) Aim (d)—” and subsU.
lute “C t) EermaivA Darns; Spacw. Ruts’s,—
Page 16. lIne 25, strIke out “(cX2)” and
substitute “(dX2)”,
Page 11. line 1. strike out “(d)” and substi-
tute “(C).
Page 17, lIne 6. strIke out “CcX2) or Cd)”
and substitute “(dX3) or (ei”
Page 11, line 10, strIke out “of promulga-
tim,” and substitute the following. “. except
that In the case of disposal of a specific haz-
ardous waste bY agencies or Instruinenlal.
Itles of the Federal government, no such
other effective date established by the Ad-
ministrator may be later than 18 months
after the effective date specified In subpara-
graph CA) unless the Mmln istrator deter.
mines at that time that alternative available
capacIty Is sill unavailable or Inadequate
for the management of such hazardous
waste. If the Administrator makes such a
determination concerning disposal by an
agency or Iiiztrumerita llty of the waste con-
cerned, he mu establish another effective
date which may not be later than 30 months
after the effective date specified in subpara-
graph (A).”.
Page 17, line 23. strIke out “(1) Inposirior.
o Cosnuxrlofls -—” and substitute ‘14)”,
Page l ’I, Line 25. strike out “this sectIon”
and substitute “subsections Cb) through ci)
of this section”.
Page 18, line 2. strIke out the closing quo-
tation marks.
Page 18. line 2. Insert:
In the case of any hazardous waste
which is prohibited from one or more meth-
ods of land disposal under subsection Id) or
Ce) of this section (or under regulations pro-
mulgated by the Administrator under such
subsection (dl or Ce)) the storage of such
hazardous waste La prohibIted unless such
storage is solely for the purpose of the accu-
mulation of such quantities of hazardous
waste as are necessary to facilitate proper
recovery, treatment or disposal.
“(6) For the purposes of subsections (dl
and Ce) of this section, the term ‘land dis-
posal’, s’hen used with respect to a specified
-------
H 8136
bazardotis waste, shall be deemed to in-
chide, but not be limited to, any placement
of such hazardous waste in $ landfill, sur-
face impoundment. waste pile, Injection
“eli, land treatment facility, salt dome for-
tion. or underground mine or cave.”.
3) Ilfl ’ZRIII STATUS Sua,acz IMPOUND-
.jorrs—Section 3005 Is amended by adding
the following after subsection (g)
°(h) Iirrzans STares Smtpacz IMPOUND-
MxIiTs.—(l) Except in the case of a surface
impoundment wbich meets the require-
ments of subparagraph (A) or (B) of para-
graph (3), no hazardous waste listed or Iden-
tified under sectIon 3001 as of the date of
enactment of this subsection may be placed
or maintained in a surface impoundment
which has been granted interim status
under subsection ce unless the AaImfnI4ra.
tar has Issued a permit for such surface Im-
poundment under subsection (C). The re-
quirement set forth In the preceding sen-
tence shall take effect on the date 4 years
after the date of the enactment of this sub-
section. In the case of any surface impound-
ment which is granted Interim status after
the date of the enactment of this subsection
and which receives hazardous waste which
Is listed or identified under section 3001
after such date of ensctmeflt, the require-
ment set forth In the first sentence of this
paragraph shall take effect on the date 4
years alter the date on which such hazard-
ous waste is listed or Identified.
“(2) Except In the case of a surface im-
poundment which meets the requirements
of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph 3),
any permit issued under subsection (C) for a
surface Impoundment which Is operating
under interim status pursuant to subsection
(e) shall require such Impoundment to
comply with the requirements whIch sse ap-
plicable to new surface impoundments
v” der section 3004(kXl). Any such permit
allow the surface Impoundment to
e into compUance with such require-
in accordance with a compliance
iliedule If such schedule requires coinpil-
moe as rapidly as practicable but not later
than 2 years after the issuance of the
permit.
“(3) The prohibition set forth in para-
graph (1) and the requirement set forth In
paragraph (2) may be waived by the Admin-
istrator for any surface impoundment if the
owner or operator of the surface impound-
ment demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that, as of the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the Impound-
ment—
‘(A) was not within % mile of under-
ground source of drinking water, and—
“(I) bad a liner designed, constructed, in-
stalled and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from paasing Into the liner at any
time during the active life of the facillty or
“(I I) had a liner designed, constructed. in-
stalled and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from migrating beyond the liner to
adjacent subsurface soil, groundwater, or
surface water at any time during the active
life of the facility; or
vu designed, operated, and located
so as to prevent the migration of any haz-
ardous constituent into the groundwater or
surface water at any future time.
The exemption provided under subpara-
graph (A) of this paragraph for any surface
Impoundment shall cease to apply at any
time that the Administrator determines
that the liner of the surface impoundment
has failed to meet the requirements of
clause Ci) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) and re-
“Ira acceptable to the *thnInI’ trator have
been made to Insure that such require-
Cs are meL The exemption provided
Jer subparagraph (H) of this paragraph
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
for any surface Impoundment shall cease to
apply at any time that the Admln1 trator
determines that the surface impoundment
has failed to prevent the migration of any
hazardous constituent into the groundwater
or surface water. In the case of any surface
impoundment which has been granted inter-
im status and which has been determined
under this paragraph to meet the require-
ments of subparagraph (Axil), at the do-
sure of such impoundment the Administra-
tor shall require the owner or operator of
such impoundment to remove or decontami-
nate all waste residues, all contaminated
liner material, and contanilnanted soIl to
the extent practicable. U all contknhlnanted
soil is not removed or decontamInated, the
owner or operator of such Impoundment
shall be required to comply with appropri-
ate post ’cloeure requirements, including but
not limited to groundwater monitoring and
corrective action.
“(4) If the Administrator allows a hazard-
ous waste which is prohibited from one or
more methods of land disposal under sub-
section (d) or Ce) of section 3004 (or under
regulations promulgated by the Administra-
tor ‘under such subsection Cd) or (e)) to be
placed In a surface Impoundment (which Is
operating pursuant to interim status) for
storage or treatment, such Impoundment
shall meet the requirements that are appli-
cable to new surface impoundments under
section 3004(kXl) as of the effective date of
such prohibition, unless such impoundment
meets the exemptions contained in para-
graph (3) of this subsection, Where neces
sary to protect human health or the envi-
ronment, taking Into account the factors re-
ferred to In section 3004(dXl), the Adminis-
frator may Impose additional requirements
to any surface impoundment operating pur-
suant to Interim status under section
3005(e) or for which a permit has been
issued pursuant to section 3005(c).
“(5) In the case of any hazardous waste
which is prohibited from one or more meth-
ods of land disposal wider subsection Cd) or
Ce) of section 3004 (or under regulations pro-
mulgated by the Administrator under such
subsection (d) or Ce)) the placement oq
maintenance of such hazardous waste In a
surface impoundment for treatment Is pro-
hibited as of the effective date of such pro-
hibition unless the treatment residues
which are hazardous are, at a minimum, re-
moved for subsequent n mnagement within
one year of the entry of the waste into the
surface Impoundment,
“(6) In the case of eacl surface impound-
ment which has been granted interim status
under subsection (e) before the date of the
enactment of this subsection, interim status
shall terminate on the date 12 months alter
the date of the enactment of this subsection
unless the owner or operator of such im-
poundment—
“(A) applies for a final determination re-
garding the issuance of a permit under sub-
section (ci for such faculty before the date
12 months after the date of the enactment
of this subsection and
“(B) demonstrates that such impound-
ment is in compliance with all applicable
groundwater monitoring and fInancial re-
sponsibility requirements.
“(7) Before the date 3 years alter the date
of the enactment of this subsection the Ad-
ministrator shall make a determination re-
gardmg the issuance of a permit under sec-
tion (c) for all surface impoundments which
have been granted Lnterim status under sub-
section (e) and which are located within t4
mile of an underground source of drinking
water.
“(8) As used In this subsection, the term
‘underground source of drinking water’ has
the same meaning as provided in regulations
Ootober 6’, 1983
under the Sale Drinking Water Act (Title
XIV of the Public Bealth Service Act).
Cc) A iR 3 nssIoNs Psow Lssu Dzs osa&
F*cn.is’xza.—Sect4on 3004 is amended by
adding the foliowlng new subsection after
subsection (k):
(1) Aza ISS!ONS flow LAND DISPOSAL
racn.mzs.—Not later than 24 months after
the date of the enactment of this subsec-
tion, the Administrator shall promulgate
regulations for such monitoring and control
of air emissIons at hazardous waste storage,
treatment, and land disposal facilities (in-
cluding but not limited to open tanks, sur-
face Impoundments, and landfills) as may be
necessary to protect human health and the
environment.”.
Cd) Fsszasi. FACILITY Izss,zc’rioss: Reroar
To Cosoiuss.—Section 3007 of such Act is
amended by adding the following new sub-
sections after subsection (d):
“(e) FmZRAL Facn.zry Ijisptc’rsons.—Be-
ginning one year after the date of enact-
ment of thIs subsection, the Admnustrator
shall, or In the case of a State with an au-
thorized hazardous waste program the State
shall, undertake no less often than every
year a thorough Inspection of each facility
for the treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste which Is operated by an
agency or Instrumentality of the Federal
government to enforce Its compliance with
this subtitle and the regulations promulgat-
ed thereunder. The records of much inspec-
tions shall be available, consistent with sec-
tion 1004. to the public as provided In sec-
tion 3007(b).
“(f) Fseza.u . AGsiicT HAZARDoUS Wasri
Facxi.rry Liv ORT.—E 5Ch Federal agency
shall undertake a continuing program to
compile, publish, and submit to the Adxnln-
istrator (and to the State In the case of sites
in States having an authorized hazardous
waste program) an inventory of each site
which the Federal agency owns or operates
or has owned or operated at which hazard-
ous waste is stored, treated, or disposed of
or has been disposed of at any time. The In-
ventory shall be submitted every two years
beginning January 31, 1986. auth inventory
shall be available, consistent with section
1006, to the public as provided In section
3007(b). InformatIon previously submitted
by an agency under section 103 of the Com-
prehensive 3 vironmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act of 1980, or
under section 3005 or 3010 of this Act, or
under this section need not be resubmitted
except that the agency shall update any
previous .aubinlsslon to reflect the latest
available data and information. The Inven-
tory shall contain each of the following, at a
minimum:
“(1) The location of each site, arid where
hazardous waste has been disposed, a de-
scription of hydrogeology of the site and
the location of withdrawal wells and surface
water within one mile of the site.
“(2) Such information relating to the
amount, nature, and toxicity of the hazard.
ous waste in each site as may be necessary
to determine the extent of any health
hazard which may be associated with any
site. -
“(3) Information on the known nature and
extent of environmental contanunation at
each site, Including a description of the
monitoring data obtained.
“(4) A list of mites at which hazardous
waste has been disposed and environmental
monitoring data has not been obtained, and
the reasons for the lack of monitoring data
at each site.
“(5) A description of response actions un-
dertaken or contemplated at contaminated
sites.
-------
October 6, 198S
. BREAUX (during the reading).
ar. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
bent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed In the
Rscoiw.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana.
There was no objection.
Mr BREAUX. Mr. Chairman. I want
to first of all thank the chairman of
the subcommittee, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Fx.oiuo) and
also the rbnkfng Republican member
from New York (Mr. Lxirr) for their
cooperation and also, paxticualrly, the
cooperation we have had between
their staffs and my staff on helping us
to develop this amendment over the
literally several months that we have
an opportuntiy to work on It since
we last considered this legislation.
My amendment is basically fairly
simple. It is simple in the sense that It
deals with two major areas that we are
concerned with.
First, it deals with how we handle
liquid hazardous waste in salt domes
and in mines and in underground
caves. We set certain standards, we list
certain prohibitions, we also mandate
that the Environmental Protection
Agency undertake a study that should
“ompleted withIn 2 years to deter-
whether It is proper to dispose of
ihazardouswasteinthesetypeof
lLIltleS.
the second thing in general that my
amendment does is to deal with sur-
face impoundments. Surface Impound-
ments are really landfills in the sense
that they are areas in which individ-
usia, companies, or operators place
substances that are liquid, hazardous,
toxic, in which they either treat these
substances or they leave them untreat-
et
We deal with those surface ha-
poundznenta by setting out certain
standards and requiring certain steps
to be taken before you can use a sur-
face impoundment that Is going to
contain these hazardous wastes.
I would say to the Members that
what we are dealing with today is nost
serious. We are dealing with the
health of every citizen in every con-
gressional district in the United States
of America.
What we are dealing with is the
health of our entire country. The
question today is really: Are we, as a
society, intelligent enough to protect
our own human health and our own
environment? The question is: Are we.
as a society really Intelligent enough
to balance the needs of a highly tech-
nical and industrial society with the
need of providing a healthy environ-
‘or the citizens of our country? -
118137
technology and science In this coun-
try.
Basically with regard to the salt
domes and the mines and the caves
that I first indicated, what we say
quite simply is, look, do not put liquid
hazardous wastes into these areas
until we know whether it is sale or
not. One company has a proposal to
put liquid hazardous waste in a salt
dome in Louisiana, in my congression-
al district, and I asked them, “What is
your experience In other parts of the
country?”
They said. ‘We don’t know, we have
never done it before In the United
States.”
I said, “Oh, OK. What Is your expe-
rience with doing this In Europe where
you are from?”
They said, “Oh, we have never done
It there either. They don’t let us do It
there.” -
But yet they wanted to do It in the
United States as a first test on a com-
mercial scale. And I say we should not
do that until such time as we have a
study to show that It can be done
safely.
This amendment mandates that.
Second, with regard to surface im-
poundments that I have just talked
about, my amendment would start of f
with a clear general rule that says
simply that hazardous wastes that are
now being put in surface impound-
ments around the country operating
under interim status permits are going
to be prohibited, unless that impound- -
ment gets a final permit.
We are giving them 4 years under
this amendment to get their final
permit In order. And that final permit
has to say that these surface impound-
ments have to be retrofitted; and re-
trofitting requires they be double
lined and that they establish a moni-
toring system to see that It is not leak-
ing into the environment.
Some say, “Well, we should not have
to do this.” So we provideexemptions.
We provide specific exemptions that
say as follows: If the owner or the op-
erator has a surface impoundment
that has only one liner, we say, all
right, if It has only one liner you are
not going to have retrofit, but you are
going to have to show us something.
And I do not think that is too much to
ask. You are goIng to have to show us
that the liner is designed, constructed,
Installed, and operated in a manner to
prevent the hazardous waste from
leaking through. That is not too much
to ask.
We also want It not to be located
within one-quarter of a mile of a
source of underground drinking water.
That Is not too much to ask.
We even go further than that, and
say, look, whether or not it is lined, 11
you have a surface impoundment that
has no lining at all, we are still going
to give you an exemption if you can
show that your surface Impoundment
was designed and operated and located
so as to prevent the migration of any
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
“(6) An idenWication of the types of tech- The question Is often asked: Is this
piques of waste treatment or disposal which oing to cost us something? And the
have been used at each site. er is, or course It is going to cost
‘(7) The name and address and respond- us something. It is going to cost some-
ble agency for each site, determined is of
the date of preparation ol the inventory :’, thing to clean up the environment.
The next question is: Is It going to
0 1430 be too expensive? Can we afford this?
Am I going to be put out of business if
I have to follow these new standards?
I would suggest to those who take
that line of thought that they ask the
person who Is lying in a hospital bed,
dying of stomach cancer, Is the cost
too great.
I would suggest that those who
think it may cost too much that they
ask a sport n who pulls out an-
other fish from his favorite fishing
river or stream or lake and finds that
yet again this particular fish Is filled
_____ with carcinogenic tumors caused by
somebody’s mistake somewhere, is the
cost too great.
I suggest that If you think it Is going
to cost too much that you ask a citizen
who has been uprooted from his
hometown after living there for 30
years and being required to be moved
by the Federal Government because
his town is infested with toxic chenil-
cals that we did not treat correctly in
the first place, is the cost too great.
I say ask those people if they think
the cost of cleaning up a country is too
much. And I think that the answer
that you will get Is, no, it Is not. It Is In
fact a very cheap price to pay for a
healthy environment, balanced with a
healthy industrial climate.
During the consideration and the de-
velopment of this amendment, we
have learned a number of things. And
some of the things that we have
learned have been absolutely frighten-
kig.
We have learned that there are 770
facilities In this country of ours that
operate what we call surface impound-
inents. A beautiful phrase that means
we are putting It on top of the ground
and we are hoping that it does not
leak. Those 770 facilIties have some-
where—we do not even know how
many—between 1.712 ahd 1,775 sur-
face Impoundments that are individ-
ually being operated in this country.
EPA tells us further that 684 of them
have at least a single liner on the
bottom and that 374 are doubled lined
and thank goodness they are. That Is
62 percent. But EPA further tells us
that 655 of these surface impound-
ments around the country have no
lining. They are just surface impound-
ments placed on top of the ground and
we hope that they will not leak.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Baz*ux) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Baw x
wks allowed to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.)
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, what
we have tried to do Is come up with an
amendment that addresses these prob-
lems In a forthright way, in a manner
that we can accomplish with existing
1o/
-------
H 8138
hazardous constituents Into 4he
ground water or the surface water at
any future time.
I think that that Is not too much to
ask. The only thing we are saying Is,
look, come In and show that It is not
leaking. Come in and show that It is
not leaking hazardous constituents.
Do my colleagues know what hazard-
ous constituents are defined as In this
bill? Hazardous constituents: the Ad-
ministrator shall Identify those wastes
that contain hazardous constituents
such as Identified carcinogens, muta-
gens, or tetragens at concentration
levels that may harm human health
and the environment. We are tAlking
about a lot of waste, not just . a drop In
the Atlantic Ocean, but a waste at con-
centration levels in excess of levels
which adversely affect the human
health and the environment
The only thing we are asking a com-
pany to do that has an unlined surface
Impoundment Is to prove that what Is
leaking Is not a hazardous constituent
and thus not likely to have an adverse
consequence and effect on the human
health and the environment.
And If they cannot meet those three
exemptions, they should and must
take action to clean up their act.
Mr. FLORIO, Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Briefly, and not desiring to repeat,
Mr. Chairman the amendment would:
First, ban, not later than February
1, 1984, the placement of container-
ized. noncontainerized or bulk liquid
hazardous waste Into salt dome forma-
tions. underground mines or caves. Ef-
fective on the date of enactment of’S
this subsection, the placement of
other hazardous waste Into these
types of land formations would also be
prohibited until such time as the Ad-
ministrator of EPA has promulgated
performance and permitting standards
for such placement and a final permit
has been issued pursuant to section
3005(c of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA);
Second. ban, effective 6 months
after the date of enactment, the place-
ment of bulk or noncontalnerized
liquid hazardo,us waste into any land-
fill. EPA has admitted that all land.
fills leak. This provision would allow
generators and/or disposers of these
waste 6 months to find alternative
waste management practices. Current
EPA policy is already minimizing such
disposal in recognition of the human
health and environmental risks associ-
ated with this practice. The committee
bill already requires EPA to develop
regulations. in 6 months, to proscribe
the practice. My amendment merely
codifies the committee’s Intent:
Third. require the Administrator of
EPA to develop regulations, within 6
months of enactment, which minimize,
to the extent technologically feasible,
the disposal of containerized liquid
hazardous waste In landfills. This pro-
‘isbn is Intended to allow the contin-
ued Iandfilllng. until auth time as al-
ternative management capacity Is
available, of mnall containers, com-
monly referred to as lab packs, that
result from ongoing research at medi-
cal and other educational Institutions;
Fourth, ban, effective 1 year after
enactment, the placement of any
liquid waste, whether hazardous or
not, into a landfill containing hazard-
ous waste. It makes no sense for EPA
or the Congress to determine that the
placement of liquid hazardous waste
Into landfills Is a bad practice because
of the problems associated with the
migration of such wastes and not to
proscribe practices which could lead to
the coiningllng of solid hazardous
waste with, other liquids. An exception
has been provided that will prevent
the shifting of nonhazardous liquid
waste from regulated landfills to mu-
nicipal landfills and unlined surface
Impoundments that contain or might
contain hazardous wastes due to prior
disposal practices; and
Fifth, establish a tlmefrazne for the
issuance of final permits to existing In-
terim status surface Impoundments.
Such final permits must, with three
exceptions, contain a compliance
sohedule for the retrofitting of those
Impoundments that do not meet the
double liner, leachate detection and
ground water monitoring requirements
established for new surface impound-
ments by section 21 of the bill. I
should emphasize that this section on
impoundments requires retrofitting to
meet the minimum containment tech-
nology standards of section 21—two
liners, a leak detection system In be-
tween—plus ground water monitoring.
Mr. Chairman, as I Indicated, the
committee reported bW also contains a
mechanism by which the Administra-
tor of EPA can decide to allow specific
liquid hazardous waste to be placed In
certain land disposal facilities. It Is mr
understanding that the intent of the
committee was not to allow the Ad-
ininistrator to overturn or modify the
prohibitions contained in section 5 of
the bill (new subsection 3004(b) of
RCRA. I certainly share that belief
and have included In my amendment a
provision that would so restrict the
Administrator’s discretion under the
remaining provisions of section 5 of
the bill. I would note that this restric’
tion now applies to the prohibitions
contained In new section 3004 (b) and
Cc) of RCRA as added by my amend-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, there are four other
signifIcant provisions contained in my
amendment to section 5 of the bill.
These provisions:
First, restrict the ability of Govern’
ment agencies to obtain the so-called
capacity waiver for alternative waste
management once a particular waste is
prohibited from one or more methods
of land disposal. This provision re-
quires the Administrator to conduct
an alternative capacity review to de-
termine ii Federal waste can be placed
In alternative waste management fad.
October 6, 198. ?
ities within 18 months of the Imposi-
tion of a prohibition with respect to a
particular waste. If there Is stifi inad-
equate alternative management capac-
ity, the Federal waiver may be contin-
ued for only another 12 months, that
is to a total of 30 months after a pro-
hibition determinatIon, rather than
the 42 months allowed prIvate Indus-
try. The Justification for reducing the
time for the Federal Government’s
variance from land disposal prohibi’
tlons Is twofold. First, capacIty is avail-
able for treatment and recovery right
now, and’ even If It is not enough for
all of this country’s waste. Its exist-
ence should not be Ignored while addi-
tional, sufficient capacity Is built. The
Federal Government could be and
should be using better waste manage-
ment methoas. and the amendment
will encourage the Federal agencies to
use existing capacity. Second, the Fed-
eral Government should be out In
front encouraging a market for better
technologies. The amendment will en-
courage Federal agencies to plan now
for prohibitions which will be imposed
over the course of sectIon 5’s Imple-
mentatIon;
Second. require EPA to promulgate
air PmIA I fl monitoring and control
regulations within 2 years of enact-
ment for land storage, treatment and
disposal facilIties as necessary to pro-
tect human health and the environ-
me r le
Third, require Federal agencies and
authorized States, wIthin 1 year, to
undertake annual Inspections of feder-
ally owned or operated land storage.
treatment and disposal facilities; and
Fourth, require Federal agencies to
undertake a continuing Inventory of
their present storage, and past and
present disposal facilities. The amend.
ment stipulates that Information pre-
viously submitted pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Re-
source, CompensatIon, and Liability
Act (Superfund) need not be resubmit-
ted, but It. should be updated.
This provision has been carefully
drafted to fill In the remaining gaps of
a generally comprehensive bill that
will, as I have previously indicated, go
a very long way to Insuring the long-
term health of the American people
and their environment. I would reiter-
ate that my amendment does not, in
any gay, conflict with the Intent of
section 5 to minimize the continued
use of land disposal for hazardous
waste. Rather, the amendment com-
plements section 5 of the bill by fur.
ther restricting certain land disposal
practices and requiring better manage-
ment practices for those wastes which
are still permitted to be placed In the
land by the Administrator of EPA.
I have worked very closely with Mr.
Foasrrsis in developing both the Ian’
guage and intent of this amendment
and knowing that he will shortly
speak In favor of these provisions
would note my full concurrence in his
remarks. I have also prepared and
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
-------
October 6, 1982
would Inc lude In these remarks a
tion-by-aection analysis of the amenad-
nient whIch pro rides rester deta i l on
the scope of the amendment and our
intent.
ncrioa-at-ewrtoN aiiaLtsta Or esinux
a sbare
tvassettoia qbitn
This paragraph establishes a prohibition
on the placement of containerized. non-con-
tslnerlsed. or bulk liquid hazardous waste La
alt dome formations. anderground mines or
eaves alter February 1, 1984. ThIs para-
graph also prohibits, upon enactment, the
placement of other waste Into these land
formations until such time as EPA prontul-
ga la performance and permitting stand-
ards. and Sues a final permit. for such
placement The use of the term “place-
men? Is intended to cover all types of has-
srdous waste handling and management.
While there Is no current placement of haz-
ardous waste Into these types of formations.
the prohibition on liquids Is scheduled so
that EPA can complete Its current pmmul-
ga llon of regulations defining the term
llqtid hnrdoim wastC The agency baa
indicated that such regulations Will be final
by February 1, 1984. When fl’A detain
what a liquid Is—it should do so for both
butt Pad containerized waste and the defini-
tion and operational test should apply to
both.
- suaawnon lSIls i
ThIs paragraph requires EPA to conduct a
study of the effects of hu man health and
the environment associated with the place-
ment of liquid hazardous waste In salt dome
formations, underground mines or caves.
The report. to be concluded wtthln 2 yeses
of enactment, shall be submitted to the
Congress and city contain recommends-
flons for a modification of the statutory
prohibition on the placement of liquid has-
rdoux waste into these types of land I orma-
S
sussactroil’ (5115 I
This paragraph makes clear that the Ad-
mInistration may not. lit renewing the suit-
ability of land disposal for specified waste
and other listed or identified waste under
Section 5 (c) and Cdt of the till. ovenunt or
otherwise roodif I the statutory orohibitions
set forth In paragraph 1, descrIbed previous-
h i.
sossECrioN . c i iii
This paragraph prohlblt . within six
months of enactment, the p’acemtnt of,
bulk or noncontalnerized liquid hazardous
waste in any iandfitl. Pror to the effective
date of this prohibition, regulations promul-
gated by WA on Apr11 30. 1983 shall remain
In effect, —
sussscrioa ic ’s.
This paragraph. like the provIsion In the
Cooisnittee reported bill, directs the Admin-
istrator of EPA to promulgate final regula-
lions mlnlrninne the diaposal of container’
iced liquid hazardous waste Into ianclfifls
a’ILhLn six monthi of the date of enactment.
While current EPA policy genersfly prohib-
its the disposal of containerized liquid waste
Into landlilts. the policy and aniendinent
allow the Administrator suffic Ient discre-
tion to permit the disposal of containerized
waste. such as lab packs Which contain
small asnpulea of laboratory wastes, and yet
maintain the existing prohibition on drums
and other unsuitabie containers Moreover.
the use of the phrase “to the extent techno-
logically feasible” Is tnttnded. as stated in
the Committee report 9 discourage land-
filling of oontalnerlzed liquid hazardous
q to the extent tech nology con provide
CON GRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
H 8139
a means to discontinue the practice.” As I gu rio . di tai
the previous provisIon. Prior to the effective The purpose of this amendment Is to
date of the final regulations required y avoid the potential problem of waste gene-
thic paragraph. EPA regulations in effect on ators, hsaoless or dlspoeers utilizing “shain
ApriL 30. 1983 shall remain in effect. storage to avoid a prohibition on the dlspoa-
sVaasc’flOs 1 0 1 1g b a) of a particular waste from one or more
This paragraph prohibits the placement methods of Land disposal. Thus, the amend-
of any non-hazardous lIquid Into a landfill ment prov ides that the storer of a har.ard-
operating under either Section 300SCe) or otis waste that has been prohibited (root
3005(e ). The purpose of this provison is to one or more methods ol land disposal Is also
prevent the placement of any liquid waste prohibited unless such storage is solely for
into a landfill containing hazardous waste. the purpose of acaumulating such quantities
The placement of such liquids into landfills of the waste as necessary to facilitate
containing hazardous waste contributes to proper reoovery. treatment or disposal. This
the likelihood of migration of hazardous reqisli-ement should be Imposed by EPA as
materials out of the faculty. EPA should of the effective dste of a prohibition. tt the
ensure that the definition of liquids is the latest -
ante for liquid hazardous and non-hazard- susswnoli di (Si
ous liquid waste.
An exception has been provided p.js This paragraph clarifies the Latent of
general rule when the owner or operators Congress that the types of “land dispoaal’
of a perteitted landfill demonstrates to the subject to review by the AdminIstratOr pin-
Admlnlsl.ralor. or the Administrator deter- stisnt to subsections CS) (di and let of the
mines, that the Imposition of the prohlbl- CommIttee reported bill, or amended by this
tion with respect to a partIcular permitted ametidment, Include all forms of hazardous
landfW would cause the .h i-dom waste placement In or on the land. Thus, it
liquid to be placed It) In a landfIll or sin- IS clear that the Administration shall revIew
lined surface Impoundment, whether or not the appropriateness of placing hazardous
regulated by RCRA. (2) noch Iscidikll or waste Into oct only traditional land disposal
poundmeflt contains, or may reasonably be faciLities, but land treatment and storage
anticipated to contain hazardous wastes, facilities as well.
and (3) the placement of the non.hszardous suasserroli soon. —
liquid waste In the permitted landfill will
This subsection describes the require-
not present a risk of contamination to any
underground aowco of drinking water. ments for the retrofitting of existing mtei—
ha status surface Impoundments.
snsWdbon IC)
-------
H 8140
hlbition and requirements of paragraphs Ji)
(1) and (2).
An exemption granted pursuant to the
above described provisions me to apply at
any time that the Administrator determines
that the finer fails to meet the requirements
of the exemption and aceeptable repairs
have not been made or where the Adminis-
trator determines that the Impoundment Is
no longer preventing the migration of any
hazardous constituent Into groundwater or
surface water.
With respect to these Impoundments that
sre exempted from the prohibition and re
quirement of (IX 1) and (fX2) because It has
a liner that has been designed, constructed,
installed and operated so as to prevent haz-
ardous waste from migrating beyond the
liner, at closure, the owner or operator must
remove or decontamInate ..Ll waste residues,
all contaminated liner material, and con-
tamlnated aol!. to the extent practicable. If
this can not be accomplished, the owner or
operator must comply whit appropriate
post-closure requirements.
Subsection ( D C C) prohibits the storage or
treatment of any hazardous waste prohibit-
ed I roni one or more methods of Isod dis-
pces.l in an Interim status surf ace impound-
ment wilma that Impoundment meet. the
requirements applicable to new impound-
ments pursuant to 3004(kXi) (as added by
SectIon 21 of the bill) or It. meets the cx-
emptions described above. The M Intstra.
toe ha granted the authority to impose addJ-
tionsi requirements on any surf ace tin-
pouridment iecetvlrig such a prohibited
waste, where such requirements are fleece-
wy to protect human health and the envi-
ronment. The statutory requirements for
storage and treatment of restricted wastes
in Impoundments are minimum require-
ments. The Administrator Is authorized to
set more stringent requirements or to pro-
‘ilbit any placement of restricted waste in
mpoundmenta altogether If he deems It ap-
propriate takmg’Into account the factors in
SectIons 5 (d and (C) of the Conunittee re-
ported bill, as amended by this amendment..
Again, the purpose of the amendment Is not
to carve out an exception to the land dispos-
al restnctions of Section 5. but rather to set
minimum standards for the surface Im-
poundments which the Administrator
allows to continue receiving a prohibited
waste land disposal should still be viewed as
a last resort option by the Administrator,
and land disposal Includes the use of surface
mpoundmrnts (or storage or treatment.
Subsection tf t5) requires surface Im-
poundments receivIng hazardous waste that
have been pro’hibtted from one or more
methods of land disposal for treatment, to
remove treatment residues that are hazard-
ous within at least one year of the entry of
the waste into such Impoundment,
Subsection (11(61 r’equares all surface Im-
poundmi..its tt at have been granted intertu
status prior to the date of enactment of this
section to apply for a final permit and show
compliance with groundwater monitoflng
and flnancisJ rcsponstbt lty requirements
within 12 months of the date of enactment.
If titlE requirement is not complied with,
that surface Impoundment shall lose ha in.
terlm atatus. until such time U it can meet
these requirements.
Subsection ( (1 (7) requires the Administra-
tor to make a det.ermlnatlon regarduig the
issuance of final permits to those interim
status surface Impoundments that. are locat-
ed within one-quarter mile of in under-
ground source of drinking water wtthin 3
year. of enactment.
Finally, subseciwn Cf )(8) clarifies that the
mm underground source of drinking water,
S used in this subsection, has the same
waning as that term Is defined in regula-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
lions pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water
Ac
u e OW sesath—”sn assoas view
W in nisrossa. PAciLirita’
This subsection directs PA to promul-
gate regulations, within two years of the
date of enactment, for the monitoring arid
eantrol of air esulselons frees hazardous
waste disposal, treatment and storage facili-
ties as may be neceazary to protect human
health and the environment, IJnder current
regulations, there Is no requirement for
land disposal facilities to Identity or meas-
ure the air pollution they cause. Many of
these facilities contain hazardous waste
which can and do evaporate into the air,
subjecting loosi neighborhoods to potential-
ly unsafe levels of haaai’dous air poUutants.
SVBSXCTION 100 ? lel —FinzaAL raonzTT
srwcrioxs
Ths subsecUon requires the Administra-
tor, or a state which has an authorized baa-
ardous waste program, to undertake within
one year of enactment a thorough annual
Inspection of each hazardous waste treat-
ment, storage or disposal facility which is
operated by a federal agency for compliance
with RCRA. The record of these Inspections
are to be made available to the public con-
sistent with both SectIon 3007(b) and 1006
(providing for integration and consistency
with other laws),
sessacriox 300 , if i —vmmsi. asmecy
*AzAxTIous wasTa ,*cn.nr sovee-zuRy
This provision specifically requires the
federal government to keep track of the lo-
cation and disposition of their hazardous
wastes In as detailed and thorough a
manner as possible. The Initial report La due
to be complied, published and submitted tO
the Administrator by January 31. 1986. with
Updated reports due every two years there-
after. This inventory Is to contain, among
other things, a d rtption of the location of
the facility, the amount and type of hazard-
ous waste disposed of an a description of
how these wage have been stored. treated
or disposed of. The amendment is designed
to elicit information on each current storase
and treatment facility as well as past and
present disposal I p.ctl tles containing a harp
ardous waste regulated pursuant to RCRA.
Information previously submitted pursuant
to Superfund need not be resubmitted but.
should be updated.
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Louisiana. The use of sur-
face Impoundment for the storage and
disposal of hazardous wastes has been
the Nation’s leading cause of toxic
contamination. Almost one third of
the Federal Superfund sites were
caused by leaking surface impound-
ments. Eight of California’s top 10
dumpsites were contaminated by un-
lined Impoundments which were In-
capable of containing hazardous ilq-
Ilids.
Yet today, millions of tons of haz-
ardous waste continue to be legally
dumped In unlined Impoundments.
The EPA’s Office of Solid Waste now
estimates that In 1981 almost 40 per-
cent of the country’s hazardous wastes
were disposed of In surface Impound-
merits and a high percentage of these
are unlined.
Recent studies on surface impound-
merits provides overwhelming evidence
that:
I.ktober 6,1988
‘Irst. surface Impoundments have
en responsible for extensive environ-
mental contamInatIon.
Second, the continued use of thou-
sands of unlined pits for the disposal
of hazardous wastes poses an unprec-
edented risk to pubuc health,
Third. existing law, and EPA regula-
Uons affecting hazardous waste sur-
face Impoundments are totally Inad-
equate to halt the wtdespread con-
taznMatlon of our air, land, and water.
br these reasons, I strongly support
the Breaux amendment and urge 91Y
colleagues to vote for it.s adoption.
0 1440
Mr. BREAUX. We have seen exam-
ples, and I have seen statements by
companies that they are willing to
spend $500 million to fIx up a refinery,
but are they not willing to spend
enough money to Insure a clean envi-
z’onnaent?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
BRxAUX) has expired.
(On request of Mr. EcwT and by
ttnsnIniOU consent, Mr. Baxaux was
allowed to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.) _____
Mr. FORSriiia . Mr. Chainnan.
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
(Mr. FORSYTHE asked and was
given perenisolon to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FORSYTHE. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise In support of
the amendment offered by the gentle.
man from Louisiana (Mr. Bnzatm) to
ER. 2867, I have been working with
him on this amendment and concur
completely with his remarks and ex
planations of our intent In developing
each section.
I believe that this amendment.
which we have been developing for the
past 6 months, Is neccst.ary and will, is,
conjunction with the excellent provI-
sions of ER. 2867, provide a compre-
hensive mechanism for controlling
in ajdous waste. The gentleman from
New JerseY (Mr. P 1.oi iio) and the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. Lxx v) and
their stalls, have worked with us and
have been very helpful In the refine-
ment of our proposal.
We have attempted to ensure that
the timetables Included in the amend-
ment are ambitious, but reasonable
and achievable; and we are convinced
that technologies to attain those
schedules are available.
The amendment provides that not
later than February 1, 1984. the place.
inent of liquid hazardous wastes l it salt
dome formations, underground mines,
or caves Is prohibited. To the best of
my knowledge, none of these disposal
locations are currently being used, and
I do not believe that they are appro-
priat.e locations for the disposal of
liquid hazardous wastes which may
leak and be irretrievably lost to the
-------
October 6, 1983
rroundlrig environment. The ise of
the term “placement” Is to Insure that.
these types of locations are not used
even for the temporary storage of ma-
lal while awaiting further treat-
ot or disposal processes or as treat-
dot chambers.
The effective date of Feburary 1,
1984. for the prohibitions on liquid
hazardous wastes In salt domes, mines.
and caves Is Intended only to give suf-
ficient time to the flwironmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) to formalize the
testing procedures to be used to deter-
mine whether or not a hazardous
waste Is In liquid form or contains free
liquids, not to give time to utilize
those practices. EPA should Insure
that the same definition of “liquid
hazardous waste and free liquids con-
tained In hazardous wsst&’ Is used re-
gardless of whether the waste Is con-
tainerized or not, and regardless of the
method of placement proposed,
Legitimate concerns have been
raised that this prohibition would for-
ever foreclose the opportunity to uti-
lize these hybrid facilities when, in
fact, the use of these facilities for dis-
posal of certain wastes might be found
to be acceptable or preferable at some
time In the future. Therefore, we have
included a provision which requires
the Administration to conduct a 2-year
study regarding the effects on human
health and the environment which ase
associated with the placement of haz-
ardous wastes In salt dome formations,
underground mines, and caves, The
-irt may Include recommendatlpns
‘ongress for the modification of
prohibitions contained In this
endment. -
be placement of hazardous wastes
.,,cr than liquids Is prohibited In salt
dome lormatlons, underground mines,
or caves until such a time as the Ad-
ministrator has Issued permit stand-
ards for such facilities and a permit
has been Sued pursuant to section
3 005(c). While the risks associated
with nonliquid hazardous waste dis-
posal would. Intuitively, seem to be
less and It i i conceivable that these
hybrid locations for disposal of haz-
ardous wastes may prove to be an as-
ceptable alternative, those risks and
the restrictions which must be placed
on such use have not been fully de-
cribed or developed. Therefore, It Is
the intent of this section to Insure
that such practIces do not take place
until the Administrator has carried
out the necessary regulatory process
to Issue standards and permits, in ac-
cordance with this act.
The amendment provides that 6
months after date of enactment the
placement of bulk or noncontalnerized
liquid hazardous wastes In any landfill
Is prohibited. even If that landfill has
liners and ground water monitoring.
The practice of disposal of liquid haz-
ardous wastes Into landfills presents a
substantial risk to the environment
oractice, which Is currently only
d by about 10 disposal facilities
aln1y a practice which should be
W GRESSIONAL R!CORD — HOUSE
stopped hnmedistely. All of the wit-
n testified at the hearing held by
the Sibennimittee on Fisheries and
Wildlife’ Oinrvatlon and the Thid-
moment on these issues stated that all
liners will eventuAlly leak,
The amendment provides that until
the effective dates , EPA’s present re-
striction on the disposal Into landfills
or liquid hazardous wastes and free
liquids contained In hazardous wastes
will rnnatn In effect
The prohibition also applies to liquid
hazardous wastes to which absorbents
have been added which n ina counter
to existing EPA practice. I am not op-
posed—but rather, strongly support—
the stabilization of liquid hazardous
wastes In a manner which renders
them permanently unavailable to the
environment, such as some of the
chemical stabilization pro es which
have proven to be effective. HOwever,
absorbent, such as kitty litter, may act
like sponges when squeezed—as might
occur when additional material Is
placed on top in $ landfill—and yield
back the liquid. -
$ t late than 6 months after date
of enaciniesit, EPA Is required to pro-
mitigate final regulations which mini-
mira to the extent tnhnologically
feasible, the disposal of containerized
liquid hazardous wastes In any landfill.
EPA’s present practice Is that, hi gen-
eral, containerized liquid hazardous
wastes are already prohibited from dis-
posal in landfills because of the sig ’
nificant risk of container failure and
resultant contamination of the sur-
rounding environment When we were
denloping this amendment, we gave
serious consideration to prohibiting
outright the disposal of all containers
of liquid hazardous wastes Into any
landfill. However, we learned that
there are scene cases In which the dis-
posal of specifically designed contain-
ers for very snaIl quantities of labora-
tory wastes, called lab packs, are nec-
essary, relatively safe, and there are
not aval]able a lternatives. These lab
packs are drums In which small con-
tainers of laboratory wastes are placed
along with sufficient absorbent mate-
rial to Insure that if Inner containers
rupture, the wastes are contained.
Therefore, we have chosen to retain
the ndnimi stlon criteria of US, 2667
with the requirement that the general
restrictions on land disposal of con-
talnerlr.ed liquid hazardous wastes will
remam In effect, and that the effective
date for finding alternatives for the
disposal of restricted wastes In these
lab packs cannot be later than a total
of 54 months after enactment of this
act This section also requires that the
presence of free liquids will be mini-
mized in containerized hazardous
wastes by means other than the addi-
lion of absorbent material, where
technologically feasible.
The amendment also prohibits, ef-
fectIve 1 year after the date of enact-
ment. the p l a cement of any liquid
which Is not a hazardous waste In a
laadf Ill for which a hazardous waste
118141
permit is required. unless the owner/
operator demonstrates, or EPA deter-
mines. that the only reasonably availa-
ble alternative Is placement In & land-
fill or unlited surface impoundments
which contains hazardous wastes, and
the placement, In the permitted land-
fill will not risk contn’ilnalion of any
son of ground water. As used In this
context, the term “unlined” means a
unit which does not meet the require-
ments of 40 £75., part 264. subpart
K as promulgated on July 26, 1982.
EPA In Its present regulations has
taken Into account the risk which the
placement of even water on existing
hazardous wastes will cause. teaching
of the hazardous waste and the subse-
quent hydraulic pressure on the liner
structure, If one exists, can be every
bit as serious as the risk posed by the
disposal of liquid hazardous wastes.
The prohibitions established In this
amendment may not be modifIed by
EPA during the review of land disposal
prohibItions required in section 5 of
WE. 2867.
The storage of any hazardous waste
which S prohibited from one or more
methods of land disposal under section
5 of US. 2867 is prohibited, except for
storage which Is solely for the purpose
of accumulating the necessary amount
to facilitate proper recovery, treat-
ment. or disposaL It Is Intended that
this language will ease EPA’s burden
In defining ‘sham storage,” a problem
of recognized Importance. Storage
based only on some vague hope for a
future development of appropriate
treatment Is no longer acceptable,
Hazardous waste generators must un-
derstand that If there Is no ultimate,
acceptable, disposal technique availa-
ble for the hazardous wastes which
they g enerate, they should not gener-
ate them.
Our amendment also clarifies that
EP& In ink ing the reviews cane i
for prohibiton of land disposal for
certain wastes in sectIon 5 of US.
2867, must consider at least placement
of hazardous wastes In landfills, sur-
fce impoundments, waste piles, Injec-
tion well, land treatment facilities, salt
domes, and undergound mines or
caves. This does not mean that In all
eases these types of activities must be
prohibited, but rather must be sub-
jected to the rigorous review and an si-
ysis required to detennine the accept.-
ability of each method of land
for r’ stj$cted wastes.
One of the most serious environmen.
tal problems that we have today s the
seepage of lndustnal wastes, thcludmg
hazardous materIals, Into the ground
water from unlined or Ineffectively
lined surface Impoundments.
The record Is clear that a large
number of the present Superfund sites
have resulted from the use of unlined
surface Impoundments—including
some of those used In IndustrIal
wastewater treatment facilities, A cur-
rent EPA. draft report assessing the
magnitude and potential effects of sur-
-------
118142
face impoundments on gmd’water
quality states that nearly half of the
existing industrial Impoundments are
located over unsaturated zones that
afford little or no protection to ground
water supplies. Seventy percent of
these industrial sites arc unlined. Two
hundred and fifty cases of ground
water contmnfn t1on from Industrial
surface impoundments have been doc-
umented and 45 percent of these con-
taminated sites were not discovered
untU after water quality had been ad-
versely affected. We can no longer run
the risks involved in allowing unlined,
or inadequately lined, surface Im-
poundments to be used for the dispos-
al of hazardous wastes.
Therefore, this amendment contains
rn requirement that, not later than 4
years alter date of enactment, hazard-
ous wastes cannot be place in a surface
Impoundment which Is operating
under Interim status, unless the Ad-
ministration has Issued a final permit
for that faculty. For hazardous wastes
listed after the date of enactment, the
schedule for permitting and retrofit
requirements would run from the date
on which such hazardous waste Is
listed. The permits must contain a
compliance schedule for retrofitting
those Impoundments to meet the re-
quirements established in section 21-of
the bill for new Impoundments as rap-
idly as possible, but in no event 1ater
than 2 years after the permit Issuance
date. Exceptions are allowed for sur-
face Impoundments which already
have a properly designed, constructed.
Installed, and operated liner and are
located farther than one-quarter mile
from any ground water source of
drinking water, or can demonstrate
that they will prevent the migration
of any hazardous constituent into the
ground water or surface water at any
future time. It Is intended that, when
making the determinations regarding
the exception of a particular unit,
EPA will apply similar standards to
those they now use In determining
compliance with the requirements of
40 CFR 284, subpart K as currently In
effect. In order to insure continued
proper operation, the exceptions shall
terminate at such a time as the Ad-
ministrator determines that the liner
has failed in operation, unless the Ad-
ministrator also determines that ac-
ceptable repairs have been made. The
exemptions are intended to recognize
the decreased risks which may be asso-
ciated with those facilities which have
shown good faith in operating proper-
ly installed liners and are not in close
proximity to underground water
sources, or which are located in such a
manner as to preclude, for all time,
the migration of hazardous constitu-
ents to surface or ground Waters. The
prohibitions and exemptions are not
intended to preclude the Administra-
tor of EPA from instituting more
stringent requirements or prohibitions
should he consider them necessary or
appropnat.e.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
The term “underground source of
drinking water” is used as provided for
In regulations developed under the
Safe Drinking Water Act and exempts
the same aquifers which are, or will
be, exempted In those regulations.
For surface impoundments which
are used to treat the most hazardous
of wastes, those prohibited from one
or more forms of land disposal, and
the treatment residues r. nain hazard-
ous, those residues must be removed
withIn 1 year of their entry into the
impoundment. if the removal process
is continuous in nature, the 1-year
period would be appilcable to an eat!-
mated average retention time. -
The requirements for surface im-
poundments, operating under Interim
status or a final permit, used to store
or treat hazardous wastes which have
been prohibited from one or more
forms of land disposal, shall become
effective on the same date as those
prohibitions become effective.
For surface impoundments which
are operating under interim status at
the date of enactment, completed ap-
plications (part B’s) for final permits
under section 3005(c) must be received
within 12 months and the owner or Op-
erator must demonstrate compliance
at that time With ground water inoni-
toring requirements or interim status
shall terminate. EPA’s ground water
monitoring requirements have been in
effect since November 1981 and
there is no excuse for noncompliance
at this late date. Prompt receipt of the
completed applications for final per-
mits should allow EPA to undertake
the permitting process without fur-
ther delay.
WIthin 3 years. the Administrator
shall make final permit determina-
tions for all surface impoundments
which are located within one-quarter
mile of an underground source of
drinking water. This provision Is In-
tended to give the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency guidance In setting pri-
orities for permit Issuance.
Air emissions from land disposal
facilities have long been recognized as
a serious source of risk to human
health and the envlronment. The
amendment would require that EPA
promulgate regulations for monitoring
and control of air emissions at hazard-
ous waste facilities not later than 2
years after enactment. I believe that
years is ample time for EPA to develop
such regulations.
Finally, I believe that the Federal
Government should take a lead role In
developing and Implementing accept-
able hazardous waste disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the amendment con-
tains three provisions which deal with
Federal facilities.
First, Federal facilities are allowed
an Initial waiver, by the Adinlnist.ra-
tor, of only 18 months for waste pro-
hibited In accordance with HR. 2867
for which adequate capacity Is un-
available. The waiver may be extended
to 30 months for Instances in which
capacity is found to be still unavall-
October 6’, 198S
able at 18 months, but for no longer
than a total of 80 months. The bill.
HR. 2867, contains an allowable
waiver of 42 months for other facili-
ties faced with the same problem. I be-
Ileve that the Federal Government
can, and should develop Its own alter-
natives on an accelerated schedule 11
so required.
Second. the Inspection frequency for
some Federal facilities Is reduced from
2 years, applIcable to all sources, to
not less often than every year for
facilities operated by a Federal
agency.
d. third, each Federal agency Is
required to compile and publish an In-
ventory describing the location of each
hazardous waste site which the Feder-
al agency is responsible for, and
update that report no less frequently
than every 2 years. The Federal Gov-
ernment is a major source of hazard-
ous waste, end I believe that such an
inventory Is vital in order to Insure
that the Federal agencies are acting in
a manner which sets an example for
the rest of the country.
Mr. Chalripa.n, obviously I strongly
support this amendment to HR. 2867
and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
I believe that In combination with
other provisions of H.R. 2867. which I
cosponsored and fully support, this
amendment will offer a truly compre-
hensIve protection program for human
health and our land, air, and water en-
vironments. Thank you.
Mr. ECICART. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. ECKART. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I ‘want to commend
the gentleman for his amendment. ft
raises several issues that are of criti-
del importance to my constituency
and I think to the Nation at large.
The definition of “land disposal”
was not broad enough in the existing
legislation. The gentleman’s inclusion
in his amendment of dealing with nat-
ural formations, such as caves, salt
domes, and underground mines, of
which I find several in my particular
constituency, is of particular impor-
tance to me.
We witnessed attempts to dispose of
hazardous wastes in very la-ge salt
caverns that occur naturally beneath
my constituency and beneath Lake
Erie. which Is a source of fresh drink.
lag water for tens of millions of people
in the Northea.stern part of the United
States. Including this In the definition
section of ‘land disposal’ is a very im-
portant additional safeguard.
The second thing that. is of great sig-
nificance is for the first time including
the question of air emissions from
these sites. Clearly, people who live
nearby are plagued not only by poten-
tial contamination of their ground
water, but the noxious fumes thaL can
result from the disposal at these waste
sites of these wastes in the ground.
-------
October 6 1 8S
Of course, the last thing Is to lnelu&
the Federal Government in the Pc-
numbrabf our protections. Therela no
reason to derive a lower standard of
irotection for Individuals who happen
o live near Federal lands than Individ-
uals who may happen to live near
other, private-owned lands. To Include
Federal facUlties, to add air quality
protection and to Include natural for-
mations I think makes sense both en-
vfronmentally and economically.
I commend the gentleman for his
amendment.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. LOT?. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I yield to my friend,
the gentleman from MIsslssIppL
(Mr. LOT? asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LOT?. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask
the gentleman a couple of questions
about his amendment, but first I
would like to say once again that the
gentleman has been a leader In trying
to deal with. problems that concern
people In his district and State, and in
our country, and I know that Is what
he Is trying to do here
But I do have some questions about
the extremes, perhaps, to which this
amendment goes.
Let me Just ask, as one who Is not
that knowledgeable In this area, why
‘t necessary to have two liners? If
have a liner of clay or synthetic
erial, or whatever, that would pre-
it any leakage, why have two’ It
ms to me that you are calling for
unnec ary expenditure of funds.
If the liner Is going to work, you do
not need two—one will do the job.
Mr. BREAUX. I absolutely agree
with the gentleman. This Is why we
have contained, In this legislation, cer-
tain exemptions. We have exemptions
that say, “company. If you have a aur-
face Impoundment that has one liner,
you can be exempted. The only thing
you have to show usia that the single
liner Is in fact working.”
The second point Is that we go even
further than that. We say, com-
pany, If you have no Liner at all, and
you have a surface impoundment sit-
ting on top of the ground and you
‘have no liner, you can still come In
and get an exemption if the operator
can demonstrate that the impound.
ment was designed, operated, and lo-
cated so as to prevent the migration of
any hawdou constituents Into the
ground water?’
So what we are saying Is that even if
you have no liner, the only thing we
need you to do Is to come In and show
that It is designed not to leak and It In
fact Is not going to leak any hazardous
Constituents Into the ground water.
If they can show that, they do not
7’ have any liner. Or if they have
liner, as I pointed out, the ex-
ialso Is available in that case.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
Mr. LOT!’. I would like to ask a
couple more specific questions, and
then I will comment, on my own time,
about the amendment in generaL
What If a company Is able to show
that they may not have the type of
liner the gentleman Is looking for but
can show clearly that there Is no leak-
age In their impoundment are& Do
they still have to retrofit?
Mr. BREAUX. Under the second
part of the exemption, If a company
has absolutely no liner and that coin-
pang can come In and show that their
impoundment where they are keeping
the hazardous waste Is In fact designed
and Is being operated and Is located in
an area as to prevent the migration of
any of these hazardous constituents
into the ground water, the Administra-
tor can waive the prohibition. They do
not have to do anything more. So
whether they have one liner or no
liner or a different type of liner, if
they can show what we are saying, and
that Is. basically, ‘Do not mess up the
human health and environment,” they
do not have to take these actions.
Mr. LOT!’. So If they can show that
there Is not that leakage, then they
could get an exempUon is that right?
Mr. BREAUX. I would say that from
the point of being technically correct,
we need to look at the exact exemp-
tion. But the exact exemption, basical-
ly, In summary, says ii a company has
a single liner and that is Installed—
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
BuzAux) has again expired.
(By m nlmous consent. Mr. Bsv.ux
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. BREAUX. The first exemption
Is If the owner or the operator of the
surface Impoundment can demon-
strate that, first of all, his impound-
ment Is not within a quarter of a mile
of a source of underground drinking
water and that It has one liner that is
designed to prevent the hazardous
waste from going through the liner,
they are all right, they are out,
The second category is If the surface
Impoundment has no liner at all, I
mean lust hazardous waste on top of
the ground In a surface Impoundment,
the company can still get out of
having to retrofit If they can show
that theIr operation Is operated and
located so as to prevent the migration
of any hazardous constituents into the
ground water or the surface water at
any future time. That Is all they have
to do.
Mr. LOT!’. I would like to address
one additional question to the gentle-
man. If this company has a liner and
can also show that there is not any mi-
gration, but they are located within a
quarter o’f a mile of an underground
source of drinking water, then they
are still out of the bail park: they still
have to retrofit with two liners?
Mr. BREAUX. I would say to the
gentleman that they would be com-
pletely eliminated from any require-
ment If they can meet the second test,
H 8143
which Is the test that I Just repeated,
that they could be within a quarter of
a mile, they could be on top of a
source of drinking water and they
could have no liner, If they can only
show that their operation is designed
to prevent the migration of any haz-
ardous constituents Into the ground
water.
Mr. LOT!’. Well, what needs to be
pointed out, is that the showing which
must be made to qualify that for the
second exemption Is that there will be
no migration into the ground water at
any future time. This Is almost Impos
sible to show.
Mr. BREAUX. I will say to my
friend, the gentleman from Mississip-
pi, that the second part of the amend-
ment lets that operator out ‘even
though he Is on top of a source of
drinking water If he can show that his
operation Is designed to prevent the
migratIon of any hazardous constitu’
enta.
Mr. PLORXO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO. I th nk the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would Just observe,
with regard to the gentleman’s first
question, the definitive study on this
whole matter was conducted by Pro-
fessor Montague at Princeton, who
looked at four state-of-the.art double
liners and found that all four of them
were operating In an effective way.
That reinforces the point the gentle-
man from Louisiana Is making, that
this almost has to be a site-specifIc
evaluation to see what It Is that is
being put Into these facilities, because
the liners are effectively plastic. There
Is a substantial difference between the
nature of the toxic wastes that are
being put in. So even double liners,
under certain circumstances, put In a
state-of-the-art fashion. may not be
appropriate. That Is the beauty of the
gentleman’s amendment. He spells out
that capability of dealing with it in an
appropriate site-specific way,
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Buaci) has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Rm-ni and by
unanimous consent, Mr. BRZAux was
allowed to proceed for S additional
minutes.)
Mr. Rirra . Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I yield to the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania.
Mr. RITrER. Mr. Chairman, Item 3,
part (A). where they talk about the
characterization of the Impoundment,
they talk about that the Impoundment
(a) was not within one-quarter of a
mile of an underground source of
drinking water and first had a liner de-
signed and constructed, and second
had a liner designed and constructed.
So there are three features, and It
sounds as If either of those features
would, ii not fulfilled, disqualify the
-------
118144
impoundment, and the conversation
between the gentleman from Louisi-
ana and the gentleman from Mississip-
pi Indicated that if the liner was de-
signed so as to prevent migration was
so deemed effective, then the drinking
water source could be on top of the
impoundment, but the language does
not say that.
Perhaps the gentIema wishes to
adapt the language to accommodate
what he has spoken about to the gen-
tleman from Mississippi.
Mr. BREAUX. Let me try and ex-
plain the situation to the gentleman
as intended in the written language.
We basically say that we have three
categories of exemptions so that you
do not have to retrofit. First of all you
have to not be within a quarter of a
mile of a source of underground drink-
ing water. And then, if you fit that,
you either have to have the first liner,
which is a synthetic liner, like a plastic
vinyl liner, or the second liner, which
is generally a clay liner.
So if you are not within a quarter of
a mile of a source of drinking water
and you have either a plastic liner or a
clay liner that is designed to prevent
hazardous wastes from going through
those liners, you are out. That is your
exemption.
Then we have the third category.
The third category does not talk about
the quarter of a mile. You could be
within a quarter of a mile of a source
of drinking water and you do not have
to have any liner, you do not have to
have a single liner in that category, or
you could have a liner, but you do not
have to. In the third category, the.
standard is that your operation Is de-
signed and operated and located so as
to prevent the migration of any haz-
ardous constituents into the ground
water or surface water at any future
time.
0 1450
U you can meet that standard, then
you are also out. I would also offer to
the Members at this time that that
standard Is current EPA regulations as
far as surface impoundments are con-
cerned.
So they have three exemptions, is
what I am saying, to get out of it.
Mr. LENT Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I would be happy to
yield to the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say
that I was happy to work with the
gentleman from Louisiana and with
his staff in developing the language of
this amendment. It does address a
very serious environmental problem
involving surface impoundments.
The EPA has taken a position oppos-
ing passage of this particular amend-
-‘sent, and one of the points that EPA
“kes Is—
Mr. BREAUX. I am more concerned
about the gentleman’s position as op-
posed to EPA’s position.
Mr. LENT. The EPA makes the
point that they cannot make the nec-
essary regulatory amendments, they
do not have time within the stringent
framework and timetable provided by
this amendment to issue final permits
to all the surface impoundments that
exist. -
Could the gentleman comment on
that?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Bamux) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Lmrr and by
unanimous consent, Mr. Bszsux was
allowed to proceed for 2 addItional
minutes.)
Mr. BREAt7X. Let me comment on
that point.
Here Is what we are giving them,
folks. We are giving them 4 years to go
out and look at the 1,700 surface im-
poundments in the United States; 4
years to go out and look at those that
have an Interim permit right now, and
say. “Hey, guys, you have to get your
final permit.”
Then after they get the final permit,
we give them an additional 2 years to
have in place a program that meets
these new requirements.
We are giving them 6 years to reach
the goal that we are trying to accom-
plish, which is only, “Hey, do not leak
that Junk into the surface ground
water that we are drinking.” If they
tell you that they cannot do it within
6 years, then we better get an entirely
new EPA: 6 years is plenty of time.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I would be glad to
yield to the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, a very important
point is the amendment that was just
passed with the self-certification pro-
visions Ifl it will be able to target
EPA’s resources and energies to those
facilities that do not certify that they
are In compliance with ground water,
with fiscal requirements, with regard
to postclosure, so tl e argument that
you have this broad scope, we can very
much refine that because we have just
changed the law to be able to target in
on those land surface Impoundments
that are most in need of scrutiny early
on.
So what it is we have done here
today with this amendment and the
previous amendment will enable us to
deal with EPA’s problem of scarce re-
sources.
Mr. LOrl’. Mr. Chairman, I rise In
opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. LOTT asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LOTF. Mr. Chairman, this Is an
unusual experience for me. The gen
tleman from Louisiana arid I usually
are together on most bills and amend-
October 6, 198, ?
merits that. come to the floor of the
House of Representatives, and while I
do not have, admittedly, the expertise
on this Issue that the members of the
committees and the gentleman from
Louisiana have, I do have some basic
concerns that come into my mind on
this amendment, and I would like to
address some of those concerns.
First, I wonder if the gentleman
from New Jersey would advise me as
to why this is being done In the form
of an amendment, on a bill that has
been in the works for many, many
months, a bW I thought had been very
thoroughly developed, It, seems to me
that an amendment of this impact
would have been considered and In-
cluded In the bill if, in fact, there was
really a great need for this particular
approach.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LOTT. I yield to the gentleman
from New. Jersey for a response to
that question.
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number
of reasons for this amendment. The
fact of the matter is, this subject was
addressed In our basic bill, but the
gentleman from Louisiana came for-
ward with a number of very creative
suggestions as to how to perfect sec-
tion 5.
We have taken a long time trying to
perfect this provision. As the gentle-
man knows, I suspect there has been
some controversy as to how to go
about getting the final language. All
those involved in this Issue have really
contributed, and I think there is, with
certain limited exceptions, the gentle-
man being one, a large consensus that
has evolved that this is the most mod-
erate, cost-effective way to dealing
with this problem
Over and above that, almost on a
daily basis there is new information
coming out on surface impoundments.
The gentleman from New York and I
yesterday released a GAO study that
came forward with some devastating
information concluding that the cur-
rent state of the law is not serving our
basic environmental needs,
So this is an evolving problem, and
that is why this proposal is appropri-
ate and timely at this point.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LOT1’. I yield to the gentleman
from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, just for a brief corn.
ment, I guess more to a point than
anything else, we only have EPA’s
study on surface impoundments, th
dustrial surface impoundments, in this
country In July of this year. This
amendment is largely based on the
problem that they pointed out existed
in their July report.
Mr. LOT1’. I thank the gentleman.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
-------
October 6, 1983
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make
just a few points. Ft’st of all, It has al-
ready beet stated that the Environ-
,tental Protection Agency oppoae this
mendznent, and at the proper time.
Ar. Chairman, I will ask that a letter
to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Baoynn.W from Mr. Thomas, the
Assistant Administrator of EPA for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
stating the reasons for their opposi-
tion, be made a part of the Rgcoaa so
that all Members will have access to It.
The letter followt
VA EwnuoswtaL Pacexcizos
M mc i,
Wash ington , D C. October5, 1388
Congronman Jssrn Baovxrn,,
R anting Minority Member, Rouse Zany
and Commerce C’bmmfttee, Rnvburn
House BvUdlna Wssltinpton, D.C.
Data Cosoasasaut &ovaua. When Floor
consideration of fiR 3587 resumes, the
Rouse will take up the Breaux amendment.
I want to take this opportunity to Mate
EPA’s concerns with that amendment.
I share the goal of Congressman Breaux
in wanting to prevent future contamInation
of our ground water bY providing tougher
liner requirements for surface Impound-
ta. Through his amendment Congress-
man Breaux attempts to prevent leakage
from Ineffective or poorly constructed a ir-
face Impound ments. However, because of
the stringent timeframee and the “hammer
provision”, this amendment will cause
severe strain on EPA ’s permitting resources
sad bring harsh sanctions on the surface
Impoundment operators. -
This amendment requires that meet sur.
face Impoundments receive a final permit In
J “era or cense operation. These permits
require that double liners be installed
a 3 years alter tesuance. Although one
..e provisions of the amendment gives an
mptlon from the doub le-liner regulation
certain surface impoundments, It does
apply to any surface Impoundment lo-
cated within a quarter mile of an under.
ground source of drinking water. An e c U-
mated 95 percent of all currently operating
sites are located within a quarter mile of a
thinking water supply. The second exemp-
Von is also narrow and we expect that only
a small percentage of surface Impoundment
operators wi ll be able to make the required
demonstration. Therefore the exemptions
offered by Congressman Breaux are so
slight that they oiler little relief from this
amendment.
EPA cennot make the necessary regula-
tory amendments and Issue final permits to
all surface impoundments within the strin.
gent timeframe provided by this amend.
ment. Yet, under the “hammer” provision
in the amendment. many currently ape rat-
ing surface impoundments will be forced to
close as a result of not receiving a Permit.
This will be particularly problematic for on-
site surface Impoundments associated di-
rectly with a manufacturing procesa. Be-
eause such Impoundments are frequently
used on a continuing basis for waste treat-
ment, storage, or disposal, closure of the Im-
poundment Is likely to dlan ipt the manufac-
tunas process itself until alternative man-
agement capacity is found and necessary
changes are made to aemminodate off-site
shipment of waste. Thus, the smendment
places a severe burden on the surface Im-
poundment owner/operator who has no con-
trO)p ai’ E PA’s abWty to Imue permits.
7 endment also ban.s the dljpossl of
containerized liquid hazardous
salt domes, underground mines.
s. it temporarily bans the place-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
meat of other hazardous waste in salt
domes, underground mines, and caves until
the EPA promulgates permitting standards
and permits axe Issued. EPA Is not aware of
any tecbnleal basis I or this ban, and there-
fore opposes It
I would appreciate your elforts in bringS
lag to the Members’ attention the seven
impllcauons of the Breau.x amendment to
both the EPA and the regulated comnmunl-
t i-
The OffIce of Management and Budget
(0MB) advIses that then Is no objection to
the submission of this letter from the stand-
point of the President’s program.
Sincerely.
In Pd. Txoaeas,
A-ssOtcni Adml nest rotor.
Mr. LOTT. Now, as I understand
this amendment, It requires that most
surface Impoundments receive a final
permit In 4 years or eeaae operation.
These permits must require double
linen wIthin 2 years after Issuance, Al-
though one of the provisions of the
amendment gives an exemption for
double-liner regulation for certain stir-
face Impoundments, It does not apply,
as I understand the language in the
bill, to any surface Impoundment 10-
a,ted within a quarter mile of an tus-
derground source of drinking water.
So there seems to be some confusion
on that. Maybe our colloquy here has
helped to clear It up, but this Ia a
point that was raised by EPA..
An estImated 95 percent of all the
currently operating surface Impound-
ments are located within a quarter of
a mile of underground drinking water.
The aecond exemption Is also
narrow, and we expect that, as I un-
derstand, only small percentages of
surface Impoundment operators will
be able to make the required demon-
stration.
Clearly, we do not want hazardous
materials leaking Into ground water.
But I am also warned about us going
overboard in the other direction and
requiring very expensive retrofitting
that may not be necessary. In my
hometown we have a refinery, one of
the most modern In the world, that
just completed an extensive expan-
sion. They utilize surface Impound-
ments in their operations. These Im-
poundments are within a quarter of a
mile of drinking water. The operator
can show very clear proof that there Is
no leakage, but according to the lan-
guage of this amendment, they still
might be unable ’ to qualify for one of
these exemptions. If this happens the
facility may have to shut down and/or
spend $27 million to comply with this
amendment.
The last exemption itt the amend-
ment would waive retrofit require-
ments for Impoundments “designed.
operated, and located so as to prevent
the migration of any hazardous con-
tnnljnanl,s Into the ground water or sur-
face water at any future time. EPA of-
ficlals say that a showing of no migra-
tion at any future time Is Impossible in
most circumst.arices. Therefore, this
exemption has little applicability.
While we do not want these hazard-
ous substances ieaklng Into the drink-
118145
lag water or the soil unnecessarily, we
also have to be concerned about
whether or not this goes too far In re-
quiring a finding now that there will
be no migration at any future time.
We must consider what this could do
to that facilIty, which means a great
deal to our Nation from an energy
standpoint and a lot to my hometown
as far as the opportunity for people to
have jobs.
So I am Just not sun that we are
granting reasonable exemptions when
there Is not a leakage, even If they are
close to ground water, or If they have
adequate protection so that they do
not have to go In and, in effect, shut
down such a facility.
55IVWi T Oflflfl Si M I. HANO5 TO Tfl
rnwni onna 5? M I. SflAfl
Mr. fiANCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. fiance to the
amendment offered by Mr. Bazsox: Insert
“alt bed formations.” after “salt dome for-
mations” wherever It appears.
Mr. fiANCE. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment Is very brief and self.ex-
planstory. It ju.st Inserts the words
“salt beds.” In the drafting of the
original amendment, salt beds were
left out. They are almost the same as
salt domes,
I wanted to make sure that this
clarification was made. The amend-
ment, I believe, Is agreeable with the
author of the original amendment.
Mr. ELC)RtO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. fiANCE, I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. FLOR IO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, with the concurrence
of the author of the basIc amendment,
I have no difficulty with It.
Mr. BREAUX, Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. fiANCE. I yield to the gentle-
man from Loulslasis,
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the gentle’,
man for yieldIng.
Mr. Chairman, I agree that the gen
tlcman’s amendment to the amend-
ment Is necessary and needed, and I
support It,
The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. Hnicg) to the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Loulslana,lMr. Bazaux h
The amendment to the amendment
was e,greed to.
C ISOD
Mr. Rn’nat. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that I do
not oppose the Breaux amendment.
What I am trying to do Is engage in a
colloquy that clarifIes that the amcnd
meat does not do what the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Lan) fears,
which Is close off things and close
down things that are basically not
troublesome. I think that Is what we
aoi
-------
have to look at when we look at. the
Breaux amendment.
In my colloquy with the bentlenian
from Louisiana, be did point out a part
of the amendment which talked about
the Impoundment being all right If It
was designed, operated, and located so
as to prevent the migration of any—
that Is sero—bazardous constituent
Into the ground water or surface water
at any future time. What that Is
saying is zero amounts, zero migration
off Into perpetuity.
I submit that there may be no facili-
ties that meet that kind of a rigorous
test. It is simply a test which leaves
zero room for difference.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman_yield?
Mr. Rrri t. I yield to my col-
league, the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, the
third exemption that Is listed Is basi-
cally existing law In the regulations
with regard to an exemption that an
operator can In fact get from having
to have a surface Impoundment with a
single liner.
Let me say something else. As to
hazardous constituents, In the bill of.
fered by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pz .oazo). on page 43 of
that bill, ft talks about ‘ard us
constituents.” and it says: -
The Administrator shall also Identify or
list those hazardous wastes which shall be
subject to ‘the provisions of this subtitle
solely because they contain hazardous con.
stituents.
And they Identify some of them, and
then they go further and say—
At concentration levels In exceza which
adversely affect human health and the envi-
ronment.
So what this exemption says, when
It talks of “hazardous constituents,” or
the migration of any hazardous con-
stituents, Is that we are concerned
about the migration of any hazardous
constituents that are of such a concen-
tration which adversely affects human
health and the environment. That Is a
quallfymg phrase on any hazardous
constituent. It would have to be suff i-
dent enough to adversely affect
human health and the environment.
If It can be shown that a hazardous
constituent that is leaking through
does not adversely affect human
health and the environment because It
was of such a low concentration, then
It would be all right as far as the retro-
fit requirement Is concerned.
Mr. RITTER. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for that clarify-
ing statement.
Mr. LOTr. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. RI’ITER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTr. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to express my concern one more
time in a very direct question to the
gentleman from Louisiana.
If a facility can show that there is
no migration from its impoundment.
even though they are within one.quar-
ter of a mile of an underground drink-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
big water source, can they be exempt-
ed?
Mr. BREA1JX. Mr. Chairman, the
answer to the gentleman’s question Is
yes, and qualifying to that, as opposed
to the way he asked the question, Is
the statement that If they have no
liner and they are in fact located
within one-quarter of a mile of an un-
derground source of drinking water, if
they can show that that facility was
designed, and operated, and located so
as to prevent the migration of any
hazardous constituents into the envi-
ronment, they are out.
Mr. LOTI’. Mr. Chairman, I am
afraid I got lost somewhere in there
-
Mr. BREAUX. In layman’s language,
what they would have to show, if they
have no liner, is that their facility is
not allowing the migration of any haz-
ardous constituent into the environ-
ment And the definition of “hazard-
ous constituent” talks in terms of the
concentration of that hazardous toaic
chemical.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman, let me try
this one more time.
Regardless of what they can show or
bow they would construct it, If they
can show there is no leakage, will they
be exempted?
Mr. BREAUX. Well, that question
mandates an additional phrase In
front of it. If they can show that there
Is no migration of any hazardous con-
stituents into the ground water, the
answer Is, yes, they can get out of the
retrofit requirement,
Mr. wrr. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. RITTER. Mr. Chairman. If I
might reclaim my time, Is the gentle-
man saying that this Item (B) is de-
pendent on a previous definition of
“hazardous constituents” which takes
Into account the level of hazard to
human health’
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, If the
gentleman will yield, the gentleman Is
absolutely correct.
For those who say we can never
show any, I would say “hazardous con-
stituents” mea is constituents at a con-
centration level which will adversely
affect human health and the environ-
ment. It does take into consideration
concentration levels.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
RrrTzn) has expired.
(By unanimous consent. Mr. Rxrrxx
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. BREAtJX. Mr. Chairman. if the
gentleman will yield further, they
would not be prohibited If what was
leaking through their surface Im-
poundment Is not at a concentration
level that is likely to adversely affect
human health and the environment.
That is part of the definition on page
43 of the bill.
Mr. RIITER. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman.
I would like to return again to this
part referring to one-quarter of a mile
Ocwber 6. 1988
from an underground source of drink-
‘lug water. It has two provisions:
a liner designed, constructed, In-
stalled, and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from passing Into the Liner at any
time during the active life of the facility: or
• bad a liner designed, constructed, in-
stalled. and operated to prevent hazardous
taste from migrating beyond the liner to
adjacent subsurface soil, ground water, or
surface water at any time during the active
life of the facility.
Do the same definitions of “hazard
to human health and concentrations”
apply to part (AXiX1I) as the gentle-
man has defined It In part (B)?
Mr. BREAUX. I am sorry. I would
ask the gentlenianto repeat the ques-
tIon. _____
Mr Rrrzs it. I am referring to part
(A) which defines this one-quarter of a
mile distance from a source of under-
ground drinking water. And I might
add that as the Safe Drinking Water
Act defines “drinking water,” it Is not
only a drinking water source at the
present time but It is a drinking water
source which, while not potable pres-
ently, can be treated to become pota-
ble at some point in the future. So It Is
a fairly rigorous definitIon.
And In part (I) It says this:
- - bad a Liner designed, constructed, in-
stalled and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from passing into the liner at an
time during the active life of the facliltIr, or
(I I) had a liner designed, constructed, in-
stalled and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from migrating beyond the liner to
adjacent subsurface soil, ground water, or
surface water at any time during the active
life of the facility.
That Indicates again a kind of per-
fect operation, a kind of an attempt to
achieve a zero risk.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Rrrrxx) has again expIred.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. RrrrEx
was allowed to proceed for 2 additIonal
minutes.)
Mr. RITrER. Mr. Chairman, with
reference to the kind of def&nition
that the gentleman described In part
(B) which talked about the relative
level of hazard to human health and
hazardous constituents. Is that opera-
tive In part (A)(I) and (Ii)?
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, If the
gentleman will yield, and if I under-
stand the gentleman’s question, I
would respond with the following
answer: That when we are talking
about the hazardous constituents
under part (B), we are talking about a
definition that follows the definition
on page 43 of the bill Itself which talks
about wastes that are In such a con-
centrated form that they have an ad-
verse effect on human health and the
environment.
Mr. RITTER. That is part (B)?
Mr. BREAUX. That Is part B.
In part (A). subsection (I) arid (ii), we
are talking about hazardous wastes
that are in fact on the EPA RCRA list.
They are listed because of their con-
centrations or because of the particu-
lar characteristics they have.
-------
October 6 ’, 1988
Mr. RrXT . Mr. Chairman. I thlnk
this Is an Important one, and It Is one
on which I do not think we are In dis-
agreement. But we have the chemical
. nstrumentat1on to detect conceivably
this day and age parts per trillion.
d this says: to prevent hazard.
.is waste from migrating beyond the
liner to adjacent subsurface soil.
ground water, or surface water at any
time .“ So what we are getting
Into again Is a kind of a zero risk de-
scription. and I do not think that Is
what the gentieman Intends with his
language.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, I would
say to the gentleman that “hazardous
waste” In this context Is the same deli-
aitlon of “hazardous waste” that Is in
fact used by RCRA and A to decide
whether a waste is In fact hazardous.
That takes into consideration concen-
bated amounts. So If It Is not hazard-
ous because It Is only one drop In the
ocean, It would not apply here.
• Mr. R1-L -Ls 15. I think the definition
of “hazardous waste” does not neces-
sarily take Into account concentra-
tions. The definition is “flammable,
toxic. reactive, or corrosive,” and It
has nothing to do with the amount of
concentration. That Is my concern
with this.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, I will say
to the gentleman that If a substance,
because of Its limited amount or con-
tent. loses the cbs ac.erlstlcn of being
). “ardous, then, of course, It would
ll within this definition.
Rma tt. Well, the substance
could be hazardous, but in parts
billion or trillion IL may well not
hazardous. That Is the problem
that I think the language In (A)U) and
(U) brings up.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Rrn’m) has expired.
D 1510
£WDKSNT nmsa BY . ?SVZI1I TO rm
£M D1W!T Orrmm BY . IWUZ, £ 5
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman. I offer
an amendment to the amendment, and
I ask Unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read and
printed In the Racoan.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment to the
amendment La as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. TaUzZs to the
amendment offered by Mr. Be-mc i. U
amended, in secuon 3005(hX2) as added by
the Breaux amendment Insert “and except
in the cue of a surface Unpoundment which
is Used only for the placement of any waste
described in aecUon 8002 (fl. (t s). or (0)”
after the phrase “ c p In the cue of a
sUrface tmpoundment which meets the .
Ottirements 01 subparagraph (A) or (B) of
Pir—’h (3)”.
- end of section 8005thX2) as added
eana amendment Insert:
1n the ease C l any surface Impound-
ment ,-
“(Al which Is owersting under Interim
st&tus pursuant to subsection Ce). and
“(B) which Ii used only for the placement
of any waste described In sectIon 8002 (1).
(hi, or (p1 whIch baa become subject to reg-
ulation under this subtitle.
the Administrator may Impose such require.
meats (by regulation or on a case by case
basis) as necemary to protect human health
and the environment”.
In section S0O5(hX4) as added by the
Breaux amendment, at the end of the first
aentenee, strike out “uniese such Impound-
ment meets the exemptions contained in
paragraph (3) of this subsection” and substi-
tute “unlem such Impoundment meets the
requfrenients of subparagraph fM or (8) of
paragraph (3) or imlese such impoundment
Is a surface Impoundment which Is used
only for the placement of any waste de.
acribed in section 8002(1), Cu), or (p1”.
Mr. TAUZLN. Mr. Chairman, the
amendment I am offering to my ccl.
league’s amendment is a clarifying one
and Is consistent with a second amend-
ment I will be offering later on section
21.
The amendment focuses on those
wastes currently under study as man-
dated by section 8002 (f). (nI, and (p1
of the SoUd Waste Disposal Act. Those
studies will lead to determinations by
the Administrator as to which of those
wastes, if any, are hazardous and how
those wastes should be managed to
protect human health and the envi-
ronment.
My amendment Is designed to guard
against the premature and Inappropri-
ate capturing of those section 8002 (f),
(ni, and (p1 wastes In the Interim
Status Surface Impoundment Provi-
sions being offered by my colleague.
My amendment does not establish any
permanent exemptions from regula-
tion for these wastes, nor does It de-
prive the administrator of any discre- -
tionary authority that he presently
has. The amendment makes It clear
that the wastes t ndcr the mandated
studies of section 5002 Cf . (n). and (p)
.‘are to be examined on their own
merits and are not to be automatically
captured In any broad reaching provi-
sions that could be Inappropriate to
these wastes.
I ask the support of my colleagues
for this very reasonable approach.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I am glad to yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. I
would just say that I have no particu-
lax difficulties with the gentleman’s
amendment to the amendment and
would agree that mining waste exemp-
tions should not be interpreted as a
reason for not listing smelting wastes.
which does not meet the high volume.
low toxicity criteria through appropri-
ate rulemaking. -
For example. EPA did list several
smelting wastes prior to the 1980
amendments to the Solid Wastes Dis-
posal Act, inciuding pot liners for alu-
minum production.
1! 8147
With the underatanding that that is
the approach the gentleman Is taking,
I would accept the gentleman’s
amendment,
Mr. TAUZIN. Well, the gentleman’s
understanding Is correct.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman. I do rise In support of
the amendment of my colleague, the
gentleman from Louisiana. I under-
stand It really Is consistent with what
the basic thrust of the original amend-
ment does.
As I understand, and I would ask the
gentleman’s attention, as I understand
the amendment of the gentleman
from Louisiana, It would postpone the
requirements for altering the existing
design and construction criteria ap-
piled to the placement In surface tin-
poundments of wastes currently being
studied by EPA. -
The amendment would require Im-
poundments receiving such wastes to
meet design and construction criteria
developed by EPA if after the ongoing
studies that are now being done or
completed, EPA decides that such
waste should be covered by I%CRA.
Purthermore, If as a result of on-
going studies, these wastes are covered
by RCRA end become a prohibited
waste pursuant to the provisions of
sectIon 5 of the bifi. then impound-
ments used to treat these wastes shall
be constructed and designed so as to
prevent a risk to human health and
environment.
While this might result in a requIre-
ment such as those set forth tn section
21 of the bill, this determination
should await the completion of the on-
going study.
With that understanding, 11 I may
have the attention of the gentleman
from Louisiana, with that understand-
ing which is I think the intent of the
gentleman’s amendment. I certainly
support It and It Is consistent with
debate on the previous amendment.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for his support and his
understanding is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Louisiana (Mr. TAuZIN) to
the amendment offered by the gentle.
man from Louisiana ‘Mr. BRZAOXJ as
amended.
The amendment to the amendment.
as amended, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any
other amendments to sect ton 5?
Mr. TAUZIZI. Mr. Chairman. I move
to strike the last word. I rise to enter
Into a colloquy on this section.
Mr. Chairman. I would like to share
with the Members concerns that I and
several at my coUeagues have with cer-
tain provisions of this section of the
bill. Specifically, I will address section
5(c) which requires the Administrator
of EPA to determine within 12 months
whether any form of land disposal is
prot.ectlve of human and the environ-
ment for several specIfic categories of
CONGRESSIONAL RECO (D — HOUSE
-------
have to look at when we look at, the
Breaux amendment.
In my colloquy with the bentlenian
from Louisiana, he did point out a part
of the amendment which talked about
the Impoundment being all right I! It
was designed, operated, and located so
as to prevent the migration of any—
that Is sero—hazardous conaUtuent
Into the ground water or surface water
at any future time. What that Is
saying is zero amounts, zero migration
off Into perpetuity.
I submit that there may be no facill-
ties that meet that kind of a rigorous
test. It is simply a test which leaves
zero room for differcnce
Mr. BREAtTL Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman_yield?
Mr. Riri t. I yield to my col-
league, the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, the
third exemption that Is listed is basi-
cally existing law in the regulations
with regard to an exemption that an
operator can in fact get from having
to have a surface Impoundment with a
single Liner.
Let me say something else. As to
• hazardous constituents, in the bill of-
fered by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. FLoazo), on page 43 of
that bill, It talks about bairdous
constituents.” and It says -
• The AdrnlnL5trator h ll 1so identify or
list those hazardous wastes wt ich shall be
subject to the provisions of this subtitle
solely because they ooot&ln hazardous con-
stituenta.
And they Identify some of them, and
then they go further and say—
At concentration levels In excw which
adversely offect human health and the mvt-
ranment.
So what. this exemption says, when
it talks of “hazardous constituents,” or
the migration of any hazardous con-
stituents, is that we are concerned
about the migration of any hazardous
constituents that are of such a concen-
tration which adversely affects human
health and the environment. That Is a
qualifying phrase on any hazardous
constituent. It would have to be suffi-
cient enough to adversely affect
human health and the environment.
If it can be shown that a hazardous
constituent that Is leaking through
does not adversely affect human
health and the environment because It
was of such a low concentration, then
It would be all right as far as the retro-
fit requirement Is concerned.
Mr. RITrER. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for that clarify-
ing statement.
Mr. LOll ’. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. RITTER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Mississippi.
Mr. LOll’. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to express my concern one more
time in a very direct question to the
gentleman from Louisiana.
If a facility can show that there Is
no migration from its Impoundment.
even though they are within one-quar-
ter of a mile of an underground drink-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
log water source, can they be exempt-
ed?
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, the
answer to the gentleman’s question is
yes, and qualifying to that as opposed
to the way he asked the question, Is
the statement that U they have no
Uner and they are In fact located
within one-quarter of a mile of an us-
derground source of drinking water, If
they can show that that facility was
designed, and operated, and located so
as to prevent the migration of any
hazardous constituents Into the envi-
ronment, they are out.
Mr. WIT. Mr. Chairman, I am
afraid I got lost somewhere In there
Mr. BREAUX. In layman’s language.
what they would have to show, if they
have no liner, Is that their facUlty is
cot allowing the migration of any haz-
ardous constituent Into the environ.
mont And the definition of “hazard-
aim constituent” talks in terms of the
concentration of that hazardous toxic
chemical.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman, let me try
this one more time.
Regardless of what they can show or
how they would construct it, If they
can show there is no leakage, will they
be exempted?
Mr. BREAUX. Well, that question
mandates an additional phrase In
front 0! It. II they can show that. there
Is no migration of any hazardous con-
stituents Into the ground water, the
answer Is, yes, they can get out of the
retrofit requirement.
Mr. LOT!’. Mr. Chairman, I tIIST*
the gentleman.
Mr. RITrER. Mr. Chairman, if I
might reclaim my time, is the gentle-
man saying that this Item (B) Is de-
pendent on a previous definition of
“hazardous constituents” which takes
Into account the level of hazard to
human health?
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman. If the
gentleman will yield, the gentleman is
absolutely correct.
For those who my we can never
show any, I would say “hazardous con-
stltuents” mea is constituents at a con-
centration level which wW adversely
affect human health and the environ-
ment. It does take Into consideration
concentration levels.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Rrrrezt) has expired.
(By unanimous consent. Mr. RITrER
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. BREAtJX. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, they
would not be prohibited if what was
leaking through their surface tin’
poundment Is not at a concentration
level that Is likely to adversely affect
human health and the environment.
That is part of the definition on page
43 of the bill.
Mr. RITrER. Mr. Chairman. I
thank the gentleman.
I would like to return again to this
part referring to one-quarter of a mile
Ckiober 6: 1988
from an underground source of drink-
•ing water. It has two provisions:
‘ a liner designed, constructed. In-
stalled. and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from passing Into the liner at any
time during the active life of the facility: or
had a liner designed. constructed. in-
Stalled, and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from migrating beyond the liner to
adjacent subsurface soil, ground water, or
surface water it any time during the active
life of the facility.
Do the same definitions of “hazard
to human health and concentrs.tions”
apply to part (A)(IXU) as the gentle-
man has defined It In part (B)?
Mr. BREAUX. I am sorry. I would
ask the gentleman to repeat the ques-
tion. _____
Mr. Rrz.sz . I am referring to part
(A) which defines this one-quarter of a
mile distance from a source of under-
ground drinking water. And I might
add that as the Safe Drinking Water
Act defines “drinking water,” It Is not
only a drinking water source at the
present time but It is a drinking water
source which, while not potable pres-
ently, can be treated to become pota-
ble at some point in the future. So It is
a fairly rigorous definition.
And in part i It says this:
- had a liner designed. constructed. In.
alied and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from passing Into the liner at my
time during the active life of the facwty. or
(U) had a liner designed, constructed. In-
stalled and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from ml grating beyond the liner to
adjacent subsurface soil, ground water, or
surface water at any time during the active
We of the facility.
That indicates again a kind of per-
fect operation, a kind of an attempt to
achieve a zero risk.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Rrz’rea) has again txpired.
(By unanimous consent. Mr. Rrrrcit
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. RIT1’ER. Mr. Chairman, with
reference to the kind of definition
that the gentleman described In part
(B which talked about the relative
level of hazard to human health and
hazardous constituents. Is that opera.
tive in part (A)(I) and (ii)?
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, and if I under-
stand the gentleman’s question, I
would respond with the following
answer: That when v:e are talking
about the hazardous constituents
under part (B), we are talking about a
definition that follows the definition
on page 43 of the bill itself which talks
about wastes that are In such a con-
centrated form that they have an ad-
verse effect on human health and the
environment..
Mr. RITTER. That is part (B)?
Mr. BREAUX. That Is part (B).
In part (A), subsection (I) and ii, we
are talking about hazardous wastes
that are in tact on the EPA RCRA list.
They are listed because of their con-
centrations or because of the particu-
lar characteristies they have.
-------
118148
hazardous wastes. If the A4mhl trg.
tor.does not make such a determina-
Lion by this deadline, then land dispos-
al of these wastes Is automatically
banned, at least until EPA makes a de-
termination that such wastes are safe
for land disposal.
When the Energy and Commerce
Committee dealt with this section
HR. 2867. it was our desire to provide
a mechanism that would force EPA to
look at, these wastes and decide U cer-
tain methods of disposal were appro-
priate. My concern today Is that we
may not have fully appreciated the
nearly impossible burden that 5 12-
month deadline will place upon EPA—
a deadline they have said they cannot
meet—and upon generators of hazard-
ous wastes who may be kit without
access to any appropriate means of
disposal or treatment when the ban
comes into effect
Mr. HUCKABY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAtJZIN. I am happy to yield to
my colleague, the gentleman from
Louisiana.
Mr. HUCKABY. Mr. Chairman, I
join in an expression of concern over
this provision, because in studying It
several questions have arisen In my
mind.
One, why have we forced 12-month
deadline on EPA when in comments
before the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee they indicat-
ad that 32 to 36 months would be the
very shortest possible time in which
they could make these findings?
I might add that the Senate commit-
tee was sympathetic on this matter
and has given the EPA 32 months.
Second, what do we know about the
available capacity of existing hazard-
ous waste treatment and incineration
facilities to handle the Increased
volume of waste that will, of necessity,
be directed to them when the land dis-
posal law is imposed? That volume
will, incidentally, be further increased
by our lowering of the small generator
exclusion.
Third. it seems that this section can
only act to delay the cleanup of prior-
ity existing disposal sites, either under
Superfund or by independent action, if
alternative treatment capacity is
either strained or unavailable.
And finally, this bill does nothing to
help salve the problems involved in
siting additional hazardous waste
treatment and incineration facilities.
While we would greatly increase the
volume of wastes going to such facili-
ties, we have done nothing here to
insure new capacity.
Mr. DOWDY of Mississippi. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I am happy to yield to
the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. DOWDY of Mississippi. I thank
the gentleman.
The wood preserving Industry pro-
vides a good example of the dilemma.
Mr. Chairman, that many will face
should this provison be Implemented.
Many wood preserving sludges fall
wider one of the categories of hazard-
ous wastes that would be banned from
land disposal if EPA cannot, as it says
it cannot, meet the 12-month deadline.
I am referring to halogefiated organic
compounds. Many of these wood pre-
serving facilities are minii Independ-
ent businesses, but apart from the
extra money It will likely cost the 295
plants In the Industry to Incinerate
these sludges, there Is already a back-
log of wastes for one of the hazardous
waste Incineration facilities In the
southern part of the United States. To
further compound this problem it has
been estimated that It would require
the total capacity of every inciner-
ation facility in the country 3 years to
treat the contaminated sells from
Times Beach. Mo., alone. Incineration
is the only known alternative to land
disposal for all of these wastes.
Under these circumstances, even
with a 42-month extension, there is no
assurance that adequate capacity will
be available, and In that case, how
does he legally handle his waste? I do
not think this section of the bill now
provides a good answer. The 8enate
Environment and Public Works Corn-
mitlee recognized this problem and
provided for continued land disposal In
a facility with double liner and lea-
abate collection system.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, my col-
leagues and I share the concern of the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
FLoalo) and the committee about safe
disposal and treatment of the wastes
listed in section 5(c). We are, however,
raising legitimate questions about the
way the section will work. Faced with
similar concerns, the State of Califor-
nia, where this list originated, pro-
vided for extensions of the land dis-
posal ban if alternate treatment capac-
ity were, in fact, unavailable. The
Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, In its version of the bill,
provided for similar extensions, in ad-
dJtion to providing EPA With more
time to examine the list.
In lieu of offering amendments
which would Drovide for s imiIa r flexi-
bility to this section, I would ask at
this time for the agreement of the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Fs.oxro) to address these concerns
when the bill Is before the conference
committee and to view with sympathy
the approach taken by the Sens e
committee on this provision.
C 1520
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that the
gentleman has my sympathy, and to
also indicate that sectIon 5 as the gen-
tieman correctly indicated, permits
the Administrator to allow generators
of wastes (which would be banned
from land disposal) up to 42 months to
develop an alternative to land disposal.
October 6, 1983
This Is a very Important element of
the provision.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
(On request of Mr. Pi.oiuo, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. TAUZIN was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAtJZ1N. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding further.
I believe this provision will provide
for an orderly tz-ansltion from land dis-
posal to more appropriate technology.
I will, however, take Into account
the concerns expressed by the Mem-
bers who have spoken on this subject
when we go to conference. I suspect
the gentleman will be a conferee and
we will have the opportunity then to
address those legitimate concerns.
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman
for his statement and his sympathy
and concern.
Mr. Chairman. I yield back the bal-
ance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of California- Mr.
Chairman. I move to strike the requi-
site number of words.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California- Mr.
Chairman. I rise in support of H.R.
2867, the bill to amend the Solid
Waste Disposal Act.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin
by congratulating my good friend
from New Jersey. the chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. FL0RI0. for the ex-
cellent work he has done on the legis-
lation before us. in fact, I would like
to take this opportunity to congratu-
late him for the years of diligent work
he has performed on the hazardous
waste problem in this country.
My colleagues are aware of the great
number of abandoned and dangerous
hazardous waste sites around the
country that need to be cleaned up,
The gentleman from New Jersey did a
fine Job several years ago for passage
of the Superfund law to help in the
effort to clean up these sites. But
cleanup Is an expansive option for ad-
dressing the hazardous waste problem.
In my own district I have a site, fa-
miliar to many of my colleagues,
called the Stringfellow acid pits. Esti.
mates of the cost for total cleanup at
Stringfellow are about $70 million. Un-
fortunately, Stringfeiiow Is not
unique. The number of sites around
the country like Stringleliow, and the
high cost of clearing up these sites, is
going to require Congress to authorize
more funds, and extend the time
beyond that which Superfund was
originally envisioned.
We are here today, perfecting the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, because we
don’t want any more Strtngfelioas. We
do not want to have to spend billions
and billions of dollars to clean up
- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
I
I
-------
October 6 , 1982
chemical messes. The bill before us Is
an attempt to strengthen current pro-
visions, and move us toward the day
we can hope to control the hazardous
waste problem—not let It control our
Lives, and the lives of millions of
people across the country.
Mr. Chairman, having said this, I
would like to discuss the provisions re-
lating to the land disposal of hazard-
ous liquid wastes. The legislation re-
quires the Envlroiunenta.l Protection
Agency (EPA) to promulgate regula-
tions wIthin 6 months to prohibit the
disposal of hazardous liquid wastes In
landfills, and ? ninfml,.e disposal of con-
tainerized liquid wastes in landfills.
Mr. Chairman. I applaud the Intent
‘of this provision of the legislation
before us. I am concerned, however.
because this provision only addresses
less than 25 percent of the land dispos-
al problem. A recent Office of Tech-
noigy & e ent report, entitled
“Technologies and Management Strat-
egies for Hazardous Waste Control.”
which I highly commend to my col-
leagues. found that the various forms
of land disposal, landfills do not con-
stitute the major use. In fact, the use
of injection wells, surface Impound-
ments, and waste piles account for
larger amounts of hazardous waste—
each individually—than do landfills. It
Is important to clarify here that a
landfill Is only one kind of land dispos-
al technique.
While the bill before us addresses
the problem of disposal of hazardous
“uld waste disposal in landfills, It
‘s not address the serious problem
disposal in surface impoundments.
j rough estimate of the volume of liq-
Ids we are talking about indicates
that there are 8 million tons of haz-
ardous wastes being deposited yearly
in landfills. 14 millIon tons In injection
wells. 10 million tons in surface im-
poundments, and 10 mIllion tons In
waste piles, with another 3 million un-
dergoing land treatment, incineration
and other methods. So we are clearly
addressing only a fraction of the prob.
lem by phasing out Iand.f Cling as an
option for disposal of liquid hazardous
wastes. The existing language there-
fore does little to-induce the serious
health and environmental risks of sur-
face Impoundments and other forms
of land disposal.
The I nvLronuiental Protection
Agency is now completing a 5-year, $5
million assessment of the magnitude
and potential effects of surface im-
poundment.s on ground water quality.
The draft report reveals that there are
at least 8,000 active surface impound-
ments used for the storage and dispos-
al of hazardous wastes; 6,500 of these
impoundments are unlined. Roughly
3,500 are estimated to have a high po-
tential to contaminate ground water.
The EPA found that close to 90 per-
cent of all the Impoundment sites are
located over aquifers currently or po-
tf ‘ly used for drinking water. --
Thalrman. I urge adoption pf
aux amendment, but I do have
a concern remaining which I would
like to discuss. The Breaux amend-
ment does not seek to address sites In
any order of priority, from most
threatening to least threatening. I
considered offering an amendment
seeking to identify a class of surface
Impoundments which requires our
urgent attention, those unlined sur-
face Impoundments receiving hazard-
ous wastes which pose a threat of con-
tsminattng ground water. The amend-
ment would have required the Adinin-
lstrator to use available data to com-
pose. within a year, a list of those sites
which are unlined surface impound-
ments receIving hazardous wastes and
located within I mile of an aquifer
supplying water for human use.
I have chosen not to offer such an
amendment, because I think this In-
formation Is readily available and it
should not be difficult for the Envi-
ronniental Protection Agency to Iden-
tify and act on these priority sites.
The definition of these sites is the
same definition which the agency has
used In drafting the surface Impound-
ment assessment required under the
Safe Drinking Water Act. It is also in-
formation which the Administrator
will need in any event if the Agency is
to proceed in a rational manner In
dealing with high risk unlined surface
impoundments under the existing per-
mitting process.
While the provisions of the Breaux
amendment dealing with surface Im-
poundinents are a major improvement
upon current law, they do not set a
priority on those hazardous waste sur-
face impoundments which pose the
greatest health hazard, those unlined
impoundments above groundwater res-
ervoirs. These conditions are also the
ones which prove to be the most ex-
pensive to deal with, as communities
In my district are unfortunately find-
ing out. Each delay, no matter how
small, increases the potential health
hazard since over hail of our drinking
water comes from - groundwater
cources. Each delay also Increases the
expense of the eventual cleanup. To
delay dealing with these sites is fool-
ish.
There are at least 8,000 active sur-
face impoundments used for the stor-
age and disposal of hazardous wastes.
according to the draft. of the “Surface
Impoundment Assessment National
Report.” Seventy percent of these im-
poundments are unlined and at least
20 percent have a high potential to
contaminate groundwater. There are
416 cases of groundwater contaznina-
tion from surface impoundments
which were documented from State
surveys, the primary source of which—
In 79 percent of the cases—was seep
age. Unfortunately. 40 percent of
these sites were not discovered until
they had adversely affected water
quality in supply wells. One case re-
sulted in the closure of 50 domestic
wells.
The EnvIronmental Protection
Agency ought to begin the process of
118149
Identifying high priority sites for
action. It is a reasonable approach and
one that wW generate the information
which the Agency, the public, and the
Congress need in order to make in-
formed decisions under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
Mr. Chairman, the OTA report
found that the cost of cleaning up a
contaminated site is 10 to 100 times
the cost of preventing the release of
hazardous substances. The Breaux
amendment is a move In this direction.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of
the bill and the amendment.
Mr. RI ra is. Mr. Chairman. I move
to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman. I found the preceding
colloquy interesting. I certainly syrn-
pathise with the gentlemen who par-
Ucipate In It. That was to take care of
an impending problem in section 5(e).
dealing with -small business problems
with hazardous waste containmg halo-
genated organic compounds in total
concentration greater than or equal to
1,000 milligrams per kilogram. I would
like to say we are talking about sol-
vents like TCE (trichiorethYlene),
talking about these kinds of wastes.
Make no mistake about It. Whereas
these gentlemen have been able to
predict particular problem on the ho-
rizon. It is quite conceivable that what.
we have regulated here on the floor.
yes we have actually set regulatory
standards, as opposed to setting legis-
lative guidelines, that items (dl, Cc),
(b). and (a) will all have their own
small business problems In due time. 1
say this as a note of caution, because
what we have done with this bill is to
go very far toward setting specific reg-
ulatory standards in legislation as op-
posed to setting up guidelines for ad-
mlnLstrative agencies to set those regu-
latory standards with the normal give
and take. This is a first. I hope we do
not live to regret IL -
I yield back the balance of my time.
• Mr. SUNDQUIST. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of Bit. 2867, however,
I am opposed to the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from Loulsi-
aria, (Mr. BRSAUX). I share the gentle-
man’s objective which Is to dramatical-
ly limit our use of landfilling as a
method of disposal. And although this
amendment. prohibits new landfills
and requires linCrs in existing ones, it
does riot provide any incentives for al-
ternative methods of disposal. Unless
we provide those incentives, we stand
to create havoc in those Impacted in-
dustries and the end result. is wide-
spread economic disruption.
Specifically, this amendment could
significantly affect at least one major
plant In my district which has used
fully permitted deep wells for disposal
of Its wastes for the past 26 years. And
even though they have the facilities to
recycle their wastes they sit. idle be-
cause use of that equipment is not eco-
nomically feasible under current con-
ditions. Other businesses will be in the
same predicament They will have
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
?OI
-------
H 8150
great difficulty complying with this
legislation. For this reason. I advise
my colleagues to look closely at the
long-term effects of this amendment.
II you vote In favor of this amendment
realize that we will soon have to begin
considering how to make alternative
methods of disposal cost effective and
affordable to those affected. particu-
larly small bustnesses,•
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Louisiana (Mr. Bazaux), as
amended.
The amendment, as amended was
agreed to.
£DMn!T OFP t BY M L TAUZ1
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman. I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. TAZI2D: Page
18. alter lIne 2, insert:
WLT LZAZ DETZCT ON SY 5T
Sze. 5*. Section 3004 Ia amended by
adding the foliowing new subsection at the
- end thereof:
“(1) Not later than thirty months after
the date of enactment of the Haz.ardous
Waste and Control Enforcement Act of
1983. the Administrator shall promulgate
standards requiring that new landfill units,
surface impoundment units, waste piles, un-
derground tanks and land treatment units
for the storage, treatment or disposal of
hazardous waste Identified or tisted under
section 3001 shall be required to utilize ap-
proved leak detection systems. For the pur-
poses of this paragraph, the term ‘approved
leak detection system’ means a system or
technology which the Administrator deter-
mines to be capable of detecting leaks of
hazardous constituents at the earliest prac-
ticable Lime and the term ‘new units means
units on which construction commences
after the date of promulgation of reguis.
lions under this paragraph.
Mr. ECKAET (during the reading),
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed In the
Recoiw.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. TAUZ [ N. Mr. Chairman, I am
certain that Members of the House
were as alarmed as I was by the Gen-
eral Accounting Office report that
toxic wastes are leaking into our
ground water supplies, Into the soil.
and that the EPA State regulators and
dump site operators are not monitor.
trig for leaks.
How serious Is the problem? EPA
calls toxic pollution of ground water
the most serious potential threat to
human health. Yet both EPA and the
GAO discovered that there Is substan-
tial noncompliance with existing re-
quirements.
The chairman of our subcommittee
yesterday in a press statement which
was carried today In the Washington
Post Indicated that the GAO study re-
ported that some 78 percent of the
current systems for Impoundment
were not In compliance with the leak
detection requirements in ground
water tnon ltorlng—78 percent Out of
€ONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
compliance as of June 30 of this year.
The problem of noncompliance can be
and should be Immediately addressed
by the EPA and State agencies respon-
sible for enforcing existing law.
Under existing law, site operators
are required to monitor groundwater
supplies for contamination, In other
words, they are supposed to check the
water to see If it is already polluted.
And that is done through a system of
monitoring devices placed in an under-
ground water supply which Is then
sampled and analyzed. -
My amendment would require that
the EPA develop new detection stand-
ards that allow us to discover toxic
waste leaks before they get Into the
water supply. New waste disposal sites
would be required to Install such new
equipment.
The law must keep up with develop-
ments in technology, particularly in
the toxic waste area.
Mr FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZrN. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. I
strongly support the amendment by
the gentleman from Louisiana, As the
gentleman pointed out, there is an Im-
portant new technology developing
which will allow land disposal facilities
to detect leaks before contamination
of groundwater. This will, potentially,
prove to be a method protection which
will save millions of dollars In cleanup
costs.
Wherever feasible this technology
should be utilized and become a regu-
lar feature of storage, treatment, and
disposal facilities. I commend my col-
league for his effort to Incorporate
state-of-the-art technology for RCRA
facilities.
I urge the adoption of this amend-
ment.
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the chairman
for that support. As the chairman well
knows, new technologies in leak detec-
tion are presently available. Over 15
patents are on the market today. And
folks who want to put hazardous waste
in ground Impoundments ought to use
that technology to insure that leaks
do not occur In the groundwater
supply.
Mr. ECKART. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gdntle-
,man from Ohio.
Mr. ECKART. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
The amendment is indeed wise, par-
ticularly as a result of hearings con-
ducted by our friend from Oklahoma
(Mr. Sywax). our Energy and Com-
merce Committee and Public Works
Committee. The revelations of what is
being transported Into our water sys-
tems is Indeed startling. This testing
and assessment program that the gen-
tleman seeks to offer Is an ounce of
prevention which saves the taxpayers
that pound of cure that could result If
we allow these toxic substances tO
enter our water system. The amend-
October 6, 1983
ment Is good, fully compatible with
the balance of the bill. I would urge Its
adoptlou as well.
Mr. Rrri t. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZThI. I yield to the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Rrrista. I thank the gentleman
for yielding. -
I rise in support of my colleague’s
amendment. I think It is a wise amend-
ment I think we are witnessing the
kind of technologies that can monitor
or protect prior to finding these kinds
of disasters where the water has al-
ready been contaminated. In most In-
stances. RCRA regulations are strin-
gent and will provide a substantial
degree of protection. But there Is
room for Improvement. And the
RCRA regulations require that all new
landf Ills and surface Impoundments
behind that. groundwater be moni-
tored. While this approach will be
helpful in preventing facilities from
leaking, liners may not last and
groundwater monitoring will pick up
leakage only after It reaches the
groundwater.
So. I think it Is wise to look at ways
to determine leaks and leak detection
and this amendment Is a step in the
right direction. I commend my col-
league from Louisiana for his amend-
ment. -
Mr. TAtJZIN. I thank the gentle-’
man.
The gentleman is well aware, par-
ticularly with his scientific back-
ground, once an underground water
supply is contaminated that Is prob-
ably forever. Helping to prevent that
from occurring wlth.a leak detection
system that catches it before It
reaches the water Is Important to us.
Mr. Rrri ±t. It Is no easy task, but
It Is a task that we should pursue and
It is a worthwhile amendment.
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I would like to loin with my Col-
league I roin Pennsylvania in corn-
mending the gentleman for his leader-
ship on this amendment. It Is a good
amendment. I understand that the
EPA opposes the amendment, not on
the merits necessarily, but because
they feel that again the time l lrnft set
within the amendment, 30 niontin of
enactment mandating the installation
of leak detection systems at new land-
fills, surface Impoundments, waste
piles, land treatment unIts, and under- -
ground tanks Is too short. They fear
the fact they have too many deadlines
that they are trying to meet, we are
piling one after another on top of
them, and they may not be able to
meet all of the requirements.
r 2CJ
-------
October 6, 1988
The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Louisiana (Mr. TAuznl).
The amendment was agreed to.
£1rmD ? OFF IT ME.
Mr. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Voi. On
page 18, lIne 2, before the quotation marks,
insert the foUowtng
“(a) ALTWS .TTVZ Durow..—NotwIth-
andjng any other provision of this Act, If
the Administrator it any time determines
that a technologically feasible means of
treatment. reonvery or disposal of hazardous
waste other than land disposal exists, the
Administrator shall prohibit the disposal of
such hazardous waste by any means of land
disposal. For purposes of this section land
disposal means
‘(l) the disposal on or Into the land, In-
cluding disposal in a salt dome, landfill. iur
face impoundment, waste pUe. Injection
weU. land spreading method, or eo.burlal
with municipal waste; -
“(2) treatment on or In the land (Including
neutralization and evaporation ponds and
land farming) where the treatment residues
are hazardous wastes and an not removed
for subsequent procesong and disposal
within six months; and
“(3) storage of hazardous waste on or In
the land (other than by treatment referred
to In paragraph (2)) for longer than six
months.”.
Mr. VOLK (during the read-
big). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment t ) fl.
sidered as read and printed In the
RzcosD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
.0 the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
(Mr. VOLICMER asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VOIXMER. Mr. Chairman, first
I would like to congratulate the com-
mittee and the gentleman from New
Jersey and the gentleman from New
York and others who have worked so
diligently on this piece of legislation
and for the direction It has taken.
I also visit to commend the previous
sponsor of the amendment, the gentle-
man from Louisiana. for making some
stricter requirements and strengthen-
lug the bill as far as land disposal Is
concerned.
The amendment I am offering ap-
plies a little bit different direction
than the committee and others have
taken. As you will note, under the bill.
as the way I see It, the committee
working is trying to assure that any-
thing that does go in the ground will
not contaminate the soil nor the
waters, our water supplies. That, how.
ever, after a period of years. would
permit chemicals that EPA fLndz that
would not still permit them to be dis.
posed of In the ground, and the gentle-
man from Louisiana (Mr. BEEAUX) and
his amendment has strengthened the
-essity for requi?ements for our
dulLs, which I wholly support, be-
as it Is necessary to make sure that
ONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
we, if we are going to have landfuis
that we are operating them properly.
they are properly constructed, and
that they do not pzovMe b ge into
the ground water supplies,
This amendment am offering goes
one step further and says that In the
event that the Administrator Linda a
technologically feasible means of
treatment ether than land disposal.
however it Is, on a given chemical or
hazardous wastes of any kind, then It
must be treated in that fashion and
not disposed of In the ground.
If you take my provision and add it
to what we have done in the bill and
what the gentleman from Louisiana
has done as far as land disposal Is con-
cerned. I think you will find essential-
17 that we will end in the position, we
will have very little placed in ocr
ground that could be treated In other
fashions.
I feel we must In the future at least
go to this provision so that we do not
have our ground waters contaminated
with hazardous wastes. I think it Is
necessary to prevent In any way possi-
ble contnn -ilnatlon for generations to
come In the use of our soils and the
use of our waters so that they can be
used properly.
Therefore, I feel that this amend-
ment just adds to what the committee
Is trying to do and I ask the committee
to support the amendment.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. I rise
In opposition to the smemdment.
(Mr. FLORIO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FLORTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition, reluctantly, because I
know the gentleman is sincere and has
made a good faith effort to address
what he perceives as a problem, and I
think we all perceive the problem of
land-based disposal. But all I am sug-
gesting Is that the amendment the
gentleman has offered, notwithstand-
ing the sincerity of his intentions, is a
bit of a simplistic answer to a very
complex problem that we think we
have addressed in a very thorough way
in the various amendments that have
already been passed today dealing
with sectIon 5.
Unfortunately, the passage of this
amendment will disrupt much of wi-tat
has been done to this point and will
have the unintended consequence, I
am sure, of not enabling us to address
these problems In a thoughtful way.
So I am reluctant, but I am required,
to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Charman. although well-inten-
tioned. it Is a complete rewrite of sec-
tion 5, the land disposal provision. The
amendment would completely under-
mine and destroy months of very hard
work by my subcommittee and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce
to develop effective, workable legisla-
tion to restrict inappropriate land dis-
posal of hazardous waste.
Mr. VoutMu’s aniendmnent does not
establish clear guidance to EPA or the
regulated community. If adopted, It
will only result in confusion.
H 8151
I urge my colleagues to preserve the
wbstantlal consensus developed
around sectIon 5 md to defeat this in-
appropriate attempt to overhaul this
legislation.
Mr. ECHART. Mr. Chairman. I
move to strike the requisite number of
worth and rise Lu opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment keys
on one phrase In the first sentence In
which any exemption would be made
under the bill would only deal with
“technological feasibility ?’
Despite the well-intentioned and
great motivation of the sponsor of the
amendment, the consequences of It
could be to undo, with one very short
sentence, everything that has been put
together in a very carefully crafted
way by both the committee and the
amendments of the gentlemen from
Louisiana (Mr. Basaux and Mr.
Tsuun).
Something could get an exemption
simply because It is technologically
feasible and thus could leave open
ocean dumping, open dumping Into
streams, and open dumping Into lakes.
Limiting the test simply to technologi.
cal feasibility removes from the proc-
em the three major criteria that we
use to test for whether or not there
should be disposal of certain toxic
wastes. The main test should not be
technological feasibility but their tox-
icity, their mobility, and their tend•
eney to bioaccumulate.
Those three health tests, those
three health standards ought to be the
criteria by which we decide to make
these decisions, and not technological
feasibility which could encourage the
random, clear open dumping policies
that we have tried to close Lu previous
legislation.
I think while the motivation is cer-
tajn]y great, the consequences of put-
Wig this one sentence In this particu-
lar section would wreak havoc on the
balance of the bIlL
I submit to you It would potentIally
open up greater sources of pollution
and greatly jeopardize the fresh water
supplies so important to this Nation
and I would urge the rejection of the
amendment.
Mr. voua . Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ECEART. I am happy to yield
to my friend from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. In other words, as I
understand, which was not the intent
of the sponsor of the amendment, that
the means of treatment recovery or
disposal of the land disposal, that your
feeling then Is that It would permit
ocean dumping?
Mr. ECKART. Because the predica-
tion of the sentence Is surrounded
with the phrase ‘technologically feasi-
ble” that leaves any assessment—It Is
technologically feasible to do a lot of
things, Including the prospect of open
stream, open lake, and ocean dumping.
because those are not methods of land
disposal. So clearly what happens in a
- 01530
-------
‘H 8152
back-door loophole Is a whole ea
that I ant sure the gentleman did not
Intend.
Mr. VOLn(F!R. There Is no Inten.
ton of doing that, and I do not believe
that It does what the gentleman says.
Mr. ECKARt It would wreak havoc
with the section and perhaps we can
do some work with the gentleman on
It In the future. I understand that the
gentleman Is well Intentioned and well
motivated.
Mr. LENt Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. ECEART. I fleld to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman
for yielding and I want to thank him
for his statement and support It. 1
• want to join with the gentleman In op-
• posing this ban because, as the gentle-
man knows, as a member of the corn-
inittee, alter months of legislative con-
sideratlon, the Energy and Commerce
Conunlttee carefully crafted these pro-
visions that are in the bill before us to
address the problem of disposing of
hazardous wastes into the ground.
Sect Ion 5, whIch we are now discuss .
Ing, outlines a very precise schedule of
review whereby land disposal of haz-
ardous wastes will be banned within a
reasonable period of time unless the
Administrator makes an aflrrnatlve de-
termination that one or more methods
of land disposal should be allowed for
certain wastes.
I feel that this method makes sense
and there Is no reason why this very
ruefully thought-out plan should be
completely disregarded by passage of
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Missouri. - .
I can appreciate the spirit In which
the amendment Is offered but I must
regrettably rise In opposition to It.
Mr. ZCICABT. I thank the gentle-
man for his remarks-
Clearly we a lt wish that this problem
would go away and we could Just make
It go away. with the stroke of pen. But
clearly the language proferred today Is
not consistent toward that end and I
would urge Its rejection .
Mr Rlrrrit. Mr. Chairman. I rise
In opposition to the Vclkmer amend-
ment. This amendment would ban all
placement of hazardous waste Into the
ground If such waste may be “effec-
tively disposed of through Inciter-
‘atlon. recycling, or any other method.”
I oppose this amendment for a
number of reasons, which I will dis-
cuss, but they are all related to one
Issue: The Subcommittee on Com-
merce. Transportation, and Tourism
of the Energy arid Commerce Commit-
tee, on which I acne, literally spent
weeks formulating the phased-In land
disposal ban contained In sectIon 5 of
KR. 2887. The Volkzner amendment
would wipe out all of this work with
one illadvised. inadequate provision.
LookIng at my specific objections.
first, I do not know what It means If
IJ astea can be “effectively disputed of”
bY IneLneratlon or recycling. Does that
mean that any waste that can, techni-
rally, be Incinerated will be required to
be, regardless of coat or availability of
Incineration capacity? This certainly
makes no sense. What If the nearest
facility Is 1,000 miles from the gener-
ator? Or 2,000 miles? This amendment
does not address this problem. What If
a certain method of land disposal Is ac-
tually the preferred disposal tech-
nique for a certain waste? Again, the
amendment contains no flexibility to
address this situation.
Second. what about the cost of alter-
native disposal? Should there be any
corieern whethet shIpping the waste
the l,000’tn 2,000 miles will put. a com-
pany out of business? What If It Is
snply not feasible to go to an aiterna-
tire disposal method? This problem Is
not addressed by the amendment.
Third, what does “or any other
method” of alternative disposal mean?
Does this “other method” have to
have been commercially demonstrated,
or can It be one that someone merely
claims will work? Who determines the
state of the art In alternative disposal?
The Administrator? The disposal In-
dustry? The generator? The amend-
nent does not address this probLem.
Section 5 of ES. 2867 Is the result
of a well-thought out, bipartisan
agreement reached by the subcommit-
tee. It contains many of the safe-
guards which are missing from the
Volknier amendment. Under sectIon 5,
several wastes are listed for which
land disposal will be banned In 12
months. Others arc Identified for
which land disposal will be banned on
a staggered schedule, with all bans
being effective no later than 54
months. In each Instance, however.
the Administrator may determine that
the prohibition of one or more mettt-
ods of land disposal for a certain waste
Is not necessary to protect human
health and the environment Congress
should not absolutely desiare that all
hazardous tastes are unfit for any
form of land disposal. The expert
agency must have the flexibility to de-
termine if some methods are safe.
A further safeguard Is provided by
sectIon 5 In the case of alternative ca-
pacity. What If there Is no Inciner-
ation or other alternative disposal
method reasonably available or fessi ’
ble to use? Section 5 recognIzes this
possibility and allows the Admrnlstra-
tot to grant up to a 42.month reprieve
from a land disposal ban for lack of al-
ternative capacity.
As my colleagues can see, It makes
absolutely no sense to substitute the
phased-in land disposal prohiblton of
sectIon 5 with the rigid, vague, ill-ad-
vised approach contained In the
Volkmer amendment.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this
amemdment
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The Question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Missouri (Mr. Vot.xsaat
The airiendmertt was relected.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to section 5?
October & 1982
If not, the Clerk will designate see-
Lion 6.
The text of section 8 Is as follows:
5Ua ThC LED IsflIWIG POt WnVT ascova y
Ssc, ha) Norics.—(l) SectIon 3010 Is
amended by Inserting the following after
the first sentence tttereot “Not later than
twelve months alter the date of the enact’
ment áf this sentence—
“Ct) the owner or operator of any faculty
which produces a fuel (A) from any hazard-
ous waste Identified or listed under section
3001, (B) from such hazardous waste identi-
fied or listed under sectIon 3001 and any
o l in materiaL CC I tram used oil, or (D I
from used oil and any other maten t h
“(2 1 the owner or operator of any facility
which burns for purposes of energy recov-
el i any fuel produced as provided In para-
graph Cl) or any fuel which otherwise con-
tains used oil or any hazardous waste Ideriti-
fled or listed under sectIon 30 01; and
“(3) any person who dIstributes or mar-
kets any fuel which Is produced as provided
Is paragraph (1) or say Sue) which other’
wise contains used oil or any. hazardous
waste Identified or listed under section 3001;
shall file With the Administrator (and the
State In the case of a State with an author-
had hazardous waste program) a notif lea-
ton static the location and general de-
acription ot the facility, together with a de-
acription of the identIfied or listed hazard-
ous waste involved and, In the case of a f a’
dUty referred to In paragraph (1) or (2), a
descrtptlon of the production or energy re
caverr activity canted out at the facility
and such other Information as the Adatinis.
trator deems aecesssry. Por purposes of the
preceding sentence, the term ‘hazardous
waste listed under section 3001’ also in-
cludes any commercial chemical product
which Is listed under section 3001 and
which. In lieu of its origInal Intended tue. is
CI) produced for use as (or as a component
of) a fuel, Cii) distributed for use as a fuel.
or (Ill) burned as a fuel. Not more than one
notification shall be required under this
subsection In the case df a facility which
burns for purposes of energy recovery any
fuel a h ich is generated at the site of such
facility unless the burning practices to
which such notice applies changes following
such notification. Notification shall not.
required under this subsection In the cue of
facilities (such as residential boilers) ahere
the Administrator determines that such no-
tification Is not necessary in order for the
Administrator to obtain sufficient lnforma.
tion respecting current practices of facilities
using hazardous waste for energy recovery,
Nothing In this subsection shall be con-
strued to affect or Impair the provisions of
section 3001zbX3 1. Nothing In this subsec.
tion siialis.ffect regulatory deterrr’jnations
under -ection 3012 sa amended by the Used
Oil Recycling Act of 19801.’,
(21 Section 3010 Is amended by strilung
out ‘the preceding sentence’ and aubstitut-
trig “the preceding provisions’,
Cb) Srarmians.—Cll Section 3004 is amend-
S by adding the following at the end there-
of:
‘IgI Uszsitnous W.ssu Usro as Foa.—Not
later than two years a lter the date of the
enactmern of this subsection, and after
notice and opportunity br pubiic hearing.
the Administrator shall promulgate regula-
tions establishing such—
“iii stsnthrds applicable to the owners
and operators of fcilities which produce a
fue l (A) Irons any hazardous waste ldenii-
lied or listed under section 300 , or CS) from
any hazardous waste Identifed or listed
under section 3001 and any other material,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
-------
118896 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 31, 19&t
. -. . The aext announced the following generator. For instance, many auto.
Owens -. 6av sge Btr sttoa
1’ . palrs . ‘ mobile repair facilities employ corn-
-- On this vote: -, . ,,, . mercial cleaning services that actually
- &b I1 S a r --•‘ Mr. Mfller of Califonula for. with Mr. retain title to the materials they use
a &hu r ‘ Tiflon -
• Moakley against. and who remove and recycle used sol-
• . Mr. Blilrakis for. with Mr. Lowry of w.sk: ,ent, so that the shopowners are not
QuWea Wander Jsgt ag&1 nctionIng 85 generators 10 the usual
I taMU • Vandergrtff . Mrs. for. with Ma. Ka tur sense of the word. -
Bangel : “ against. . - - .
as, . eI.juj . , w ei . - - I wish to thank the gentienian from
Ragula Saeea I. Wbftler . SO the .Tudlciary Committee amend. Iowa for his longstanding interest in
RuuaI £ li 0 (E) Whftiake ’ ment was agreed to. ‘... this legislation and for his help In
Ritise RaIth (1(J) WhIttSS * The result of the vote was on- kientifying those concerns which I
Rab 1a. . Smith. Denar Wian
ROb OD . as • . . nounced as above recorded. • . ., • - just addressed. - - - . -
Rcd o . Snove . WOrUsir ,. . •, i , - . ; ‘• p c . • • • Mr. 000DLING. Mr. Chairman, I
Jy 4 Jg .
itoggra - - o iaoa - .• v u •‘ a ’ OI7V ..::- . rise in supporl ofli ,R.2867 .theliaz-
ToOx L ) MrRWRIo. Mr. iriEna 1 n, i move ardous Waste Control and Enforce-
kaUznkowekl 8pea L Tomg (MOi
i ui - s - o strike the last wurt •. merit Act of 1983. and the Breaux-For-
aid flM - - -. — (M i FLORIO asked and was gjven sythe amendment. • -
;4 en w c -•v -t.. - .:-. permI toreii eandextendbiszv- This billwill achieve something I
marks.) . • . - have advocated for some time—a
Arkerman ‘Oephs,dt _ ‘- Qinaer
Add 5b O OIbbW . - P.neita •. - Mr. FLOEIO. Mr. Vhalrrnan. strone. Federal stand against IandILll.
- ‘ . • colleague, Enuctar Bniri .z.. b hug hazardous wastes. Section 5 of
£lewidrr Oocnsins .. brought to our attention several ques- HR. 2867 requires the Environmental
And on G lflas •r PerUns . tions that have been raised by s ’ Protection Agency to restrict the land
Andrews CNC ) Ooze - trr
Andrew. (1•X) Ove e iv -. P aeft . StatIOfl OperatorS and ol,h& omafl busi. disposal of hazardous wastes unless It
Antheai . nesses. I would like to clarify the ean be reasonably anticipated to be
1PD) I 5 Oil) tOlD. - record with regard to these questions, protective of human health and envi-
Hamilton ‘. Richardson ,.
Under the Mikuiski amendment, ronment; it takes into contideration
• Hortea . . which constitutes aectI 22 of this the long-term uncertainties associated
Bedsil • How.z . n’- ’ -Bo, .i - ‘-1; bill, we encourage the recycling of with land disposal, the goal of manag-
Beilen i lioyer • Russo
- ___ - ,.used motor oil while, at the same time, tfl hazardous waste hi an appropriate
Peflains Je , - .. . - - minimi’Jng the regulatory burden manner in the first instance, and the
.•. Jon csw - uieer the small generatca’ who contracts for persistence, toxicity, mobility, and pro.
Roland , . Its proper disposal. The service station pensity to bioaccuxnulate of hazardous
Boner Eild ,e - Selberttr pg
-. - .. , . dealer’s obligation Is simply to insure wastes and their toxic constituents.
— a oi - - - thattbepeopletowhointhewasteoil Land disposal facilities will be re-
$retuz • Kcata iyer bi ‘ Is given are properly licensed, quired to meet design and duel liners,
‘i (CO) si o
1 - Skelton - . keep records of the transaction. leachate control systems, and ground-
- j.ea , -, . ‘ - Some people have asked about waste water monitoring. RCRA c1ea ly will
- levine Smith UA - oil that is retained by the generator now make land disposal the manage.
Li i ) (MO) LCviTa 81 Otflfl&ifl and which is burned on premises in ment practice of last resort. We have
(TX) La (LA) - Stagger,
- z commercial space heating unit, - the technology to treat our hazardous
Cents -‘. Luken Studds - The bw-nmg or blending of any ban- wastes, but EPA regulations have fa-
Coo t “. lamdins 8wtfl - ardous waste for the purpose of vored land disposal, which may be
Courter -- Msdjgns -
Coyne ‘ Mszkey - - Th Omas energy recovery is covered by section e cheaper in the short term, but will be
- -- of H.R. 2367. ‘Within 2 years after en- far more expenswe and environmen-
ikuu . — Mitsui Torricelu - aetment, the Administrator of EPA is tally devastating in the long term.
Dinu l l Mavroule. -- Towns required to promulgate standards rag- Landfills are not the only land dis-
Dorg ao ‘ ‘ McCkakey Traxirs -
MCOFZ.b -.- u • ulating facilities which burn hazard- posal method. The Breaux-Forsythe
Down • McHugh -. - Vento - ous wastes, We also expect the EPA to amendment will assure that Interim
Durbia MeNults ’ -: Vo lkmer • -. develop standards for commercially status surface Impoundments that are
Darer “ -. Mica “ Wilgren - -•
DJ’i ‘1 ii1ni -- Watkfr - markcted equipment like those space unlined, or that are not meeting
- ‘ Minish Weber - heaters. - , - - • • ,. RCRA gound water mohitoring or con-
! eg sr MoI i n i1 •- Wheat - •- , If the -taer has equipment that talnznent standards, wiU either be up-
m ig l l ah - - Mood, WUUams (NT) meets those standards, and uses the grad d to meet the new facility stand-
EvSTL (IA ) Morrison ( Ci’) WUlh i ins (001
Piasoril P1 - . - - - - equipment according to directions, and ards. that Is, double liners, leachate
PIed3 Murpii g - - wilmi -‘ - records how much waste oil is C ri. collection systems, and ground water
Plorlo Murtha - ,‘ Wise - - - sumeci and so forth, then there should monitoring, or must close. EPA recent-
PbgUetta - wa1cher • WOIPe’ J*• - riot be any problem. : . - • . ly has estimated there are at least
Poaler Pies) , Wright -
- -. ti i - ‘ - Wydea -, The existing equipment could 8,000 active surface impoundments
Prort •, (bask - - - -- Yams f remaIn hi use until those standards used for the storage and disposal of
Oakzr , - - Y&lzoo - - - are issued 2 or 3 years from now. Older hazardous wastes: 70 percent of these
Geldenion Orus - -
, units would not have to be upgraded impoundments are unlined, and 39
-. MOT VOTINO- ’63 • - : or replaced until after the new stand- percent have a high potential to con-
AuCoi n - , Orrgg . !‘ Chemist • ards are set. We would expect the EPA taminate ground water. Compliance
Bates ,‘ — Hatch,,’ - - . - to allow for an orderly transition. - with a Clean Water Act NFDE
Biaggi - ‘ Re nal - - - Patterson
BUhra Hubbard - - •p •- Service station dealers also have In- permit is not relevant to whether the
Bosco ‘ Jri1or Pepper - - -. quired about the recordkeeping re- impoundment Itself leaks. The Clean
Borer Ks Iur - - - - Pickle - quirementa for solvents which they Water Act regulates surface water dis-
BtVWfl (CA) HaiflO -- Y tCMrd ,use. Solvents, of coul-se, are the arche- charges, while RCRA regulates hag,
Burton (CA) latts - - -- Roukenua - --
Clarke - Lrath - “, - Simon typical hazardous waste contaminant. ardous wastes to protect the total en-
Clay • Lehman (CS) Smith (PLI The committee recognizes, though, vironment. Compliance with the Clean
f - ‘i , Lelind -. Sours • - that certain arrangements regarding Water Act does not assure compliance
Lowry WAI ‘ fluke
Marlene, - Thomas (C* , solvent recycling may well provide the with RCRA. ,, :- - -
M andion • Vuesnorith ne cary level of public health and Alternatives to lend disposal exist. I
Miller (CAP Wasman - environmental protection while mini- know, because in York, Pa., In my dis-
Mitchel l “ ‘Wearer -
nlzltig dnilnist.z-atlve burden on the trict, Enririte Corp. operates a state-
- . - -- -
-------
october 31, 1983
of-the-art facility that treats hazard-
ous metal finishing wastes and certain
Other wastes that are principally conS
- ‘ -iinated by inorganic constituents.
‘its’s treatment technologies and
gement methods convert toxic
nazardous wastes to nonhazardous
wastes prior to their ultimate disposal.
This kind of treatment process should
serve as a model to EPA in implement-
lag the Land disposal restrictions of
HR. 2867. . - -
When I spoke on this Issue over a
year ago when the House overwhelm-
Ingly passed the 3982 RCRA amend-
ments—only to have it ie In the
Senate—residents of my district were
concerned over several sap Itary land.
fills, Local citizens groups have been
diligent in their efforts to alert local,
State. and Federal officials of the dan-
gers of landfdllng, and I am convinced
that their voices prompted EPA to
designate two hazardous waste sites in
the 19th DistrIct of Pennsylvania on
the national priorities List under the
Comprehensive Environmental Re.
sponse, Compensation, and Liability
Act 011980 CERCL— Superfund.
My constituents want all landfills
atririgenUy monitored, and I am
pleased that substantial progress has
been made among the owners of the
landfills (in particular, SCA Services),
Government agencies, and concerned
citizens in maintaining and Improving
the quality of these operations. -
The work has just begun, however.
p”ch Is why we should pass this bill.
ment of H.R. 2887. the Hazard.
FJaste Control and Enforcement
should provide the Nation with
Le T assurances that the complete
, A program, for hazardous and
nonhazardous wastes, can and wIU be
managed properly to assure protection
of human health and the environ-
ment. I urge Its adopLlon.
• Mr. THOMAS of Caufornla. Mr.
Chairman. I want to Identify two pro-
visions of this bill that cause ray con-
stitutents in the land disposal business
a great deal of concern.
they are greatly disturbed by
the stringency of section 5(d). The
maximum of 52 mont is given to EPA
for assessment of the list of over 500
suspected toxic materials creates a sig-
nificazit difficulty for the U .S. waste
disposal businesses. -.
Unless adjustments are made in this
legislation. EPA will he forced, under
5(d) to ban land disposal of a large
number of materials about which little
is known. The problem is one of tech.
nology. My constituents Inform me
that, as professionals, they i o not be-
lieve EPA has the technology needed
to decide the nonsafety of the Items
On this list. By forcing EPA to ban dis-
posal because the Agency cannot meet
Its burden of proof under the dead-
lines set by H.R. 2867. Congress would
hi’ guaranteeing that the Industries
h produce these materials must
mt down because alternative dis-
.1 technqlogles are either prohibi’
b expensive or nonexistenti:
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
The second problem stems from the
statutory requirements on land dispos-
al that are found in section 21(kXl).
Examining those provisions, one finds
that Congress would be requiring land
disposal operations to be double lined.
My constituents note that such proce-
dures may be desirable in the Eastern
United States, but that conditions may
justify other, more cost.effective con-
trol techniques In other parts of the
country. Poi example, one disposal
site in my district ails 600 feet above
the water table in a region that re-
ceives minute amounts of rainfall each
year. - -
Given the possibility of establishing
sound control criteria without requir-
ing EPA to be Inflexible on the strate-
gies it must adopt, it would seem
better to grant EPA the discretion to
adjust disposal site requirements ac-
cording to the facts and circumstances
governing individual sites,
More Importantly, giving EPA clear
discretion would allow the Agency to
encourage new, superior control tech-
niques that could be utilized as tech-
nology develops. There Is no reason to
discourage new control techniques by
Identifying one approach as superior
as a matter of law. . . -
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. I move
that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose;
and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr
Muixsx) having assumed the chair.
Mr. Hac *sv. Chairman pro tempore
of the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had
6 .nder consideration the bill (H.R.
2867). to amend the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act to authorize appropriations
for the fiscal years 1984 through 1986.
and for other purposes, had come to
no resolution thereon.
PERSONAL LANATION
Mr. DENNY SMITH. Mr. Speaker, I
was Inadvertently delayed earlier
today and missed two votes. I, there-
fore ask unammous consent that my
statement be placed in the COiwREs-
SIONAI, Racoan immediately following
roilcall NQ. 432. -. -. -
If I had been on the floor at the
time of the votes, I would have voted
“no” on the previous Question and.
“yea” on the Brown of Colorado
amendment to the O’Brien motion to
Instruct conferees that no funds be ap-
propriated to fund overseas activities
by U.S. i,olltlcal p tIes as part of the
so-called Endowment for Democracy
as a part of R.R, 3222. the State, Jus-
tice, Commerce Appropriations,
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregoni. . .
There was no objectlcn.-
H 8897
BALANCING BUSINESS AND SE-
CURITY IN EXPORT CONTROLS-
(Mr. NELSON of Florida asked and
was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. Speak-
er, recently we passed the Export Ad-
ministration Act Amendments of 1983.
For days we amended It and attempted
to amend it. I want to commend our
colleague and ray good personal
friend, the gentleman from Washing-
ton Mr; BoxicER), for his delicate.
fair, and professional manner In which
he bandied this leg(slaUon.
As & result of ins handling and
chairing this legislation, he delicately
balanced the security interests of the
Nation along with our needs for ex-
ports. As a result, we have a good piece
of legislation produced in this House.
It Is in the interest of America and
American business to export goods
overseas. New International markets
are opening for U.S. products, as we
are changing from an economy based
on domestic markets to a global econo-
my. - -.
American products are generally
considered superior around the world.
This is especially the case with high
technology. The export of these prod-
ucts help our national economy by
bringing in new sources of revenue and
expanding our output. The more we
can export, the more we can produce;
more jobs are provided, and our na-
tional economy Is strengthened.
Naturally. U.S. exporters want fewer
restrictions imposed on their trade.
However, 1%snerlca’s Government has a
national interest to protect to prevent
high technology from getting into the
hands of our adversaries where they
could be used for military purposes.
Unfortunately, some products have
worked their way to the Soviet
Union—only for us to discover It too
late. A high-technology Item, such as
an advanced computer, can be used to
the Soviets’ advantage for military
purposes. - -
Recently legislation to extend the
U.S. law on export trade was favorably
considered by the Congress. The Issue
was trade to boost our economy, and
protecting America’s security inter-
ests. Congress has been struggling
with the two sides of this issue to find
a. delicate balance which will encour-
age American exports while proLe g
our security interests.
This legislation preserves a strong
role for the Secretary of Defense to
review requests for exports of sensitive
technology. It provides a DOD veto
over proposed exports. DOD has pre-
pared a military critical lIst: 200 cate-
gorIes of goods and technology, cover-
lag nearly 100,000 ItemS, all of which
are subject to approval by DOD. For-
thermore. the Secretary of Commerce
is given wide discretion In granting
export licenses—as a backup means to
protect against export of sensitIve
technologies, , . c.’. : -
-------
)-!.R (0307 as __
H 6758 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
ass identification, or applying knowledge of Inendations respecting whether or not exist.
the characteristics of the waste based upon Ing law applicable to such mixtures are ade-
materials or processes used, or generic test. quate to protect human health and the en-
1mg for an Industry where waste streams of vironment from the hazards associated with
generators within the Industry have the such wastes Not later than six months after
same or similar characterisucs; the date of the enactment of this section,
“ ( liii labeling requirements prior to waste the Administrator shall submit to Congress
shipments ma be modified so that such re- a notice setting forth the progress made on
quirements may be satisfied on the basis of the report required under this section.
information obtained through testing, or LIQUIDS IN
process identification, or applying knowl. LAND 1LLS
edge of the characterielics of the waste
based upon materials or pyoresses used, or Sw. 5. SectIon 3004 of the Solid Waste
generic testing for an industry where waste Disposal Act is amended by inserting “(a) In
streams of generators within the industry GENeRAL—” after “3004.” and by adding the
have the same or slrzilar characteristicsz following at the end thereof:
“(B) in the case of atandaTd under . “(b) HAZARDOUS WasrE hunc’r loe,—(l)
tioln 3003, provide that transportation !‘ - t.i ecn months after the enactment of
quiremenis for smaller quantities of hazard. the Resource Conservation and Recovery
cue wastes may vary from those applicable Act Reauthorization Act oF 1982. the dispos’
to hazardous wast.e generated in excess of al of hazardous waste by InjecUon through
one thousand kilograms during any calezi- a class IV well into an underground source
dar month, and of drinking water is prohibited. Twelve
“(C) In the case of standards under section months after the date of enactment of the
3004. provide that storage requirements Resource Conservation and Recovery
shall be modified to allow on-siLe waste stor- Reauthorization Act of 1982, dIsposal of
age for up to 180 days without the ,eqtu hazardous waste by injection through a
meat of a permit, class IV well which Is above an underground
source of drinking water Is prohibited until
The variances as specified In subparav’aPhs such practices are regulated by State pro-
(A). (B). and (C) shall apply to all hazardous grams or by the Administration pursuant to
waste generated during any calendar month section 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water
in a quantity of less than one thousand kilo- Act. In those States that have not undertak.
grams unless the Administrator demon- en administrative responsibility for the on-
strates that other standards are necessary derground injection program with regard to
to protect human health and the environ- injection into an underground source of
Inent. In addition, the Administrator is di- drinking water by January 1. 1983. the Ad-
rected to examine the requirements ntinistrator shall assume such responsibility
effect under section 3003 and, In coopers- at that time. For purposes of this subsec-
tion a ith the Secretary of Transportation. tion. the terms ‘underground source of
modify regulations in effect on the date of drinking water’ and ‘class IV well’ shall have
the enactment of this paragraph to the the same meaning as pro tded in regulations
extent appropriate to conform such require- of the Administrator under the Safe Drink’
nients to the scale of the operations lfl lag Water Act.
volved. The actions of the Administrator “(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) shall affect
under this paragraph shall be treated as any well a hich injects fluids:
nondiscretionary duty for purposes of sec . “(A) which are brought to the surface In
Lion 7002.
“(3) The Administrator may promulgate connectijon with conventional oil or natural
gas production;
regulations under this subtitle which estab- “(B) which are brought to the surface In
llshed special standards for, or exempt from connection with the withdrawal of natural
regulation, hazardous wastes which are gem- g- from underground storage reservoirs:
erated by any generator in a Quantity less “(C) which are brought to the surface in
than one hundred kilograms during any connection with the production of geopres-
endar month,
“(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be sured methane;
construed to affect or ImpaIr the validity of “ ID) for enhanced recovery of oil or riatu-
regulations of the Administrator promulgat.
ad prior to the date of the enactment of the “(E) for storage of hydrocarbons which
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act are liquid or gases at standard temperature
ReauthorizatIon Actor 1982 wish respect and pressure,
hazardous waste generated by generators of “c Nothing in paragraph (1) shall affect
less than one thousand kilograms per any well which injects fluids for extraction
month of hazardous waste, except that after of minerals or energy, including, but not
the date eighteen months after such date of limited to:
enactment, such prior regulations shall not “(A) mining of sulfur by the Frasch proc.
es
apply to hazardous waste generated by gen. “(B) solution mining of ininerain
erators which generate more than minimal “(C) in-situ combustion of fossil fuel, and
quantities (one hundred kilograms or less) “CD recovery of geothermal energy to
of hazardous waste per month.”, produce electric power,
BAZARDOUS WASTE WX WITE DOMESTIC 1’ “(c) LIQUIDS IN Lannnu,s.—Not later than
SEWAGE
SEC. 4. The Administrator of the Environ) one year after the enactment of the Re’
I source Conservation and Recovery Act
mental Protection Agency shall, not later Reauthorization Act of 1982, the Adminis-
than one year after the date of the enact. trat.or shall promulgate final regulations
meat of this Act, submit a report to the which minimize the disposal of liquid has-
Congress concerning hazardous wastes iden- ardous waste, and free liquids contained in
tified or listed under sectIon 3001 of the hazardous waste. in landlilla, Pending pro-
Solid Waste Disposal Act which are cx- mulgation of such regulations, the Adminis-
cluded from regulation pursuant to subtitle trator shall maintain the current require-
C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act under Inents In regulations under this section ye-
regulations exempting mixtures of domestic specting the disposal In landfills of liquid
sewage and other wastes that pass through hazardous waste and free liquids contained
a sewer 5)-stem to a publicly owned treat- In hazardous waste,
ment works for ti’eaunent. Such report shall “(di LAND DIsposAl, R owrs —The Admin.
specify the types and quantities of such baa- istrator shall, not later than one year alter
ardous wastes which are exempted pursuant the date of the enactment of this subsec-
to such regulations and shall include recom- lion, and after notice and opportunity for
&pternber 8, 1982
public comment, publish and submit to the
Congress a report listing those hazardous
wastes for which one or more types of land
disposal may not be protectl’ e of human
health and the environment based upon the
toaicity. mobility, persistence, and ability of
the waste to bloaccumulate. The report
shall also identify hazardous wastes for
which there exists one or more technologi-
cally feasible means of treatment. reco cry,
or disposal (Including Incineration, neutral-
ization, fixation, chemical destruction, or
any other means of thermal, chemical.
ph)sleal. or biological treatment, recovery.
or disposal) other than land disposal which
will protect human health and the en iron-
ment. The report shall include an assess-
ment of the costs of such other means of
treatment, reco ery, or disposal. The report
shall also Include an assessment of other
hazardous wastes which are unsuitable for
other means of waste treatment or disposal.
The report under this subsection shall be
modified and supplemented from time to
time after Its initial publication as new In-
formation becomes available.
“(e) REsTRICTIoNS ow LAND DtsPosAL.—Not
later than 9 months after the date on which
the report is required to be published under
subsection Cd). and from time to time there.
after, the Administrator shall promulgate
regulations respecting those hazardous
wastes for which land disposal may not be
protective of human health and the envi-
ronment based upon the toxicity, mobility,
persistence, and ability of the waste to
bioaccumulate. Such regulations shall con-
tain effective dates that take into account
the Administrator’s best estimate of the
amount of time necessary to Install nationS
wide sufficient capacity of alternative treat.
inent, recovery or disposal methods Identi-
fied pursuant to section (d). Alter any effec’
the date such prohibition shall not apply
when it can be demonstrated on a case-by’
case basis that capacity for such alternative
means of disposition Is not reasonably avail.
able. Factors to be considered In determin-
ing reasonable asallabiUty shall include, but
shall not be limited to. geographic proxim.
Ity and the nature of particular wastes, For
purposes of such regulations, the Adminis.
ti’ator shall—
“(1) consider the ability of land disposal
facilities to Contaui hazardous wastes over
time;
“(2) consider alternative treatment meth-
ods;
“(3) examine the actions taken by State
governments with regard to such controls,
and
“(4) review all halogenated organic I
wastes.”,
Szc. 9. (a) NoTIct.—(l) Section 3010 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act Is amended by in.
serting the following after the first sentence
thereof. “Not later than twelve months
after the date of the enactment of this sen
lance—
“(1) the owner or operator of any facility
which produces a fuel (A) from any hazard-
ous waste identified or listed Under section
3001. (B) from such hazardous wMte Identi-
fied or listed under section 3001 and any
other material. (C) from used oil, or CD)
from used oil and any other material,
“(2) the ow’ner or Operator of any facility
which burns for purposes of energy recov-
ery any fuel produced as Provided in pays.
graph (1) or any fuel which other-w’ise con-
tains used eLI or any hazardous waste identi.
tied or listed under section 3001: and
“(3) any person who distributes or mar-
kets any fuel which Is produced 55 provided
In paragraph (1) or any fuel which other-
wise contains used oil or arty hazardous
waste Identified or listed under section 3001
oI
-------
o3 7
6 “(c) LIQuiDS IN LANDFILLS.—NOI later than one year
7 after the enactment of the Resource Conservation and Recov-
8 cry Act Reauthorization Act of 1982, the Administrator shall
9 promulgate final regulations which minimize the -disposal of
10 liquid hazardous waste, and free liquids contained in hazard-
11 ous waste, in landfills. Pending promulgation of such regula-
12 tions, the Administrator shall maintain the current require-
13 ments in regulations under this section respecting the dispos-
14 al in landfills of liquid hazardous waste and free liquids con-
15 tamed in hazardous waste.
16 “(d) LANDFILL REPORTS.—The Administrator shall,
17 at annual intervals, not later than one year, and not later
18 than two years, after the date of the enactment of this subsec-
19 tion, submit a report to the Congress identifying which types
20 of hazardous waste should, and what types of such waste
21 should not, be deemed suitable for land disposal. ‘
c;-ol
-------
J’J . q7-c70, ‘?7 f (ofl., 2 (ii )
Section 5. Hazardou waete injection: Liguide in landfills
Section 5(a) of these amendments also requires that the Agency
promulgate, within one year of enactment, regulations which mini-
mize the placement of hazardous and non-hazardous liquid wastes in
eit’her bulk or containerized form into landfills. The placement of liq-
uids into landfills has been a source of enduring concern to the Con-
gress and the Committee. The Committee finds that both of the
Agency’s proposals of February 25, 1982 regarding la.ndfihling of con-
tainerized liquids represent a retrenchment on previous progress to
limit such practice and believes that the proposed 25 percent rule is in
no way consistent with the Committee’s desire to minimize the prae-
tice of placing liquid wastes into landfills. Likewise, current interim
status (40 CFR 265.314) standards, which allow the bulk disposal of
liquid hazardous wastes into landfills which contain liners, also fail
to meet the Committee standard of minimizing liquid placement into
landfills. These standards have little if any technical requirements
regarding the permeability and integrity of these liners, and as such
are likely to allow much of these bulk wastes to escape into the envi-
roninent. The Committee expects that the regulations required under
this provision will address these deficiencies by restricting bulk and
containerized liquid waste disposal to those wastes for which there is
no other feasible means of disposal and by imposing additional re-
quirements to improve and insure the integrity of landfill liners at
interim status facilities. The Committee expects that the minimize- I
tion standard will test the limits of technical feasibility in these areas,
and reflect, at a minimum, the approach that was taken by the Agency
in the Federal Register notice of March 22 which prohibited the place-
ment of containerized free liquids into landfills. The Committee also
expects that final standards under 40 CFR 264 to minimize the place-
ment of liquid hazardous wastes in containers or bulk form into new
and existing landfills will be issued as a component of the land disposal
standards well in advance of the one year deadline in these amend-
ments, so as to comply with the existing District Court order regard- I
ing land disposal standards.
Section 5(b) of the amendments requires that the Administrator ,j , I 1,
submit reports to the Congress for each of the two years past-enact-
ment identifying those wastes and waste streams that have been pro-
hibited or restricted from being placed into landfills, and those wastes
and waste streams that are being considered for such action. This
report shall encompass hazardous and sanitary waste landfills. The
Committee also requests that the Administrator make a determination
on the need for uniform standards for all new landfills (sanitary and
hazardous waste) and lateral expansions to such existing faci’Iities.
This provision requires the Administrator to submit annual reports
to Congress reprding suitability of various types of hazardous waste
for placement in land disposal facilities such as landfills. Questions are
being raised about the health and environmental effects of land dis-
posing various materials. At the same time, the Committee recognizes
that before any waste can effectively be banned from land disposal
there must exist practicable alternative means of disposition of these
wastes. The Committee also recognizes that for certain types of wastes
in certain circumstances, land disposal may continue to be the most
appropriate disposition.
-------
JiQJ 3 dk I. I.(g307
H 6752
water policy remains highly ambiguous. Es-
sentially, no one knows ahat we should be
doing’ not the government regulatory offi-
cials at EPA or in the states; not the aca-
demic experts: not the business executives:
not the environmental community; and not
the politicians. Frankly, all of us are atm
foundering in a morass of unclear scientific
information, political and economic pres-
sures, and regulatory confusion,
These are the words of an environ-
mental engineer and one of America’s
top experts in this field. While much
work and research is being conducted
on ground water currently, there is no
overall focus for these efforts. The bu-
reaucracy at EPA has not helped sub
stantially. Congressional committees
have tried to find answers, but con-
- gressional jurisdiction is scattered and
chaotic on this Issue. Dr. Morrell went
on to suggest to me that what we need
is a congressionally charged commis-
sion, with specific duties.
The Water Resources Subcommittee
examined the Groundwater Commis-
sion concert in hearings and heard no
substantive objections to the legisla-
tion. Representatives of the EPA ex-
pressed concern that the formation of
the Commission might somehow inter-
fere with administrative activity now
being undertaken on the groundwater
issue, but were reassured that the for-
mation of the committee would not
preclude any near.term actions being
taken by EPA or the administration.
The Commission is, rather, a long-
range effort to instill coherence in our
knowledge and policy on a problem
that is dealt with In several Federal
statutes, dozens of State laws, and a
handlull of committees of the House
and Senate.
Membership on the Commission is
equitably composed of Members of
Congress and representatives of State
government, public interest groups
and industry. There Is no prior bias as
to the policies and directions the Com-
mission may eventually recommend. I
believe that this provision will put us
on a firm path toward preserving a
safe and adequate supply of ground
water and is an Important addition to
the reauthorization of the RCRA pro-
gram. I urge my colleagues to support
this legislation.
I ask the Members as they think
bout this particular legislation to
think about the many other experts
throughout the Nation who have re-
minded us that we really are In a time-
skip as we live In our society. We are
the only generation in human history
that has an opportunity to plan, not
predict, its future, and I think that
moving toward the establishment of a
National Groundwater Commission
gives us an opportunity to put handles
on this very serious problem in time
for us to address in an adequate way
the solutions to that problem in the
future.
Mr. ROE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. EDGAR. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
Mr. ROE. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take this
opportunity to identify myself with
the gentleman’s comments and also
thank the gentleman for the extensive
effort the gentleman has been putting
forth In really spearheading the work
that. we are projecting in this legisla-
tion, In the ground water area.
I think it is an extremely important
environmental issue that has been
completely overlooked over the years.
I think the gentleman Is doing a
superb job. I want to compliment the
gc’ntleman for hIs efforts.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDGAR. I yield to the gentle.
man from New Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, I
would likewise like to recognize the
Initiative of the gentleman coming for-
ward with this proposal and it is out of
the gentleman’s Ideas that this whole
situation of the bill has developed.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. EDGAR. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LENT, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. THOMAS).
Mr, THOMAS. Mr. Chairman. I
would ask if the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. FL0RI0) would engage in a
colloquy briefly.
Several oil refineries In my district
Inject refinery wastewater through
class IV weLls into an old oil and gas
producing formation located several
thousand feet underground, well
below any current or even anticipated
future sources of drinking water. Cur-
rent EPA regulations define the term
“underground source of drinking
water” to allow such a formation to
avoid designation as a USDW If It can
be shown the aquifer does not now
and cannot In the future serve as a
source of drinking water.
Was It the gentleman’s intention, In
drafting section 5 of H.R. 6307, to in ’
corporate the current EPA regulatory
definition of the term “underground
source of drinking water”?
0 1430
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, the answer is’
“Yes.”
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentle-
man. Therefore, this bill and the gen-
tleman’s substitute will not change the
existing regulatory procedure for the
designation as “exempted aquifers” of
those formations which do not now, or
cannot in the future, serve as under.
ground sources of drinking water, as
provided by the EPA regulatipns: is
that correct?
Mr. FLORIO. If the gentleman will
yield, the gentleman Is correct.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentle-
man very much.
Mr. HAMMERSCKMIDT. Mr.
Chairman, at the moment I have no
further requests for time, and I re-
serve the balance of my time,
September 8, 198
Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, I have no
further requests for time, and I re-
serve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLORID. Mr. Chairman, I yield
minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LjtF1u.cE), who has been ex-
tremely helpful in developing this leg-
islation.
(Mr. L&FALCE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In strong support of the subcommit-
tee’s substitute being offered by both
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
FLoalo) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Lz rr).
I want to thank the gentleman from
New Jersey and the gentleman from
New York, and their staffs, for work-
ing with me and my staff to put to-
gether hat I believe is a responsible
approach to the hazardous wastes in
landfills issue.
The amendment contained In the
substitute embodies a fundamental
principle with which all Members can
agree: Hazardous waste management
must fully protect human health and
the environment. —
The compromise amendment directs
EPA to submit annual reports to Con-
gress identifying those hazardous
wastes for hich landfill disposal may
not be protective of human health and
the environment based upon the toxic-
ity, mobility, persistence, and the abili-
ty of the waste to bioaccumu]ate.
The amendment also directs EPA to
also identify those hazardous wastes
for which there exists one or more
technologically feasible means of
treatment, recover, or disposal, other
than landfill disposal, which will pro-
tect human health and the environ-
ment. Most Importantly, the compro’
mnise amendment directs EPA to pro-
mulgate regulations respecting those
hazardous wastes for which landfill
disposal may not be protective of
human health and the environment.
For the purposes of such regulattnns,
the amendment directs EPA to consid.
er the ability of landfill disposal facili-
ties to contain hazardous tastes over
time; to examine alternative treat.
ment, recovery, and disposal technol.
ogies, and the actions taken by State
governments In this regard; and to
review, for possible regulatory action,
all halogenated organics.
The compromise amendment Is fully
consistent with EPA policy. Yesterday,
Rita Lavelle. Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Re-
sponse, wrote to both the Speaker and
the minority leader. Ms. Lavelle’s
letter notes:
The Agency now plans to prohibit land
disposal ot hazardous W55 hich are
highly toxic. persistent and mobile, here
alternative treatment or recovery technol.
ogies are reasonably available.
Mr. Chairman, the evidence contin-
ues to demonstrate that the unre
stricted landfill disposal of hazardous
wastes in secure landfills makes those
-------
September 8, 1982
landfills less than secure. Peter Mon-
tague, the administrator of Princeton
University’s hazardous waste research
program, recently reported that four
New Jersey landfills that employed
state-of-the-art technology to prevent
leakage actually leaked. These were
not landfills constructed in the 1950’s
or 1960’s; they were landfills that were
less than 4 years old.
A recent report In Civil Engineering,
the Journal of the American Society of
Clvii Engineers, concludes that low
permeability clay used to contain haz-
ardous wastes can be rendered highly
permeable by certain chemicals. And
EPA, in the Introduction to its regula-
tions for hazardous waste landfills,
notes, “any l;ner will begin to leak
eventually “ EPA concludes, “thus
it can be assumed that a hazardous
waste land disposal unit presents some
risks to groundwater well into the
future .“
Secure hazardous waste landfill
design features Include: Liners to
block or impede movement of leachate
our of the waste containment area;
subsurface and groundwater monitor-
ing wells: caps which do not allow
rainwater to infiltrate the landfill, yet
remain sufficiently moist to support
vegetation; drainage control facilities:
and features to collect any leachate or
gas produced In the waste disposal
area.
These features minimize, but do not
prevent, the escape of materials from
secure landfills. Perpetual monitoring,
maintenance, and cleanup are required
even at the most modern, secure land-
fill.
The growing concern throughout
the United States regarding the ade-
quacy of landfills for the safe disposal
of hazardous wastes reflects a belief.
shared by EPA, that these require-
ments simply cannot be met,
Given these real problems, we must
exercise care In the selection of haz-
ardous wastes for landfill disposal. If
the landfill disposal option Is to
remain viable—and I belie e It will for
the foreseeable future—we cannot
allow the indiscriminate disposal of all
hazardous wastes in landfill disposal
facilities. It Is this end. Mr. Chairman,
which the compromise amendment Is
designed to achieve.
This Nation generates over 60 mil-
lion metric tons of acids, corrosive ma-
terials. toxic chemicals, and other haz-
ardous wastes annually. The volume of
such wastes wIll grow at an annual
rate of 3.5 percent, exceeding 80 mil-
lion metric tons annually by 190. I be-
ileve that the time has come to phase
out the landfill disposal of hazardous
wastes for which landfill disposal may
not be protective of human health and
the environment.
Se eral States have moved ahead ag-
gressively to achieve just this end.
California will, over the next se eral
years, phase out the landfill disposal
of priority hazardous wastes including
PCB’s, pesticides, toxic metals, cya-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
nides, halogenated organics, and
nonhalogenated volatile organics.
As the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LENT, knows, the Department of
Environmental Conservation has de-
veloped a plan to selectively ban land-
filling of hazardous wastes. CECOS In-
ternational and SCA Services, Inc.,
New York’s two licensed hazardous
waste disposal companies, are working
with the State to phase In alternative
treatment technologies,
Several other States, including Towa,
Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minneso-
ta, Missouri. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Vermont, have or will Implement plans
to encourage the development and uti-
izauon of alternative technologies for
the treatment, recovery, or disposal of
hazardous wastes.
Mr. Chairman, In 197’Z, a small com-
munity In Niagara Falls, N.Y., In my
congressional district, achieved nation-
al prorainence. Love Canal, a neat
working class community, became syn-
onymous with the problem of hazard-
ous waste disposal. Today over 237
homes have been demolished, and
dioxin, the most toxic substance
known to man, still poisons area
creeks and sewers.
Love Canal Is but one of the thou-
sands of toxic time bombs that dot the
American landscape. The Congress has
committed $1.6 billion to clean up
these sites, and we are becoming pain-
fully aware that billions more may be
needed to complete the job, We will be
paying for yesterday’s p istakes tomor-
row and for years to come,
Passage of RCRA 6 years ago
marked the beginning of our commit-
ment to insure that hazardous waste
landfills are designed, operated, and
maintained to fully protect human
health and the en%ironment. If we are
to avoid a second generation of Love
Canals, we must manage hazardous
wastes with the same vigilance. Mr.
Chairman, the compromise amend-
merit Is a first, necessary step toward
that goal. I urge Its adoption by the
House.
The second necessary step Is to
Insure that most. If not all, hazardous
wastes generated in this country each
year are disposed of In a manner
which protects public health and the
environment.
RCRA currently regulates gener-
ators that produce more than 1,000
kilograms of hazardous per
month. The exemption afforded the
so-called small quantity generators
allows them to dispose of their hazard-
ous wastes in solid waste landfills and
municipal dumps.
There can be no doubt, Mr. Chair-
man, that this exemption poses a po-
tentially serious threat to human
health and the environment. Solid
waste disposal facilities and municipal
dumps are simply not designed to con-
tain hazardous wastes. There are no
facilities to monitor, control, or clean
up hazardous wastes that might mi-
grate from these nonsecu.re landfills,
H 6753
According to EPA’s own data, over
one-half of the 115 Superfund priority
sites identified by the Agency for
cleanup were solid waste facIlities or
municipal dumps that accepted both
hazardous and solid wastes,
The substitute being offered today
by Mr. Ft .oazo and Mr. LmrT includes a
responsible solution to this serious
problem. The substitute lowers the
level of the exemption from 1,000 kilo-
grams-per-month to 100 kilograms-per-
month. It gives EPA the flexibility
necessary to modify the administrative
and managerial requirements on these
smaller operations prior to actual dis-
posal or treatment of the waste. And,
the substitute requires that small gen-
erators take their waste to a proper
hazardous waste management facility,
and not a sanitary landfill or munici-
pal dump.
Mi-. Chairman, those of us who sup.
port this provision of the substitute,
recognize that compliance with regula-
tions that will be amended to take into
account the particular conditions af-
fecting small business will be costly.
But we also recognize that the cost of
noncompliance will be greater.
The subcommittee substitute being
offered today by Mr. FLORIO and Mr.
Lzrrr moves us several steps closer to
insuring that all hazardous wastes are
properly managed.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of
the subcommittee substitute and the
provisions therein to restrict the land-
fill disposal of hazardous wastes for
which land disposal may not be protec-
the of human health and the environ-
ment, and to bring most, if not all, of
the 60 million metric tons of hazard-
ous waste generated in this country
each year under RCRA’s regulatory
urnbreUa.
Mr. ORIO. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for his support
and I wish to pay recognition for the
gentleman’s role as an environmental-
ly oriented person who Is particularly
concerned for small business.
Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 mInutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr.
SCREUER).
(Mr. SCHEUER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In strong support of Ii R. 6307 and I
especiaily want to commend the ef-
forts of the t’,.o gentlemen from New
Jersey, Mr. Fi.oaio and Mr. ROE. I feel
like I am reciting a Shakespeare play,
but they have done a fine job in bring-
ing this responsible and essential legis-
lation to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, HR. 6307 addresses a
serious problem that deeply concerns
many Americans, the problem of haz-
ardous waste.
This legislation authorizes $109 mil-
lion in fiscal year 1983 for EPA’s pro-
gram on hazardous waste and takes
positive and essential steps in the
management of hazardous waste,
-------
H 6756
sonous wastes, such as cyanide, toxic
metals, PCWs, and chlorinated sol-
vents, are produced by smaller busi-
nesses. In practice, this has not been a
burden for either the State or for In-
dustry. An Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) exemption can have se-
rious results. Each small generator can
send up to about 50 barrels per year of
waste to the local municipal landfill.
In any good size city you may have 100
smaller generators. Thai is 5,000 bar-
rels per year of toxic wastes going into
a landfill that was never engineered to
accept hazardous wastes. The results
are Injured municipal trarh collectozB ,
combinations of incompatible wastes
that can form toxic clouds that drift
over residences, and continued con-
tarnination of groundwater.
This situation must be changed and
this bill does that by reducing the
small-generator exemption.
NO EXEMPTION FOR BURNING WASTES iN
ROEL S
EPA now allows generators to burn
their hazardous wastes in their own
boilers without a permit. Just because
the taste is to be burned for the laud-
able goal of energy recovery does not
mean that the hazards of such a prac-
tfce can be ignored. The flagrant
abuses of this exemption have become
clear over the last year—the mixing of
hazardous wastes with fuel oil. Califor-
nia has no such exemption—a permit’
is required no matter whether treat-
ment. incineration, recycling, or land-
filling is planned.
This bill addresses this problem.
BAN ON THE LAND DISPOSAL OF HIGHLY xoxic
WASTES
Despite EPA’s ban on the landfilling
of liquid wastes and new design and
operating standards for disposal facili-
ties. there is nothing to prevent many
of the worst wastes from continuing to
go to surface Impoundments, injection
wells, or land farms. EPA is taking the
bandaid approach, patching the symp-
toms but not addressing the cause of
the illness.
California has an aggressive new
program that has received national at-
tention. I will insert a Washington
Post article for the record for those of
my colleagi.ies who may have missed It
over the recess. The Governors Office
of Appropriate Technology has
worked for a couple of years on alter-
natives to land disposal of toxic
wastes. The Governor’s office has
identified wastestreams that are not
suitable for land disposal, has set up a
3-year schedule to ban about 500,000
tons of the most toxic wastes from
land disposal, and aggressively encour-
aged the construction of alternative
management technologies that recy-
cle. treat, or destroy these hazardous
wastes. Technologies to treat, recycle.
or destroy such toxic wastes are
proven and in use in Europe or In
other parts of the world. A future of
safer waste management Is possible
today if we are willing to recognize it.
I understand that my colleague from
New York Mr. LAFAIc! will offer an
- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
amendment that will require EPA to
promulgate regulations indentifying
hazardous waste which would be
banned from land disposal. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
The State of California has shown
that it can be done for the State. Let
us show that we are committed to solv-
ing this problem for the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of
the bill.
At this point I Include the following:
t’From the Washington Post, Sept. 1, 1982)
Caantnucii Th vrrr.,s SriucT Nrw Toxic
Was x RVLES
(By Ward Sinc-lab-)
The California state government yester-
day announced details of a faz reaching new
program to ban the land disposal of a vari-
ety of highly toxic chemical aastes ideriti-
fled as serious hazards to human health.
The program, which would require that
toxic wastes be treated at new handling
faei1itias. would be the most stringent in the
nation when its first portions take effect, as
expected, early next year.
Oov. Edmund 0 (Jerry) Brown Jr., who
unveiled the program at a San Francisco
press conference, said the program, an out-
growth of his executive order last year ban.
rung toxic waste land dumps. “will help pre-
vent Intolerable human suffering - - - and
help end enormous cleanup costs that nei-
ther industry nor the taxpayer can afford,”
Although the proposed regulations apply
only to California, Brown’s action yesterday
earned a decidedly national slant.
Public concern over toxic waste disposal
has been heightened by the Love Canal’.
N.Y.. tragedy, Involving sickness and land
contamination, and disclosures that hun-
dreds of unregulated toxic dumps may
threaten public health across the country.
Brown, the Democratic candidate for the
U.S Senate from California is a frequent
critic of Reagan administration environmen-
tal enforcement and a gubernatorial aide
conceded yesterday that the state action is
intended to spur the federal Environmental
Protection Agency to take a more militant
enforcement stand.
Brown was joined at his press conference
by Sen Gary Hart (D.Coio), who has pro’
posed .aznendments to the federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
now awaiting congressional reauthorization,
that paraUel California’s program.
The Hart proposals are pending before
the Senate En ironinent and Public Works
Committee. The Rouse is expected to
debate its own version of a RCRA extension.
‘with amendments similar to Hart’s offered
by Reps James J. Florlo (D-N.J.). John J.
LaPalce (D-N.Y.) and Norman F. Lent (H-
N.Y.).
Brown said yesterday that he was “hilly
supportive” of the Hart proposals.
California officials estimate that their
new regulations, although subject to final
public comment and review before they take
effect next March, would affect at least half
a million tons of highly toxic chemical
w’astes now dumped In landfills.
Wastes that would be banned from land-
fill-dumping include cyarudes. toxic metals,
strong acids, PCBa. halogenated organic
compounds such as the pesticides DDT.
DBCP end Kepone. and all other wastes
currently classified by the state as “ex-
tremely hazardous”
The proposed regulations carry a maid-
mum fine of 125,000 per day br each viola-
tion of the land-dumping ban.
Compliance and enforcement, according
to Kent Stoddard of the governor’s Office
&ptember 8, 1982
of Appropriate Technology, viii be keyed to
a two-year timetable for construction of
treatment facilities, beginning next March
31.
The facilIties will be built by private en-
terprise, with low-interest sate pollution-
control loans available. The Brown program
also calls for expedited state processing of
applications for construction permits.
“We have identified the treatment and re-
cycling technologies that could be used,”
Stoddard said, “and we know there are clear
alternatit es to land disposal of these wastes.
We hate worked closely with the chemical.
petroleum and electronics Industries In
laying out these treatment timetables.”
California’s plan to phase out landfills as
dumps for highly toxic wastes began last
October when Brown issued art executive
order banning such activity and increasing
state monitoring and enforcement at. all
hazardous waste disposal sites.
State officials estimate that California,
with perhaps the nation’s fourth largest
volume of toxic wastes, has at least 70 major
dumping sites that need cleaning up, includ.
tag some in the state’s most populous coun-
ties.
• Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In support of HR. 6307, a bill to
amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act
and authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 1983 and 1984.
This bill u-as sequentially referred to
our Committee on Public Works and
Transportation for consideration of
sections 4 and 9 in recognition of our
Jurisdiction oter water pollution and
water resources management, conser-
vation and development.
Section 4 directs the Em ironrnental
Protection Agency to submit a report
to Congress with recommendations as
to whether regulation of hazardous
wastes mixed with domestic sewage
under the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
necessary to protect human health
and the environment, or whether the
existing provisions of law are ade-
quate. Section 1004(27) of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, provides that the
term “solid waste” does not include
solid or dissolved material in domestic
sewage. Therefore, hazardous waste
mixed with domestic sewage is cur-
rently exempt from regulation under
the provisions of the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act. Instead, the pretreatment
provisions of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act establish a program
for the regulation of toxic pollutants
which Interfere with, pass through, or
contaminate the sludge produced by
municipal sea age treatment plants.
Section 9 establishes a National
Ground Water Commission to investi-
gate and assess a broad range of mat-
ters relating to ground water contam-
ination by hazardous wastes and exist,-.
Ing or needed mechanisms for the pro-
tection or rehabilitation of ground
water resources. The Conunlssion Is di-
rected to transmit a report along with
recommendations for appropriate leg-
islation and administrative actions to
Congress and the President no later
than October 30. 1986; $10 million is
authorized to carry out. the study.
Our committee adopted amendments
to these sections, WhIch will be ex-
3-Of
-------
September 8, 1982
plained in detail by Congressman ROE.
chairman of our Water Resources Sub-
corr.mittee. I would like, however, to
discuss the National Ground Water
Commission provision. Ground water
is one of our most precious resources.
It. Is used extensively for human con-
sumption. irrigation of agricultural
crops and industrial purposes. It Is es-
sential that it be protected and used
wisely so that u .s availability for con-
tlnued and future use will be assured.
We know that our ground water re-
sources are threatened with contami-
nation and depletion. Yet we lack com-
prehensive information on the nature
and scope of these threats and possi-
ble remedial action which can be
taken with regard to them.
So that this information will be
available, the Commission is charged
with the study of a broad range of
matters relating to ground water.
ranging from the extent and condition
of available resources to measures
which can be taken to restore and pre-
serve them. This will enable us to de-
termine what measures should be
taken to insure that future genera-
tions will be able to enjoy the benefits
of this vital resource •
Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman. I have no
further requests for time.
Mr. RAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr.
Chairman, I have no further requests
for time.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. I yield
1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. SEIBERLING).
(Mr. SEIBERLINO asked and was
Iven permission to revise and extend
a remarks.)
dIr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, I
uld like to commend the gentleman
rom New Jersey Mr. Px.owio) for his
ieadership In this field of storage and
disposal of toxic wastes. I commend
and thank bun, in particular, for
taking time out of the recess last week
to come out and spend a day In Ohio
to look at a novel situation where PPG
Industries is proposing to use a 2,000
foot deep abandoned limestone mine
as a permanent disposal site and also a
temporary storage site for hazardous
wastes.
r’ I would like to ask the gentleman
from New Jersey, with respect to the
study and the proposed regulations
that the EPA Is directed by this substi-
tute to coe-e up with, is it the gentle-
man’s Intent to the maximum extent
feasible to require treatment or proc.
easing of wa.’tes so that they are re-
duced to their least hazardous form
before they are permanently stored or
disposed of?
Mr. FLORTO. Mr. Chairman, If the
eentleman will yield, the gentleman is
correct. That is the clear Intent of this
legislation. so as to discourage inap-
propriate disposal means. We saw at
the gentleman’s facility a good exam-
ple of a h)brid system that was a com-
bination storage and disposal facility
for which there really is not a clear
Cy ‘ulatory system that has been
— so the gentleman is correcL
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
Circumstances such as the proposed,
underground mine site require sepa-
rate standards for facility operation
and specific restrictions on the types
of wastes that can be placed in the fa-
cility.
Mr. SEIBERLING. I thank the gen
tleman and I commend him and also
the other gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. ROE) for the work that he has
done in connection with this legisla-
tion.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the
rule, the committee amendment in the
nature of •a substitute recommended
by the Committee on Energy and
Commerce now printed In the reported
bill shall be considered as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment, It
shall be in order to consider amend-
ments to said substitute printed In the
CONGRESSIONAL Rscoiw of August 3,
1982. by, and if offered by, Repre-
sentative ROE of New Jersey in lieu of
the amendments recommended by the
Committee on Public Works and
Transportation now printed in the re-
ported bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
R.R. 6307 -
Be U enacted by the Senate and Rouse of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Con greos asseimbted.
AUTHORIZATION OP APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL
TEARS i513 AND 19 14
A bME 5IT IN THE NATURS OF A SUBSTITUTE
OFflR BY MB, FLOiUO
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. I offer
an amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute,
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Fi.oRio: Strike Out aU alter
the enacting clause and insert to lieu there-
of:
SHORT TITLE
Ssc’nos 1. This Act may be cited as the
“Resource Conseriation and Recovery Act
Reauthorization Act of 1982”.
AUThORIZATION OP APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL
YEARS 1953 AND zeal
Ssc. 2. (a) OENntAL Av’rsoa lzalioN.—Seo-
lIon 2007(a) of the Solid Waste D’sposal ACt
Is amended by striking out “and 880.000.000
for the fiscal year ending September 30.
1982” and substituting “880,C00.000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1982,
$44,520,000 for the fIscal year ending Sep-
tember 30. 1983. and 844.520.000 loT the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1984”.
(hi STATE EA2AMDOUS Wasr PROGRAMS —
Section but.’ of such Act is amended by
striking out “and $40,GdO.L’OO for toe (Is—al
year 1982” and substituting “540.000.0(U) for
the fiscal year 1982. 840.000.000 for the
fiscal year 1983. and 840,000.000 for the
fiscal year 1984”,
(ci HAZARDOus WArn Srra IrqvnrTouty.—
Section 3012 of such Act (relating to the
hazardous waste In.,entory, is amended by—
(1) redesignating Such section (and the
corresponding reference thereto in the table
of contenl.s) as “Section 302A ,”: and
(2) by striking out “$20,000,000” in subsec-
tion (c)(2) and inserting in lieu thereof
“$10,000 000 for the fiscal year 1983, and
* 10.000.000 for the fiscal year 1984”.
(d) DevtLoP ezxT M.D [ MPI.EME1 IATTON As-
SI5TANcL—Sectlon 4008(a)l) of such Act is
amended by striking out “and $20,000,000
H 6757
for fIscal year 1982” and substituting
“$20 000.000 for the fiscal year 1982,
$10,000,000 for fiscal year 1983, and
$10,000,000 for fiscal year 19B4”,
(e) IMPLFMEN’TATION AssisTANcL—SeetIOtt
4008(a)(2XC) of such Act is amended by
striking out “and $10,000,000 for fiscal year
1982” and substituting “$2,000,000 for the
fiscal year 1982. $2,000,000 for fiscal year
1983. and $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1984”.
(1) SPECiAL CoMMON1TIE5,—SectlOfl
4008(eX2) of such Act Is amended by strik-
ing out “and $1,500,000 for each of the fiscal
years 1981 and 1982” and substituting “,
*1,500.000 for each of the fiscal years 1981
and 1982, $500,000 for the fiscal year 1983
and 8500.000 for the fIscal year 1984”.
(g) ASSISTANCE TO STATES PO l l RECYCLED
On, PROGRAM5,—Section 4008 of such Act is
amended—
(1) by redesigTiating subsection (f) (relat-
ing to assistance to municipalities for
energy and materials conservation and re-
covery planning activities) as subsection (g);
and
(2) In paragraph (4) of subsection (1) (re-
lating to assistance to States for discretion-
ary programs for recycled oil) by striking
out “and $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1983” and
substituting “15.000.000 for fiscal year 1983
and 83.000,000 for fiscal year 1984”,
(hi Dn’oamrirr or Co cemcz FoRe-
TI0NS —Section 5008 of such Act is amended
by Inserting after “1982” the following
“$1,500,000 for fiscal year 1983. and
$1,500,000 for fiscal year 1984”.
SMALl. QOANTTTT cn ssa oas
Ssc. 3, SectIon 3001 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, is amended by adding the 101’
loaing at the end thereof:
“(d) SISALL QUANTiTY Guenisroll WASTE.—
(1) After the date twenty-four months after
the date of the cnactment of the Resource
Conservation and Reco ery Act Reauthorl.
Ration Act of 1982. no hazardous waste
which Is genera’ed by any generator in a
quantity greater than one hundred kilo-
grams durtog any calendar month shall be
exempt, by reason at the amail c1’uantzty
generated, from standards under this subti-
tle.
“(2) Not later than twenty-four months
alter the date of the enactment of the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act
Reauthorization Act of 1982 the Adminis.
trator. after opportunity for notice, com-
ment, and public hearings, s)’all promulgate
standards under sectIons 3002. 3003. and
3004 for hazardous waste a hich is generated
dunn. any ca’tndar month by any gener-
ator inaquantity greater than one hundred
kilograms but less than one thousand kilo-
grams. Such standards may vary as provided
in this paragraph from ‘he standards appii-
cable to hazardous Waste genPrated In larger
quantities to the extent t’ at the Adm’,rjs-
trator deems such variation necec.cary by
reason of the smaller capar’itv of the fadili-
ui’s concerned. The A 1 ,trator Is direct-
ed to provide arlances in such standards
which—
“(A) in the case of standards under section
3002, prov d that—
“Cl) a deterrninat ion cor.eermng whether
or not hazardous waste is beii’.g generated
may be made through testing, or process
ide:.ttfication. or applying ‘itnoaiedge of the
tharacteristles of the waste based upon ma-
terials or processes Used, or genenc testing
for an indur.try There aast streams of gen-
erators within the industry have the same
or similar charactenstica
“(ii) requirements for waste identification
on manifests may be modified so that such
reqwrements may be satisfied on the basis
of Information obtained by Lasting, or proo.
f oi
-------
September 8, 1982
ized to make grants to local government au-
thorities to construct demonstration recy-
cling intermediate processing centers. Such
grants may also be used for the acquisition
of Ianas necessary for such centers, notwith-
standing subsection (a)(2flA).
“(2) Grants under this subsection may be
made only to a local government unit which
demonstrates a successful past e’cperience In
multimaterial curbside source separation
programs at the municipal level. Grants
under this subsection may be made only to a
local go errixnent unit ahich has approved.
and expressed its intention to carry out, a
plan for a reclcling intermediate processing
center which— -
“(A) is part of a county-wide recycling
program that includes curbside collection of
recyclable ma1 rtal and central processing
at the intermediate processing center
“WI projects commencement of operation
of the center not later than October 1983;
and
“(C) projects the processing at such center
of an annual total of not less than 21,000
tons of recyclable material within 3 years
after commencement of operation.
‘(3) No grant may be made under this
subsection to the local government of any
political subdivision having a population of
less than 175.000 or greater than 225,000.
Not more than $900,000 of the funds made
available under subsection (aX3)(C) may be
used to make grants under this subsection.
“(4) Section 8004 shall not apply to any
grants made pursuant to this subsection.”.
Mr. FLORIO (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment in the
nature of a substitute be considered as
read and printed In the Racoan.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
(Mr. FLORIO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. I
would at the outset publicly express
my appreciation to all who have been
Involved in fashioning this compro-
mise proposal.
The substitute makes several techni-
cal and substantive changes to H.R.
6307: -
Regarding small generators, the bill
explicitly modifies the administrative
and managerial requirements for these
generators prior to the actual .disposal
or treatment of the wastes. However,
when wastes are taken to be treated or
disposed of. the wastes must go to a
proper hazardous waste facility, ard
not a sanitary landfill or municipal
dump. For example, the maximum
storage period for smaller generators
is extended to 180 days from 90. This
means that vna eT generators would
only be required to dispose of their
wastes twice a year. but that it be done
properly.
Section 4 of the substitute Incorpo-
rates the Public Works Committee
amendment on the disposal of hazard-
ous wastes Into sewer systems.
c Section 5 makes a number of techni-
cal changes to the underground injec-
tion prohibitions, and incorporates a
requirement to impose restrictions on
the land disposal of certain hazardous
wastes as may be necessary to protect
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
human health and the envlronnsenL
This latter amendment embodies the
approach of the LaFalce amendment.
and is a much needed addition to the
bill.
Section 6 Is amended to require that
only hazardous wastes listed or Identi-
fied under the regulations will be con-
sidered for controls when burned in
boilers. This section also requires that
12 months postenactment, and the
Agency will concurrently publish a no-
tification requirement for those who
burn, blend, or distribute fuels con-
taining hazardotis wastes, and that
such fuels be labeled so that consuin-
ers are aware of the hazardous waste
content of any fuels they may be
buying.
Section 7 Is amended to clarify that
permits can be issued prior to the com-
pletion or required actions on the con-
dition that compliance schedules and
financial assurances for such actions
are specified in the permit.
Section 9 incorporates the Public
Works and Energy and Commerce
Committee amendments to the Na-
tional Groundwater Commission.
Section 11 requires the Agency to
promulgate standards for hazardous
waste recycling practices as necessary
to protect public health and the envi-
ronrnent.
Section 12 emphasIzes that in the
solid waste planning process, adequate
provision should be given to both re-
source recovery and recycling technol-
ogies. and that these decisions remain
at the local level. -
AMENDMENT OPTERED ST t. 5 1 1 5MM TO Thi
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE 0? A 5OB5TITUTE
OFTERm ST MR. PLORSO
Mr. GHAMM. Mr. Speaker. I offer
an amendment to the amendment In
the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. ORAMM to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute of-
fered b Mr. FLoalo: Page 3. strike out line
22 and all that foliows down through lIne 18
on page 7 and substitute:
The Administrator shall, riot later than
three years after the date of the enactment
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Reauthorization Act of 1982, complete a
study and submit a report to the Congress
concerning whether the pro. ..sions of regu-
lations promulgated under this Act respect-
ing hazardous a aste generated by small gen-
erators in quant.ies of 1.000 kilograms or
less per calendar month should be mothfied
with respect to any cLass or category of haz-
ardous a aste.
“(21 The study required under this section
shall include—
‘-IA) A profile of the generators, hazard-
sos wastes, and aaste ma,agement practices
sLt4ect to such provisions;
“(Hi an assessment of :be hazards associ-
•ated with sucb wastes and practices; and
1C) an anal)sis of the regulatory alterna-
tives to the exemption of such wastes from
the standards under this subtitle, including
an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of such
alternaLives.
°(3) At intervals of not more than one
year, and not more than two years. after the
date of the enactment of the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Reauthorization Act
of 1982. the Administrator shall submit an
H 6761
Interim report to the Congress setting forth
a detailed statement of the status of the
study required under this subsection.”.
Mr. GRAMM (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman Irons
Texas?
There was no objection.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Gn.tasss
was allowed to proceed for an addi-
tional 5 minutes.)
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. GaaMas) is recognized
for a total of 10 minutes.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. Chairman, I
would like first to begin by talking
about how RCRA works today, about
the cutoff In terms of the size of the
generator.
I would like to talk about the restric-
tions imposed on the small generator
under existing law and under existing
regulations issued by the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency.
I would like to talk about the moun-
tain of paperwork that they are cur-
rently exempt from under existing
regulations at EPA,
I would like to talk about the confu-
sion that exIsts concerning scientific
data and its evaluation concerning the
small generators, and I would like to
argue for an amendment that sets up a
study to get the facts before we begin
the legislatIve process.
Currently under RCRA. we impose a
mountain of regulations and redtape,
and I believe rightly so, on those gen-
erators that produce more than 1,000
kilograms of hazardous waste a
month. There are about 75,000 of
those generators and, according to
EPA, they generate about 99 percent
of all the hazardous waste generated
in the country.
Small generators that generate less
than 1.000 kilograms per month are
not burdened with the restrictions im-
posed under RCP.A in terms of full I-c-
porting, It does not follow, however.
that they do not face restrictions in
the way that they dispose of hazard-
ous wastes.
The existence of small and large
generators, according to EPA. basical-
ly breaks down as follows:
Those that generate more than 1,000
kilograms a month make up about 9
percent of the total generators nation-
wide and they generate about 99 per-
cent of the waste. Those that generate
less than 1.000 kilograms per mcnth
compose about 91 percent of the gen-
erators and they generate about 1 per.
cent of the waste. -
Small generators are not exempt
from regulations. Under existing pro-
cedures at EPA, they must determine
if the waste they generate is cla sif led
as hazardous under RCRA. If the
waste Is so classified, they then must
dispose of it either at an authorized
hazardous waste management facility
-------
Jcz-’7- 9 j ) l 1”3
MINIMUM TECHNOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS
SEC. 202. (a) Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
amended by inserting ‘he following new subsection after subsection
(n):
“(o) MINIMUM TECHNOLOGICAL REQuIREME rs.—(1) The regula-
tions under subsection (a) of this section shall be revised from time
to time to take into account improvements in the technology of
control and measurement. At a minimum, such regulations shall
require, and a permit issued pursuant to section 3005(c) after the
date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 by the Administrator or a State shall require—
“(A) for each new landfill or surface impoundment, each new
landfill or surface impoundment unit at an existing facility,
each replacement of an existing landfill or surface impound-
ment unit, and each lateral expansion of an existing landfill or
surface impoundment unit, for which an application for a final
determination regarding issuance of a permit under section
3005(c) is received after the date of enactment of the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984—
“U) the installation of two or more liners and a leachate
collection system above (in the case of a landfill) and
between such liners: and
•. ii) ground water monitoring; and
“(B) for each incinerator which receives a permit under sec-
tion 3005(c) after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the attainment of the mini-
mum destruction and removal efficiency required by regula-
tions in effect on June 24, 1982.
The requirements of this paragraph shall apply with respect to all
waste received after the issuance of the permit.
“(2) Paragraph (1XA ii shall not apply if the owner or operator
demonstrates to the Administrator, and the Administrator finds for
such landfill or surface impoundment, that alternative design and
operating practices, together with location characteristics, will pre-
vent the migration of any hazardous constituents into the ground
water or surface water at least as effectively as such liners and
leachate collection systems.
“(3) The double-liner requirement set forth in paragraph (IXAXi)
may be waived by the Administrator for anyrnonofihl, if—
“(A) such monofill contains only hazardous wastes from
foundry furnace emission controls or metal casting molding
sand,
“(B) such wastes do not contain constituents which would
render the wastes hazardous for reasons other than the Extrac-
tion Procedure (“EP”) toxicity characteristics set forth in regu-
lations under this subtitle, and
d -Oc,t
-------
H. R.2867—14
“(C) such rnonofill meets the same requirements as are appli-
cable in the case of a waiver under section 3005(j) (2) or (4).
“(4XAI Not later than thirty months after the date of enactment of
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the Adminis-
trator shall promulgate standards requiring that new landfill units,
surface impoundment units, waste piles, underground tanks and
land treatment unita for the storage, treatment, or disposal of
hazardous waste identified or listed under section 3001 shall be
required to utilize approved leak detection systems.
“(B) For the purposes of subparagraph (A)—
“(i) the term ‘approved leak detection system’ means a system
or technology which the Administrator determines to be capa-
We of detecting leaks of hazardous constituents at the earliest
practicable time; and
“(ii) the term ‘new units’ means units on which construction
commences after the date of promulgation of regulations under
this paragraph.
“(5KA) The Administrator shall promulgate regulations or issue
guidance documents implementing the requirements of paragraph
(1KA) within two years after the date of the enactment of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.
IB) Until the effective date of such regulations or guLdance
documents, the requirement for the installation of two or more
liners may be satisfied by the installation of a top liner designed.
operated, and constructed of materials to prevent, the migration of
any constituent •into such liner during the period such facility
remains in operation (including any post-closure monitoring period),
and a lower liner designed, operated and constructed to prevent the
migration of any constituent through such liner during such period.
For the purpose of the preceding sentence, a lower liner shall be
deemed to satisfy such requirement if it is constructed of at least a
3-foot thick layer of recompacted clay or other natural material with
a permeability of no more than lx 10 centimeter per second
“16) Any permit under section 3005 which is issued for a landfill
located within the State of Alabama shall require the installation of
two or more liners and a leachate collection system above and
between such liners, notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act.
“(7) In addition to the requirements set forth in this subsection,
the regulations referred to in paragraph (1) shall specify criteria for
the acceptable location of new and existing treatment, storage, or
disposal facilities as necessary to protect human health and the
environment. Within 18 months after the enactment of the Hazard-
ous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. the Administrator shall
publish guidance criteria identifying areas of vulnerable hydro-
geology.
-------
SECTION 202—MINIMUM TECHNOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS
House bill.—The House bill requires that all landfills and surface
impoundments submitting permit applications after enactment
shall be required to be double lined and to monitor ground water.
The double-liner requirement may be waived for monofihl con-
taining only foundry furnace emission control wastes or metal cast-
ings and wastes if certain conditions are met.
If certain mining and other mineral processing wastes, and fossil
fuel wastes (Sec. 8002(f), (n), and (p) wastes) become subject to Sub-
title C, the landfills and surface impoundments in which they are
put must have ground water monitoring, and whatever else EPA
requires.
Incinerators receiving a permit after enactment must achieve the
minimum destruction and removal efficiency (99.99 percent) re-
quired by regulations in effect on June 24, 1982.
Senate amendment.—The Senate amendment requires that all
landfills and surface impoundments submitting permit applications
after enactment shall be required to have two or more liners and a
leachate collection system above (in the case of a landfill) and be-
tween such liners unless alternative design, operating, and loca-
tional characteristics will prevent ground and surface water con-
tamination at least as effectively; they must also monitor ground
water. EPA shall implement these requirements within 2 years of
enactment; until such implementation the requirements can be
met by installing a top line and a lower liner, as defined in the bill.
Each permit issued after enactment of this amendment shall re-
quire the installation of such liners, leachate collection systems
and groundwater monitoring.
The amendment also says that any permit issued for a landfill in
Alabama shall require two or more liners and a leachate collection
system above and between such liners.
The EPA Administrator shall promulgate regulations for the ac-
ceptable location of new and existing treatment, storage, and dis-
posal facilities.
Conference substitute.—The Conference substitute adopts the
Senate amendment with the addition of the House language on
monofill waivers (above) and early leak detection systems as fol-
lows:
Within 30 months EPA promulgate regulations requiring all
new landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, underground
tanks, and land treatment units to use approved leak detection
systems.
By requiring EPA to promulgate regulations requiring approved
leak detection systems, the Conferees intend that EPA use its dis-
90
cretion to require those types of leak det3ction systems that are ap-
propriate for the facilities involved.
The provision, solely affecting facilities within Alabama, extends
only to alternatives otherwise available regarding minimum tech-
nology requirements contained in this Section and does not affect
other alternative operating or design options available to owners or
operators of Alabama land disposal facilities under this or other
Federal or State statutes or regulations.
-------
S Lt 1 q- ’j
MINIMUM TECHNOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT LIFE
The reported bill adds a new section 8004(0 to the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, establishing minimum technological requirements for
landfills, surface impoundments, and incinerators. The purpose of
this new subsection is to minimize the migration of hazardous!
wastes into the environment. Hazardous waste facility control and!
measurement technologies (including monitoring), as well as infor-
mation on the capabilities and limitations of such technologies, are
continually improving. This amendment requires the Administra-
tor to revise the regulation under section 3004 from time to time as
necessary to take into account those technological improvements.
As information becomes available, the Agency is to expeditiously
initiate rulemaking to amend or add to the treatment, storage, and
disposal regulations.
Because of the necessity to minimize migration of hazardous
waste, and the availability of particular technologies, the amend-
ment establishes several minimum requirements for landfills, sur-
face impoundments and incinerators.
Double liner requirement
Any landfill or surface impoundment permit issued after the en-
actment of these amendments for a new facility, or a new unit, re-
placement unit, or lateral expansion at an existing facility, must
require the installation of two or more liners and a leachate collec-
tion system. In both landfills and surface impoundments, there
must be a leachate collection system between the liners, operating
in part as a leak detection system. In addition, a landfill must have
a leachate collection system above the uppermost liner. Ground-
water monitoring is also required for all landfills and surface im-
poundments, consistent with section 3004(1). This amendment is in-
tended to correct the deficiency in the existing regulations allowing
double liners and groundwater monitoring to be alternatives.
This requirement is applicable to each new landfill or surface im-
poundment (including each new landfill or surface impoundment
unit at an existing facility), each replacement of an existing land-
fill or surface impoundment unit, and each lateral expansion of an
existing landfill or surface impoundment unit, for which a complet-
ed application for a per nit under section 8005(c) is received after
the date of enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amend-
ments of 1983. A completed application is what is known in the
EPA regulations as a Part B application, that is found by the ap-
propriate Regional Administrator or State to contain the applicable
components of an application as identified in any Agency or State
guidances, of acceptable quality for review.
This multiple-liner and groundwater monitoring requirement ap-
plies to all waste received after issuance of a permit to any such
landfill or surface impoundment unit. This means all new landfills
and surface impoundments, and new units, literal expansions, or
replacement units at existing landfills and surface impoundments
-------
27
must have multi-liners and groundwater monitoring. (See section
3005(e) as amended for application to interim status facilities.) Ex-
isting units with wastes in place on the date of enactment of these
amendments need not be retrofitted to continue to receive waste.
Where all or substantially all waste is removed, the unit is a re-
placement unit.
This provision does not require that both liners be of synthetic
material. Well-designed compacted natural materials of very low
permeability may be adequate. The Agency must define in regula-
tions the type of liners (e.g., natural, synthetic, or both) and the
specifications or performance criteria for the design of the liners,
leachate collection and removal systems, and groundwater monitor-
ing systems. However, to avoid bringing the permitting process to a
standstill until such time as EPA issues these new regulations, per-
mitting of new or replacement landfill and surface impoundments
units in accordance with this amendment (i.e. with the required
double liners and leachate collection systems) can continue under
the existing section 3004 specifications. The Agency should revise
the regulations as quickly as possible to specifically require the
double liners, leachate collection systems, and groundwater moni-
toring mandated by this amendment. However, until new regula-
tions are promulgated, permits may be issued incorporating the
double liner systems described in the existing regulations in con-
junction with the existing groundwater monitoring program (not I
currently required for double-lined facilities). Permit applicants
can refer to existing EPA guidance documents for specifications for
acceptable double liner systems.
The requirements of this provision do not apply to injection
wells, waste piles (which by regulatory definition are only used for
storage), or land treatment units. Land treatment units utilize a
different control strategy for managing hazardous wastes than sur-’
face impoundments and landfills, thus liners are not required for
land treatment units.
Alternative design and operating practices
The amendment authorizes exceptions to the double liner and
leachate collection system requirement (but not the groundwater
monitoring requirement) only in those cases where the owner or
operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator
on a case-by-case basis for a particular landfill or surface impound-
ment, that alternative design and operating practices, together
with location characteristics, will prevent the migration of any haz-
ardous constituents into groundwater or surface water at least as
effectively as the prescribed liners and leachate collection systems.
The test for granting this exception is whether the owner or opera-
tor can demonstrate that at that specific site, the proposed alterna-
tive technology can prevent migration at least as effectively as
would double liners and leachate protection. The burden is on the
owner or operator to make such a case. Knowledge of the fate and
transport of hazardous constituents into the environment is limit-
ed, and uncertainties of evidence in this regard must be resolved in
favor of the application of the statutory double-liner requirement.
There are currently a relatively few facilities located throughout
the country which, because of their unique hydrogeological loca-
28
tions and type of operation, may successfully make this demonstra-
tion. One other possible candidate for this exemption would be
monofills, or landfills containing a single type of waste, as de-
scribed in the preamble to EPA’s July 26, 1982, land disposal regu-i
lations. The Agency is evaluating the feasibility of monofilling var-’
ious wastes, including foundry wastes, and determining what mini-
mum landfill requirements should apply. Nothing in this new sub-I
section should be seen to interfere with this evaluation.
In making and evaluating demonstrations under this provision it
is important to keep in mind that liners are a necessary component;
in a system designed to detect and collect leachate containing haz-
ardous constituents. Demonstrations for an exception should not be
based exclusively on a showing that an alternative to the double
liner and leachate collection system in conjunction with the natu- I
rally occurring locational characteristics will assure containment
equivalent to synthetic or other emplaced liners in conjunction
with the naturally occurring locational characteristics, since long-
term or permanent containment is not the main objective of the
double liner-leachate collection system requirements.
-------
Incinerator requirements
New section 3004(0(2) requires that all incinerators receiving per-
mits after enactment of these amendments attain at least the de-
struction and removal efficiency required by the current regula-
tions.
Incineration of hazardous waste must also be regulated in a way
that minimizes migration of hazardous constituents into the envi-
ronment, reflects the best available technology and thereby assures
protection of human health and the environment. This is particu-
30
larly important given the prohibitions on land disposal required by
this bill. It is likely that the volumes of wastes that will be inciner-
ated will increase significantly as a result of these bans.
The performance standard of 99.99 percent destruction and re-
moval, efficiency required by the current regulations represents a
performance level that is achievable by virtually any modern corn-i
mercial incinerator. In view of the inherent uncertainty associated
with analysis of impacts on human health, it is necessary to statu-
torily establish such a standard as a minimum. Higher perform-
ance levels may be established if analysis suggests that such higher
levels are necessary to provide protection for human health and
the environment. Regulations must also be revised to reflect im-
provements in control or measurement technology.
Locational criteria
New section 3004(0 also requires the Administrator to promul-
gate criteria for the acceptable location of new and existing treat-
ment, storage, and disposal facilities. A significant deficiency in the
current land disposal regulations is the lack of hydrogeological b-
cational standards. Existing standards are limited to provisions
dealing with flood plains and fault zones. Studies recently conduct-
ed by the Agency have emphasized the importance of locational
factors in determining the environmental performance of hazard-
ous waste facilities. The broadened criteria should address such fac-
tors as proximity to groundwater or surface waters and, in particu-
lar, potential drinking water supplies (including sole source
aquifers), wetlands, and population concentrations. These criteria
are to establish whether locations are acceptable for existing fadii-
ties, as well as for new facilities.
-------
-,‘ i-j ? v’r
Section 21. Design and performance standards
Section 3004 has been further amended by the Committee to
ensure that the design and performance standards for new land-
fills, surface impoundments, and all incinerators require, at a mini-
mum, the application of adequate control technology. This amend-
ment is necessary because EPA has failed to require universally
the application of available technology to minimize hazardous
waste releases into the environment.
For new surface impoundments, EPA regulations currently re-
quire the installation of only one liner. EPA is aware that surface
impoundments can be designed with two liners and a leak detec-
tion system in between the liners. The Agency had required the in-
stallation of two liners for “storage” impoundments in regulations
promulated on January 12, 1981, but those regulations are no
longer effective. Those regulations employed a second liner and a
leachate management system as a secondary containment system
in case the top liner failed. In light of the uncertainties associated
with liner technology, the Committee strongly believes it is pru-
dent public policy to require the installation of a second liner to
minimize releases into the environment. The Committee is keenly
aware of the problems posed by inadequately designed surface un-
poundments, as documented by the Committee on Government Op-
erations in a 1980 report entitled Interim Report on Ground Water
Contamination. Environmental Protection Agency Oversight.
The same observation can be made regarding EPA’s landfill reg-
ulations. EPA currently requires one liner and a leachate manage-
ment system for new landfills. There is now no requirement for a
second liner below the leachate management system.
The Committee is equally disturbed about EPA’s announcement
that it is considering weakening the performance standards for in-
cinerators. See 47 FR 55880 (December 13, 1982). The Agency does
not question the ability of incinerators to meet the current stand-
ards. See 47 FR 27518 (June 24, 1982). Rather, the Agency may
-------
63
weaken the standards based on risk/cost comparisons conducted as
part of its Regulatory Impact Analysis. The Committee is con-
cerned that too many unknowns remain regarding the constituents
of waste streams and their toxicity to attempt to quantify precisely
risks in such a fashion. In addition, RCRA’s mandate is to protect
human health and the environment in the absence of cost consider-
ations. Therefore, the Committee intends through this amendment
to mandate the use of performance standards that can be achieved
as a floor for regulating incinerators.
The Committee is fully aware that EPA’s land disposal regula-
tions require the cleanup of significant releases into groundwater
which result from containment failure. Indeed, the Committee
strongly believes such a requirement is necessary and appropriate.
However, greater emphasis must be placed on reducing the need
for cleanup activity in the future. Cleanup is difficult and expen-
sive to perform. Therefore, prudent public policy dictates the appli-
cation of the technology available to contain or destroy hazardous
waste so cleanup activity is not necessary or the scope of such ac-
tivity is reduced.
The Committee is also aware that EPA regulations allow opera-
tors of impoundments and landfills to install the appropriate sec-
ondary containment systems if they wish. However, in exchange,
EPA exempts properly designed facilities from groundwater moni-
toring requirements. This exemption is entirely inappropriate. EPA
should not have to award bonuses to operators for merely designing
their facilities in an appropriate manner. Groundwater monitoring
is a relatively inexpensive, yet crucial, alert system for ascertain-
ing facility integrity. it is the Committee’s intent that the previous
optional double-liner facility design standards in the regulations,
issued on July 26 become mandatory and that groundwater mod- i
toring be performed. If leakage is detected between the liners of a!
surface impoundment, the top liner should be repaired. See 40 CFRI
264.222(bX2Xi).
In implementing this provision, the Committee expects EPA to
require a leachate management system in concert with the (at
least) double liner. For landfills, a leachate collection and removal
system should be installed above the topmost liner and operated as
necessary to remove leachate that accumulates at the bottom of
the landfill. The Committee does not, however, intend that landfills
be exhumed if leakage through the topmost liner occurs. For sur-
face impoundments, which normally hold liquid wastes, the Com-
mittee evisions a leak detection system between the liners that
would indicate failure of the topmost liner. If this occurs, the sur-
face impoundment should be drained, the topmost liner should be
repaired, and the liquid in the leak detection system should be re-
moved so that any future leakage can be detected.
The provision also requires that hazardous waste incinerators re-
ceiving a permit after enactment must achieve the minimum de-
struction and removal efficiency currently required by EPA regula-
tions. The Committee deems those EPA regulations, which require
destruction and removal efficiency of at least 99.99 percent, to be
the minimum necessary to protect human health and the environ-
ment. Thus, the intent of this provision is to ensure that these re-
quirements are not weakened in the future. The Administrator
-------
64
may, however, modify the requirements for incinerators, and for
landfills and surface impoundments as well, if such modification
provides for equivalent or greater waste destruction and removal,
or containment.
These design requirements shall apply to all new landfills and
surface impoundments) including replacements and expansions of
units at existing facilities) for which a permit application certified
complete has not been received by EPA as of the date of enact-
ment. The incinerator standards apply to all permits issued after
enactment since the amendment merely retains the existing regu-
lations; thus complete permit applications already submitted are
not affected by this amendment.
In focusing on new landfills, surface impoundments and all incin-
erators, the Committee is not indicating, implicitly or otherwise, its
approval of EPA’s regulations concerning other new facilities or ex-
isting landfills and impoundments. In fact, the Committee notes
that existing impoundments need not be lined at all; thus no bar-
rier preventing or minimizin waste releases into the environment
is required. The Committee is concerned that the absence of any
liner requirements may not be protective of human health and the
environment.
-------
5 a 5fb 10
E”/ OQSL
22 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
23 SEc. 26. Section 3004 is amended by inserting the fol
24 lowing at the end thereof:
1 “(k) MINIMu1 1 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN FAcILI- ‘ ‘ /
2 TIES.—(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), each
3 landfill or surface impoundment for which an application for a
4 permit under section 3005(c) is received by the Administrator
5 after the date of the enactment of the Hazardous Waste Con-
6 trol Enforcement Act of 1983, shall be required (as a condi-
7 tion of receiving such permit) to be double lined and to moni-
8 tor ground water.
9 “(B) With respect to each landfill or surface impound-
10 ment containing those solid wastes subject to the study re-
11 quired under section 8002 (f), (n), or (p) and which landfill or
12 surface impoundment becomes subject to regulation under
13 this subchapter, standards promulgated under subsection (A)
14 for such facility shall require the monitoring of ground water
15 and such other standards as the Administrator may determine
16 are necessary to assure the protection of human health and
17 the environment.
18 “(C) The double-liner requirement set forth in subpara-
19 graph (A) may be waived by the Administrator for any mono-
20 fill, if—
21 “(i) such monofill contains only hazardous wastes
22 from foundry furnace emission controls or metal casting
23 molding sand,
-------
1 “(ii) such wastes do not contain constituents
2 which would render the wastes hazardous for reasons
3 other than the EP toxicity characteristics, and
4 “(iii) such monofihl meets the same requirements
5 as are applicable in the case of a waiver under section
6 3005(h)(3).
7 “(2) Each incinerator which receives a permit under
8 section 3005(c) after the date of the enactment of the Haz-
9 ardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983 shall
10 achieve the minimum destruction and removal efficiency re-
11 quired by regulations in effect under this subtitle on June 24,
12 1982. The Administrator may, by rule, modify the require-
13 ments set forth in such regulations if such modification pro-
14 vides for equivalent or greater hazardous waste containment
15 or equivalent or greater destruction and removal of hazard-
16 ous waste.”.
-------
AS
9 EARLY LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM
10 SEC. 6. Section 3004 is amended by adding the follow-
11 ing new subsection at the end thereof:
12 “(1) Not later than thirty months after the date of en-
13 actment of the Hazardous Waste and Oontrol Enforcement
14 Act of 1983, the Administrator shall promulgate standards
15 requiring that new landfill units, surface impoundment units,
16 waste piles, underground tanks and land treatment units for
17 the storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste identi-
18 fled or listed under section 3001 shall be required to utilize
19 approved leak detection systems. For the purposes of this
20 paragraph, the term ‘approved leak detection system’ means
21 a system or technology which the Administrator determines
22 to be capable of detecting leaks of hazardous constituents at
23 the earliest practicable time and the term ‘new units’ meanS
24 units on which construction commences after the date of pro-
25 mulgation of regulations under this paragraph.
-------
t
MiNIMUM TECHNOLOGICAL REQUiREMENTS
SEC. 6. (a) Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act is amended by adding the following additional new sub-
sect ion:
“(f) Mm mw TECHNOLOGICAL REQUiREMENTS.—
The regulations under subsection (a) of this section shall be
revised from time to time to take into account improvements
in the technology of control and measurement. Al a mini-
mum, such regulations shall require, and a permit issued
after the date of enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Amendments of 1984 by the Administrator or a State shall
require—
“(1) for each new landfill or surface impound-
ment, each new landfill or surface impoundment unit
at an existing facility, each replacement of an existing
HR 2P 7 AS
-------
21
landfill or surface impoundment unit, and each lateral
expansion of an existing landfill or surface impound-
ment unit, for which a completed application for a
permit under section 3005(c) is received after the date
of enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act A mend-
ments of 1984, with respect to all waste received after
the issuance of such permit, the installation of two or
more liners and a leacliate collection system above (in
the case of a landfill) and between such liners (unless
the owner or operator demonstrates to the Administra-
tor, and the Administrator finds for such landfill or
surface impoundment, that alternative design and oper-
ating practices, together with location characteristics,
will prevent the migration of any hazardous constitu-
ents into the ground water or surface water at least as
effectively as such liners and leachate collection sys-
tems), together with ground water monitoring; and
“(2) for each incinerator which receives a permit
under section 3005(c) after the date of enactment of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984, the
attainment of the minimum destruction and removal ef-
ficiency required by regulations in effect on June 24,
1982.
in addition, such regulations shall specify criteria for the
acceptable location of new and existing treatment, storage,
HR 2867 EAS
-------
22
or disposal facilities as necessary to protect human health
and the environment. The Administrator shall promulgate
regulations or issue guidance documents implementing the
requirements of paragraph (1) within two years after such
date of enactment. Until the effective date of such regula-
tions or guidance documents, the requirement for the instal-
lation of two or more liners may be satisfied by the installa-
tion of a top liner designed, eperated, and constructed of
materials to prevent the migration of any constituent into
such liner during the period such facility remains in oper-
ation (including any post.closure monitoring period), and a
lower liner designed, operated and constructed to prevent the
migration of any constituent through such liner during such
period. For the purpose of the preceding sentence, a lower
liner shall be deemed to satisfy such requirement if it is
constructed of at least a three-foot thick layer of recompacted
clay or other natural material with a permeability of no
more than 1 X 1O centimeter per second. Any permit
under this subsection which is issued for a landfill located
within the Slate of Alabama shall require the installation of
two or more liners and a leachate collection system above
and between such liners, notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this Act. “
-------
_
102
URANIUM MILL TAILINGS
SEC. 42. Nothing in the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Amendments of 1984 shall be construed to affect, modify, or
amend the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of
1978, as amended.
MiNING WASTE
SEC. 43. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new subsection:
“( ) If solid waste from the extraction, beneficia-
lion or processing of ores and minerals, including
phosphate rock and overburden from the mining of ura-
niurn ore, is subject to regulation under this subtitle,
the Administrator is auihori:ed to modify the requ ire-
ments of subsections (7,), (f)(1) (other than the require-
ment for ground water monitoring), and (g), in the
case of landfills or surface impoundments receiving
such solid waste, to lake into account the special char.
acteristics of such wastes, the practic .il difficulties as-
sociated with implementation of such requirements, and
site-specific characteristics, including but not limited to
the climate, geology, hydrology and soil chemisti,j at
the site, so long as such modified requirements assure
protection of human health and the environment. “
HR 2867 EAS
-------
ri2T 4i POT -’7 1)
r -rS -
48
1 ment of the Office of Ombudsman shall not affect any proce-
2 dures for grievances, appeals, or administrative matters in
3 any other provision of this Act, any other provision of law, or
4 any Federal regulation. “
5 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for
6 such Act is amended by inserting the following new item
7 after the item relating to section 2006:
“Sec. 2006A. Office of Ombudsman. ‘
8 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
9 SEC. 22 21. Section 3004 is amended by inserting the
10 following at the end thereof:
11 “(lc) MINiMuM REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN FAcJL-
12 JTJEs.—(1) Each landfill or surface impoundment for which
13 an application for a permit under section 3005(c) is received
14 by the Administrator after the date of the enactment of the
15 Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983,
16 shall be required (as a condition of receiving such permit) to
17 be double-lined and to monitor ground water.
18 “(2) Each incinerator which receives a permit und3r
19 section 3005(c) after the date of the enactment of the Hazard-
20 ous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983 shall
21 achieve the minimum destruction and removal efficiency re-
22 quired by regulations in effect under this subtitle on June 24,
23 1982. The Administrator may, by rule, modify the requ ire-
24 ments set forth in such regulations if such modification pro-
25 vides for equivalent or greater hazardous waste containment
HR 2867 RH
-------
? r6 .pGPIL7 ‘j4-’ ’J
s --rç
8 DESiGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
.9 SEC. 22. Section 3004 is amended by inserting the fol-
10 lowing at the end thereofr
11 “(k,I MiNIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR cERT.41.V FAcIL-
12 1TIES.—(1) Each landfill or surface impoundment for which
13 an application for a permit under section 300.5(c) is receired
14 by the Administrator after the date of the enactment of thE
15 Hazardous Waste control and Enforcement Act of 19.
16 shall ht required ‘as a conditicn of receiring such permit) to
17 be double-lined and to monitor ground waler.
18 “(2) Each incinerator which receives a permit under
19 section 3005(c) after the date of the enactment of the Ha:urcI-
20 ous Waste control and Enforcement Act of 1983 shall
21 achieve the minimum destruction and ren?oual efficiency ye-
22 quired by regulations in effect under this subtitle on June 24.
23 1982. The Administrator may. by rule, modify the require-
24 ments set forth in SUCh regulations if such modification pro-
25 vides for equivalent or greater hazardous waste containment
HR 2867 RH
49
1 or equivalent or greater destruction and removal of hazardous
2 waste. “.
-------
Ac. p r ’i D
47
1 MINIMUM TECHNOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT
2 LIFE
3 SEC. 6. (a) Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal
4 Act is amended by adding the following additional new sub-
5 section:
6 “(f) MINIMUM TECHNOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS.—
7 The regulations under subsection (a) of this section shall be
8 revised from time to time to take into account improvements
9 in the technology of control and measurement. At a mini-
10 mum, such regulations shall require, and a permit issued
11 after the date of enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
12 Amendments of 1983 by the Administrator or a State shall
13 require—
14 “(1) for each new landfill or surface impound-
15 ment, each new landfill or surface impoundment unit
16 at an existing facility, each replacement of an existing
17 landfill or surface impoundment unit, and each lateral
18 expansion of an existing landfill or surface impound-
19 ment unit, for which a completed application for a
20 permit under section 3005(c) is received after the date
21 of enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amend-
22 ments of 1983, with respect to all waste received after
23 the issuance of such permit, the installation of two or
24 more liners and a leaclzate collection system above (in
25 the case of a landfill) and between such liners (unless
S 757 KS
-------
4 3
1 the owner or operator demonstrates to the Administra-
2 tor, and the Administrator finds for such landfill or
3 surface impoundment, that alternative design and oper-
4 ating practices, together with location characteristics,
5 will prevent the migration of any hazardous constitu-
6 ents into the ground water or surface water at least as
7 effectively as such liners and leachate collection sys-
8 tems), together with ground water monitoring; and
9 “(2) for each incinerator which receives a permit
10 under section 3005(c) after the date of enactment of the
11 Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1983, the
12 attainment of the minimum destruction and removal ef-
13 ficiency required by regulations in effect on June 24,
14 1982.
15 In addition, such regulations shall specify criteria for the
16 acceptable location of new and existing treatment, storage, or
17 disposal facilities as necessary to protect human health and
18 the environment. The Administrator shall determine whether
19 to modify the requirements of paragraph (1) for liners and
20 leachate collection systems in the case of landfills or surface
21 impoundments receiving solid waste from the extraction, ben-
22 eficiation or processing of ores and minerals, including phos-
23 phate rock and overburden from the mining of uranium ore,
24 if such solid waste is subject to regulation under this subtitle,
25 and shall, if he so determines, so modify such requirements to
S 757 ItS
p2 c -
-------
49
1 the extent such modified requirements assure protection of
2 human health and the environment. ‘
-------
‘4
9 EARLY LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM
10 SEC. 6. Section 3004 is amended by adding the follow-
11 ing new subsection at the end thereof:
12 “(1) Not later than thirty months after the date of en-
13 actment of the Hazardous Waste and Control Enforcement
14 Act of 1983, the Administrator shall promulgate standards
15 requiring that new landfill units, surface impoundment units,
16 waste piles, underground tanks and land treatment units for
17 the storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste identi-
18 fied or listed under section 3001 shall be required to utilize
19 approved leak detection systems. For the purposes of this
20 paragraph, the term ‘approved leak detection system’ means
21 a system or technology which the Administrator determines
22 to be capable of detecting leaks of hazardous constituents at
23 the earliest practicable time and the term ‘new units’ means
24 units on which construction commences after the date of pro-
25 mulgation of regulations under this paragraph.
HR 2867 RFS
-------
e bc:/ - • iO )
48
1 BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
2 SEC. 22. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
3 (as amended by section 5 of this Act) is further amended by
4 inserting the following at the end thereof:
5 “(e) BEST AVAILABLE TEcHNOL0GY.—In the case of
6 any landfill, surface impoundment, or incinerator for which a
7 permit is issued after the date two years after the enactment
8 of this subsection and the construction of which is corn-
9 menced (as determined by the Administrator) after such date,
10 no standard under subsection (a) shall require less than the
11 application of the best available control technology economi-
12 cally achievable. The standards promulgated under subsec-
13 tion (a) shall be revised after the enactment of this subsection
14 to conform to the requirement established under this subsec-
15 tion.”.
c Op2
-------
S 13816
by Members of Congress for the con-
cept to receive broad-based accept-
ance. The far simpler mechanism proS
viding for clean ups of hazardous sub-
stance releases already in place is not
sufficient. Congrcs has an outstanding
obligation to the unwilling victims
ho are harmed through exposure to
mismanaged hazardous substances.
1 consider participation in develop-
ing the four main environmental stat-
utes to be among the most worthy ef-
forts of my legislative career. They
have a direct effect on every citizen of
this Nation. Air and water have sub-
stantially improved as a direct result
of reforms enacted during the past
decade. Responsible waste manage-
mont is coming about as the result of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act and Su-
perfund. Congress will need to main-
tain vigorous oversight of these laws
to assure that progress continues to be
made.
Madam President, members of the
connmttee were dilligent in their com-
mitment of time and energy to the
successful completion of this legisla-
Lion. In the conference with the House
of Representatives, I was privileged to
be associated in representing the
Senate with Senators Ciarzz, Sr.tr-
FORD, MITCHELL, LAUTENSERO, SuwsoN
and Snigs. Each of them made major
commlttments to the final vcrsion of
this important measure.
It has long been my practice to call
attention to the Involvement of staff
members in the legislative process.
Without their knoiviedge and experi-
ence, our task would be considerably
more difficult. In this Instance, I am
particularly appreciative of the skills
bro zi ht to this task by minority coun-
sel Philip cummings, and of the con-
tributions of John Yago, Stephanie
Clough, Lee Fuller and Helen Hal-
baugh.
We also received excellent coopera-
tion and technical assistance from the
Environmental Protection Agency
through the help of assistant adininis-
trators Lee Thomas and Josephine
Cooper.
Mr. MITCHELL, Madam President,
I rise In support of the conference
report on the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.
tils bill Is a. major achievement of
the 98th Congress.
Its enactment will mark yet another
milestone In our efforts to protect our-
selves from one of the unfortunate
and too common by-products of our
highly Industr ia lized society hazard-
ous waste.
In 1976. the Congress enacted the
Rescurce Conservation, and Recovery
Act. It was an ambitious, far-reaching
statute. It conferred on the Environ-
mental Protection Agency broad gen-
eral authorities to regulate the genera-
tion. transportation, storage and dis-
posal of hazardous waste.
Standards for the transportation.
storage and disposal of hazardous
waste were mandated.
CONGRESS iONAL RECORD — SENATE
Enforcement authorities wc-re man-
dated.
Citizen participation in regulatory
and enforcement proceedings was
mandated.
The underlying goal of all of these
activities was protection of public
health and the en%ironment, Indeed,
the statutory standard by which the
mandated regulations were and contin-
ue to be measured is protection of
public health and the environment.
The statute established a framework
for the prevention of harm to human
beings and natural resources.
Today, we propose a series of amend-
ments to the basic statute.
The preventive framework of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act is sound. Today we proposes modi-
fications based on the knowledge ac-
quired since 1976. All of the changes
we are recommending to the Senate
will strengthen the ability of the Fed-
eral Go ernment to protect public
health and the environment from haz-
ardous wastes. They are designed to
give EPA more specific guidance,
based on our experience with iniple-
mcntation of the law’s general au-
thorities since 1976.
What have we learned In $ years?
We have learned that the magnitude
of the problem is far greater than be-
lieved. We now know that over 264
million metric tons of hazardous waste
are generated In this country each
year : this estimate is more than four
times greater than previously thought.
We have learned thac there are
thousands of waste sites across this
country ahich present potential or
actual threats to human health or
well-being. EPA now estimates that
there may be 22,000 sities in need of
some type of cleanup: 546 of these
sites have been designated as priorities
for cleanup. The Superfund law en-
acted in 1980 was necessary response
to -our past inattention to the careful
disposal of hazardous wastes.
Simply put, past practices have left
us a legacy of chemical contamination
which has poisoned our air, our water
and our land. The price of our Igno-
rance has been high, In human terms
and in dollar value. Present practices,
unless modified, can only multiply
those costs.
The average cost of cleaning up a
hazardous waste site Is estimated to be
$6.5 million, according to EPA. If just
the priority sites, knon to present a
health hazard, were cleaned up, the
cost would be billions of dollars. No
matter who pays the bill, whether it
be the responsible party or the Feder-
al Government. that figure is too high.
We cannot afford the status quo.
We also know now that the genera-
tion of hazardous waste continues to
grow and that most of that waste is
currently disposed of on or in the land.
It has become evident that a strong
congressional expression of disapprov-
al of EPA’s slow and timid Implemen-
tation of the existing law Is necessary,
as well as a clear congressional direc-
October 5, 1984
tion mandating certain bold, preven-
tive actions by EPA which will not be
taken othienvise, despite the existing,
broad authorities contained in RCRA.
EPA has not implemented the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery At
aggressively. The Agency has missed
deadlines, proposed lnadcquate regula-
tions, and even exacerbated the haz-
ardous waste problem by suspending
certain regulations.
It has become evident that this slow,
plodding course will be continued In
the absence of a clear congressional di-
rective. This is not acceptable. Accord-
ingly, this bill provides more specific
guidance to EPA as to how the broad
grants of authority of the existing
ECRA law should be used.
The bill declares as congrevcfonal
policy that 4 to avoid substantial risk
to human health and the environ-
ment, reliance on land disposal should
be minimized and land disposal, par-
ticularly landfill and surface kntpound-
mnent, should be the least favored
method for managing J azardous
wastes.” It specifically reaffirms the
Administrator’s authority to prohibit
land disposal methods that cannot be
shown to be protective of human
health and the environment, and di-
rects the Administrator to use that au-
thority. Deadlines are established by
which EPA much evaluate all wastes
listed as hazardous and subject to
RCRA regulation, as to the appropri-
ateness of their dii posal on land. If
the Administrator does not act ithiri
the specified deadlines, land dispos’rl
of wastes for which the deadline is
missed is prohibited.
The bill establishes minimum tech-
nological standards for land disposal
facilities and incinerators to Insure
that EPA requires the use of the best
technology available at hazardous
waste disposal facilities.
The bill expands the coverage of the
law to those who generate between 100
and 1,000 kilograms of waste a month.
In 1980, EPA exempted all generators
of less than 1,000 kilograms, solely on
the basis of Its workload, and stated
that It intended to initiate rulemaking
to expand the law’s coverage within 2
to 5 years.
This has not occurred. Accordingly,
the conference report Imp lements
EPA’s 1980 commitment. This will
bring Into the regulatory system an
additional 15 millIon tons of hazardous
waste.
The bill strengthens significantly
the rote of citizens in enforcing the
law. As the sponsor of this provision, I
believe that It will provide an Impor-
tent and necessary supplement to
EPA’s efforts.
The bill expands the law to prevent
the export of hazardous waste to for-
eIgn countries without the receiving
country’s consent.
Madam President, we have worked
long and hard on this package of
amendments. I believe that we have
-------
October 5, 1984
achieved a workable balance between
two conflicting considerations:
• First, the recognition that unless the
status quo with respect to the han-
tiling of hazardous wastes is altered
radically, we will be condoning the
eventual chemical contamination of
all elements of our natural life-sup-
port system—air, water, and land; and
Second, the reality that because the
pervasive nature of the hazardous
waste problem is largely a result of a
successful Industrialized society, the
ultimate solution is a basic change in
the operation of large segments of our
Industries—a course that should be
charted carefully and brought about
at a deliberate but measured pace.
Hit. 2867 represents a mandate for
change in the status quo. It also repre-
sents a mandate for Informed regula-
Lion which does not threaten precipi-
tous disruptions which could ultimate-
ly doom our legislative strategy to fail-
ure.
The bill before us is a compromise In
the best sense of that tcrnt It at-
tempts to accommodate the many
varied concerns expressed by hundreds
of persons over the past years. It is
also a compromise in the sense that
probably no one person or interest
supports every single element of the
legislation.
We have had to make difficult Judg-
ments as to how the results we desire
can be best achieved. This bill repre-
sents that judgment. I urge my col-
leagues to support the legislation
before the Senate. If approved, it will
be another significant achievement by
this body in assuring a safe environ-
ment for all persons of this country.
• Mr. CHAPEL Madam President. I
tin pleased to present to the Senate
the conference report on FI.R. 2867,
the solid and hazardous waste amend-
xnents of 1984. When we last addressed
this matter on July 25, 1984. the
Senate unanimously approved 5. 757,
the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amend-
ment of 1984.
The bill before us today is a confer-
ence substitute for S. 757 and for the
original version of H.R. 286t To my
mind. Madam President. we have
taken the best,of both bills and pro-
duced a piece of legislation that we
can all be proud of. It is a tough bill
designed to deal with a tough problem:
the control of hazardous waste.
In 1976, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act [ RCRA) was en-
acted as an amendment to the Solid
Waste Disposal Act. Subtitle C of
RCRA established this Nation’s basic
hazardous waste management system.
That law, and the amendments we are
considering today, are deslgned to
assure the people of this Nation that
the generation, handling, storage.
treatment, transportation and disposal
of hazardous waste In this country is
regulated and controlled in a manner
that protects both human health and
the environment.
The importance of this law and the
need for such assurances can only be
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
Sully appreciated after we examine
just how much hazardous waste is
being generated each year in the
United States. The numbers are stag-
gering.
When the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPAI developed Its regulato-
ry program and when we first began
working on this legislation, it was esti-
mated that approximately 11 billion
gailons—40 million metric tons—of
hazardous waste are produced in the
United States each year. In August of
1983, EPA upped this estimate to
roughly 40 billion gallons—I SO million
metric tons, almost four times the pre-
vious estimate. On April 20, 1984, the
EPA released the results of the Na-
tional Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators and Treatment, Storage
and Dispos’tl Facilities Regulated
Under RCJRA In 1981 (National
Sun’ey), It is now estimated that more
than 71 billion gallons—264 million
metric tons—of hazardous wastes are
generated in the United States every
year. According to news reports, that
Is enough to flood the District of Co-
lumbia to a depth of 5 feet: enought to
supply every man, woman and child In
the Nation with six 55-gallon drums of
hazardous waste.
Sadly, the actual number far exceeds
the 71 billIon gallon estimate, EPAs
National Survey did not include
mining waste, some of which is clearly
hazardous: It did not include house-
hold hazirdous waste such as discard-
ed pesticides, paint thinners and clearc
Ing solvents: it did not include hazard-
ous wastes generated by individual
businesses that produce less than 1,000
kilograms—2,200 pounds _of such
waste each month: It did not include
hazardous waste that is discharged
through sewers Into publicly owned
wastewater treatment works; it did not
include hazardous wastes destined for
recycling: and, of course, it did not in-
clude hazardous waste that is illegally
generated or managed. The survey and
the estimate only included those
wastes and activities that are regulat-
ed tinder the existing RCRA program,
There is no question, Madam Presi-
dent, that we have given the EPA an
enormous responsibility. In 1981, EPA
received nearly 60,000 notices from
generators of hazardous waste. The
Agency has roughly 8 500 applications
on file for permits for treatment, stor-
age, and disposal facilitIes. The permit
applications and sources of hazardous
waste come from a wide variety of in-
dustries, each one posing unique prob-
lems. Add to that the problem of
household waste and waste from the
truly small quantity generator. EPA’s
task under RC1IA is a tough one. It Is
also absolutely .essentlai that it be
done right and that it be done soon.
This program is closely related to
the much taWed about Superfund pro-
gram. What this program Is meant to
do Is to assure the public that, al-
though we may be discovering new Su-
perfund sites on a daily basis, at the
very least we are taking steps to pre-
S 13817
vent the creation of new Superfund
sies. Hazardous waste can and must be
handled In a manner that is safer than
it was in the past. That is what RCRA
is supposed to be about.
We often hear the refraIn from
those who are responsible for disasters
like Lo e Canal, Stringfellow Acid Pits
and, In my home State. the Western
Sand and Gravel and Picillo dumps,
that we should not hold them respon-
sible because what they did was legal
at the time. Well, using legal to mean
not specifically prohibited by RCRA
or by regulation under RCRA, let’s
look at what is legal under cur current
RCR.A program: It is legal to produce
2,000 pounds of hazardous waste each
month and to dispose of it in the town
dump as If it were normal trash. It Is
legal to use waste oil containing dioxin
as a dust suppressant on roads as was
done in Times Beach, MO. It is legal
to avoid regulation by blending haz-
ardous waste with other fuels and to
burn it for energy or to sell it to unsu-
specting customers.
Madam President, our current
RCRA program Is riddled wlth loop-
holes. That Is why this bill is so impor-
tant. We have Identified a number of
gaps in the regulatory program and
have attempted to fill them statutori-
ly. Even with this bill there will be
gaps, The scope of the problem is such
that we cannot reasonably expect to
address it comprehensively with legis-
lation. We must continue to rely to a
large: ext’e’it on Federal and Stpte
conirnon law and Stace statutory, law
to fill the gaps. Nevertheless, we must
do as much as we can to assure the
public that hazardous waste are being
handled In a safe manner. This bill is
an important part of the solution to
the problem.
I would now lite to briefly explain
some of the bill’s key previsIons and
the specific problems they are de-
signed to address-
SMALL QUA IiTITY GENELtTO5S
First, let us review the problem. As a
result of an EPA regulatory dec1s on
In 1980, small quantity generators—
currently defined by EPA as those
who produce 1,000 kilograms per
month (kg/mo) or less of hazardous
waste—are now exempt from most
RCRA requirements and may dispose
of their waste into sanitary landfills
and into sewers that are connected to
publicly owned treatment works. Nei-
ther of these types of facilities is
suited to the disposal or treatment of
toxic organics or metals. In addition,
such generators are not required to
package the wastes In a safe manner
nor to notify the transporters that the
waste being transported Is hazardous.
In addition to being toxic, many of the
wastes are ignitable, reactive or eon-o-
sive and, therefore, create an occupa-
tional safety hazard for the unwitting
transporter.
To address this problem, Hit. 2867
will require that,’wlthin 270 days, gen-
erators which generate greater than
0 toa
-------
October 5, 1984
consistent with requirements for per-
mitted facilities.
MINIMUM TEC)rNOLOOICAL REQUIREMENTS AND
PERMIT LIFE
Delayed promulgation of final regu-
lations to Implement RCRA and pro-
longed use of interim status permits
by EPA has allowed some facilities to
operate without assurances that
design and performance standards will
utilize adequate and available control
technology. The application of avail-
able technology, at a minimum, is nec-
essary to minimize releases of hazard.
otis wastes Into the environment.
Minimum standards of double liners,
groundwater monitoring and leachate
collection are required for landfills
and surface impoundments permitted
after date of enactment. Modifications
of this requirement are allowed upon a
showing that an alternative design Is
at least as effective as the liners and
leachate collection systems.
The conference report contains the
Senate provision excluding facilities
within the State of Alabama from the
alternative technology provisions con-
tained in the minimum technological
requirements. By adoption of this
Senate provision, the conferees do not
imply that any facility within the
State of Alabama could, or could not,
comply with any minimum technologi-
cal variance requirements envisioned
by this provision. This Alabama exclu-
sion does not prejudice or affect con-
sideration of pending or future permit
applications by facilities in Alabama to
the extent that such applications may
comply with this and other Federal
and State statutes and regulations.
This provision solely affecting facili-
ties within Alabama extends only to
the alternative technology demonstra-
tion otherwise available regarding
minimum technology requirements
and..does not affect other alternative
operating or design options available
to owners or operators of Alabama
land disposal facilities under this or
other Federal or State statutes or reg-
ulations. For example. If pretreated
wastes under other provisions were ex-
pressly permitted to utilize land dis-
posal facilities of differing technologi-
cal design or operating requlrments,
thls Alabama exclusion would not
apply to that alternative authority.
Minimum standards for incinerators
are to require destruction and removal
efficiency consistent with regulations
in effect on the date of enactment.
Equally Important Is the require-
ment that EPA modify its regulations
to specify criteria for the acceptable
location of new, as well as existing, fa-
cilities. Recent studies show that
proper location is at least as important
as application of Improved technol-
ogies. Too many existing facilities are
located in areas that aren’t well suited
to management of hazardous wastes.
It Is important that these sites be shut
down as quickly as is possible.
Flxcd term permits not to exceed 10
years are established for land disposal
facilities, storage facilities, inciner-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
atom, and other treatment facilities.
Permits for land disposal facilities
shall be reviewed at least every 5
years.
An amendment is included to make
clear that the Administrator—or the
State in the case of a State with an au-
thorized program—is not to consider
the incremental cost attributable to
sections 3004(0) and 3005(j) in first, is-
suing effluent limitations guidelines,
new source performance standards and
pretreatment standards under the
Clean Water Act in the next 12
months; second, issuing NPDES per-
mits based on the previously promul-
gated guidelines and standards and
any guidelines and standards promul-
gated under the Clean Water Act with
in the next 12 months; or third, estab-
lishing effluent limitations based on
best professional judgment (BPJ) on
or before October 1, 1986,
In the past several years, EPA has
promulgated the majonty of the ef flu-
ent limitations guidelines, pretreat-
ment standards, and new source per-
formance standards required by the
Clean Water Act and the Clean Water
Act Toxics Consent Decree, NRDC v.
Ruckelshaus, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C.
1976). as modified 12 ERC 1833
(D.C.C. 1979), as modified by orders
dated October 26, 1982, August 2, 1983,
January 6. 1984. and July 5, 1984. The
Agency has done substantial work on
the other effluent limitations guide-
lines arid standards covered by this
decree. The agency has also made sub-
stantial commitments to issue NPDES
permits implementing these effluent
limitations guidelines and standards
and NPDES permit establishing efflu-
ent limitations based on best profes-
sional judgment (BPJ] in cases where
there are no applicable effluent limita-
tions guidelines.
Some of these effluent limitations
guidelines and standards and -BPJ
permit limitations rely on surface las-
poundnients as part of the model
treatment technology; in other cases,
Industry has chosen to use surface im-
poundments to achieve compliance
with nationally applicable effluent
limitations guidelines and standards
despite the fact that such impound-
ments are not part of EPA’s model
treatment technology. Since EPA
could not have foreseen the require-
ments imposed b’ sections 3004(o) and
3005(j) of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984, EPA did
not always Include as part of the base-
line or incremental cost of those regu-
lations or BP3 limitations, the cost of
facilities to meet the requirements of
SeCtions 3004(o) or 3005 (j). The pur-
pose or this amendment is to assure
that there is no delay in promulgation
of the remaining effluent limitations
guidelines and standards, implementa-
tion of the categorical pretreatment
standards, or EPA’S ability to issue
NPDES permits either through imple-
mentat!cn of the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards or develop-
ment of BPJ limitations, pending con-
S 13819
sideratlon of the cost or rionwater
quality en ’Ironmenta1 impacts associ-
ated with surface Impoundments In
light of the newly enacted sections
3004(0) and 3005(j).
CONTINUING RELEASES AT PERMITTED -
FACILITIES
Current regulations do not require
facilities receiving permits under
RCRA to address all releases of bar.-
ardous wastes from solid waste man-
agement units at the facility. A facility
which is causing, for example, ground-
water contamination from inactive
units could, therefore, seek a permit
under RCRA for active units and re-
ceive the permit without having to
clean up the contamination.
H.R. 2867 will require that all treat.-
ment, storage, and disposal facilities
which apply for a permit under sub-
title C and which release hazardous
waste or constituents from any solid
waste management unit at the facility
must remedy such releases as a condi-
tion of permit issuance. Where correc-
tive action cannot be completed prior
to issuance of the permit, schedules of
compliance for such corrective action
and financial assurances may be re-
quired.
Rather than delay the issuance of
RCRA permits until sufficient infor-
mation Is acquired to specify in com-
pliance schedules the corrective action
required and the financial assurances
needed to assure its completion, per-
mits may be Issued where owners/op-
erators commit in a compliance sched-
ule to obtain the information neces-
sary to determine the extent and cost
of corrective action. To do otherwise
would prolong the period during
which facilities are not subject to the
more stringent part 264 standards.
LISTING/DELISTING MODIFICATION
The listing process Is a general
screening to determine whether a kind
of waste typically can cause harm to
human health and the environment If
mismanaged. The,, delisting process
allows petitioners—usually individual
hazardous waste generators or treat-
ment facilities—the opportunity of
showing that their wastes are signifi-
cantly different—because of treat-
ment. or because they are generated In
a different process—from listed wastes
of the same type. Consequently, their
wastes should be excluded—that is de-
listed—from the hazardous wastes
lists. Under the Agency’s regulations,
EPA will delist those wastes which do
not, or no longer, meet the criteria for
which the waste was listed.
EPA’s delisting regulations do not
fully address the fact that wastes are
frequently composed of numerous has.
ardous constituents. In some In-
stances, because listing Is a general
screening process, EPA may not have
taken all of the hazardous constitu-
ents in a waste into consideration
when the waste was originally listed.
Although EPA has authority under
RCRA to reject a delisting petition
based on the presence of these addi-
-------
S 9150
conclusion of this study the Adrnlnis-
trator is required to promulgate ap—
propriate regu iat’on gover,ning the
handling of all hazardous waste pro-
duced in quantities less than 1.000
kilograms per month.
The bill specifies a minimum con-
tent for those regulations. They must
require that the disposal of all such
waste be In facilities with permits
under subtitle C. In fact, if the regula-
tor process does not yield these regula-
tiona by March 31. 1986, this minimum
requirement goes into effect by oper-
ation of the statute, for all generators
producing more than 100 kilograms
per month, together with a limited
manifesting system to assure compli-
ance.
Another element of the minimum
regulatory content provided In S. 757
for small quantity generators Is the re-
quirement that all hazardous wastes
from generators producing more than
100 kilograms in a month be accomapa-
nied by a manifest. This will provide
notice of the hazardous nature of the
waste to transporters and disposal fa-
cilit ies.
Originally In the committee’s delib-
eriltlnnc. cutoff point of 25 kilograms
per month was the threshold for this
requiremenL This level would accom-
plish the purpose of curtailing random
disposal practices by generators ex-
empted from EPA regulation while
providing a more practical and en-
forceable definition than If all wastes.
regardless of quar.tity, were co ered.
As the committee debated this meas-
ure, an amendment was discussed to
Increase this threshold to 100 kilo-
grams per month for compliance with
containerization and off-site transport
recordkeeping requirements. In the
splrit of comprcmise, 1 offered an
amendment to relax some of the con-
tainerization requirements but pre-
serve other standards applying to gen-
erators of hazardous waste in quanti-
ties above 25 kilograms per month.
The committee, however, adopted the
higher threshold. I opposed this ap-
proach since it permits continued dis-
posal of large amounts of hazardous
waste Into municipal landfills, sewers,
and other Inappropriate places, with.
out any notice to those receiving the
waste.
I believe, however, that the broader
objectives of the small generator pro-
visien merit support. This provision
will go far in correcting the currcnt
situation and improve mana;ement of
waste from small generators.
A related issue concerns facilities
such as sanitary landfills and open
dumps covered under subtitle D.
These facilities are recipients of tin-
known quantitics of defined hazardots
waste and other dangerous materials
through household waste, unregulated
small quantity generator waste dtspos-
al. and Illegal dumping. Since con-
struction, siting, and monitoring
standards for these facilities are far
iess restrictive than those governing
hazardous waste disposal facilities, a
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
number of environmental problems
are occurring. A high proportion of
sites listed on the National Prionty
List undrr the Superfund are munici-
pal landftils. If we give inadequate at-
tention to these general solid waste f a-
cilitles, It will only serve to create ad-
ditional Superfund sites.
A key provision of S. ‘157 requires
EPA to review snd revise criteria for
municipal subtitle D facilities, includ-
ing round water monitoring stand-
ards and provisions for corrective
action. States are required to establish
enforcement programs to assure that
aU facilities are In compliance with re-
vised criteria.
To complement this effort, I will
offer an amendment to authorize
funding to support increased States re-
sponsibilities and for EPA regulatory
support. For the past several ycars,
funds have not been available to sup-
port any subtitle D activities. Against
the recommendations of EPA’s solid
waste program office, the Office of
Management and Budget has deter-
mined that States have the resources
and responsibility to carry out this
program. In fact, States are channel-
ing limited resources almost exclusive-
ly to hazardous waste management ac-
tivittes. The Assoc.ation of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management
officials recently conducted a survey
of State subtitle D activities. Prelisni-
nary results show that of 43 respond-
big States, only seven have completed
the open dump inventory. Further-
more, based on responses from the 43
States, It is estimated that 10,399 solid
waste landfills are operating through-
out the country. Adequate enforce-
ment and monitoring Is imperative to
assure that these facilities are not al-
lowed to operate If they are subsiand-
aS.
There are Important policies ad-
vanced In S. 757 that I emphasize for
future consideration of amendments
to the Solid Waste Disposal Act. This
measure calls for minimizing the
amount and kind of hazardous waste
that Is generated. This Nation is in the
forefront of technologicai innovation.
and waste reduction of this kind is not
only worthy but possible. Technology
sh( uld be guided by prudent use and
protection of resources. Minimizing
the amount of hazardous waste gcner-
ated and continued research into alter-
native waste neutralization and treat-
ment technitpies are necessary steps in
diminish ng threats tO public he: ith
and the environment.
Mr. President. I have been lnvol ed
with legislation relating to solid wt;te
management and control for more
than 20 years. This bill incorrorates
the latest amendments to the Solid
Waste Disposal Act and greatly en-
hances our ability to address the
issues associated with both tazardous
and nonitazardous wastes. While great
advances have been made, however, It
assuredly will be necessary to main-
tain our oversight of these programs
July 25, 1984
and to consider additional legislation
In the future.
This measure represents a substan-
tial commitment of lime and effort by
members of the Committee on Envi-
ronment and Public Works. I acknoal-
edge particularly the dedicated ie-tder-
ship of our able chairman. Senator
SmrroRD, and of the chairman and
ranking minority mcmber of tlic Sub-
committee on Environmenial Pollu-
tion, Senator Causz and Senator
Mirc nnL.
In developing this legislation. we
have been greatly aided by the com-
mittee staff which has brought its
knovdedge and experience to bear on
this subject. I express appreciation I or
their work on this bill to members of
the mir.ority staif: Philip T. Cum-
mings; John W. Yago, Jr.; Stephanie
dough: Lee Fuller; Helen Kalbaugh:
Elizabeth Thompson: and Margie
Wright.
Mr. MITCHELL addressed the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maine.
Mr. MITCHELL Mr. President. I
thank the dt tingmshed Senator -frcm
West Virginia who has cor.tnbuted sig-
nificantly not only to this bill-but Co
virtually every major environmental
law that Is now on the books of the
United States.
I thank also the distinguished chair-
man of the subcommittee arid manag-
er of the bill, Senator CHAFES. whose
leadership has made this legislation
possible as well as other members of
our committee, the distingu:shed
chairman. Senator S-rhrrono of Ver-
mont. Senator Besorcic. and Senator
LAnENsEnC for whom this is such an
important matter in New Jersey.
Mr. President, today we consider leg-
islation which will affect the health
and well-being of literally every person
in these United States. S. 757. a bill to
amend the Resource Conservation and
Rccos cry Act, marki yet ar-other mile.
stone in our efforts to protect our-
seltcs from the ubiquitous byproduct
of our highly industralized society—
hazardous waste.
In 1976, the Congress enacted the
Resource Conser atmon and Recovery
Act. It a-as an amibitious, far-reacnin’
statute. It conferred on the Environ-
mental Protection Agency broad gen-
eral authorities to regulate the genera-
tion, transportation. storage. and ais-
posal of hazardous waste.
Standards for the transportation of
hazardous wastc were mandated,
Standards for the storage of hazard-
ous taste were mandated.
Standards fur the disposal of haiard-
ous waste were mandated.
Enforcement authorities weie man-
dated.
Citizen partIcipatIon in re;ulatory
and t-nlorcement proccedii s uas
mandated. -
The underlying goal of all of these
activities a-as protection of public
health and the environment. Indeed.
c,We2
-------
July 25, 1984
the statutory standard by which the
mandated rcgulat ions were and cont in-
ue to be measured Is praterti.r. c it
public health ar’.d the ec iieir nt.
The statute es a5hsh,d a lran cAork
Hr the pre entlcn of h r: ’ to ‘itnmn
beangs and natural r&roure”z
Today, we propose a cc: :ea of rnend-
nients to the b.u;c c tatute.
The preven i.e framnorK of the
IZesol4rce Conservation anJ Recovery
Act is sound. Today we pro oce math.
fications b s d on the knov.iedçe at’-
qe.red s’nce 1976. A of the chor.ges
we are r enirne-Lini to the Senate
will strei’gthen the ability of the Fed-
eral Gcvernrwitt to protect pubic
health and the nri ircnraent from has-
ar&us w .ctes. Tl. v are cles.gned to
give EPA more sr.ee f.e gtndonce,
bace.1 on our evperlr’ice ith irepte-
meiitatcon of the Ian general au-
thoritics since 1976.
Whbt l,a e we lcarncd in I yea ?
We have learned that the magnitude
of the problem Is far greater than be-
lieved. We now know that over 264
million metric tons o f hazardous waste
are generated in this country each
year: this estimate is more than four
tImes greater than pretioiisb thought,
We have leaned that there are
thousands of waste sites across th:s
country which present potcr.tiai or
actual threats to human health or
welt-being. EPA now estimates that
there may be 22.000 si;ec in need of
some type of cleanup; 546 of these
sItes have been designated as priorltes
for cleanup. The Superfund law en-
acted in 1930 was a necessary response
to our past Inattention to the cnreful
disposal of hazardous wastes.
S.mply put, past practices ttace left
us a legacy of chemical contamination
which has poisoned our a r. our water,
and our land. The pr ice of our Igno-
rance has been high, In human terms
and in dollar value. Present practices.
unless modtfied. can only mult.iply
those costs.
The average cost of cleaning up a
hazardous waste site Is esirnated to be
$6 million, accordir:a to EPA. If ‘ut
the priority sites, kno w-n to present a
health hazard. were cleaned up. the
cost would be billions of dollars. No
matter who pays the bill. whether It
he the respons:ble party or the Feder-
al Government. that figure is too hi a tt ,
We cannot afford the status quo.
We also know now that the genera-
tion of hanrdcsus waste contmncs to
grow and that most of that aasre—8O
percent—Is currently disposed of on or
In the land.
It has become evident that a strong
congressional expression of dsapprov-
al of EPA s slow and t Imid impi.-men
tatiDn of the existing lew is necerary.
as i s cli as a clear congressiorfl dir,c-
tive mandating certain bold. prevt’t-
the actions by EPA v hich will ret be
taken otherwise. dc-spite the eyi’t ng.
broad authorities contained in RCRA.
EPA has not implemented the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act
aggressively. The Agency has missed
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
deadlines, proposed Inadequate regula-
tions, and eten exacerbated the has-
ardotis was;c problem by suspendr,g
certatn rejt:hat iOtJi.
It has become etidtr.t that this show.
plc’iding course ‘nIl be continued n
the abatnee of a clear ccr. resaional di-
rective. 1 .ls s nut ,ct; ab ie. Accord-
in y, S 57 p:’otides mere spcc f:c
guidance to EPA as to how the brrd
grants of author.ty of the ex:st:ng
RCRA law should be used.
The bill declares as congresfloi;al
poi:cy that—
T,, ato.d substanCa] r ik to human hea’th
a-’ i the Ci .t irc’nrnenl. reliante on lani d s-
po’at should be nunim.:ed azi land dispos-
al. particularly landfill and curface in-
po’tndmer,t, should be the lea st fasored
method for manag.ng haaazdo is ?.tstPs.
It specifically tea fftrms the Adntinis-
trator’s authorIty to prohIbit land d:s-
posal methods that cannot be shown
to be protective of human health and
the environment, and directs the Ad-
nilnistrator to use that authority,
Deadlines are established by which
EPA must evaluate all wastes listed as
hazardous and subject to RCRA regu-
lation. as to the appropriateness of
their disposal on land ,
The bill establishes mInimum tech-
nologu al standards for land disposal
facilities and tnc;nerators to Insure
that EPA requircs the use of the heat
technology available at hazard ous
wastc th;posal f;ri!itic.s.
Henceforth, the use of landfhls will
be circumscribed by strict rules gov-
erning. ftrst, wider section 5. what
kinds of materials may be land!illed.
and s c.ond, under section 6. what the
physical character of the landfills
themsclces will be.
Th° minimum technological require-
ments under section 6 for new and,
esentually, for existing landfills will
start with double liners, a leachate col-
lection system. and a monitoring
system—as a modicum of protection
and integrity., But It is necessary tO do
more. In its section 5 technical evalua-
tions, EPA will match certain wastes
to certain land d:sposal technologies
or deterntine that no match Is feasible.
Within the framework of those evalua-
tions, Congress under the terms of this
legislation is aiso directing EPA to
take into account certain locational
charartertst cs with respect to all land
di’ posal fatUities in the country in
ordr’r to establ’sh a performance range
flr handf 1 lls. The locat Ional character-
1st irs to be factored ln’o EPA’s analy-
ses include, among others, the hydro-
geolory of the site, anti imatological
and d inographic effects. Landfills
thus will be ahie to be assessed accord-
Inc to th lr hyrogeelogic perfonrutnce
and ela.is,fied as fully acceptable, an-
cept,tblc for certain itm tcd uses, and
tina?z’e;t:ble, W.’it a phaseout of tin-
e.:rrptan’e Ian&till3 nr’,J a highly ana-
lytic e’ aluri ion of the remandcr an-
cording to their highest and best uses,
I anticipate that the health and safey
of the American people will be signhtl-
cantly enhanced with respect to their
59151
potential exposure to harmful toxic.’,
In the environment.
The bill expands the coverave of the
law e hos- tche generate bt i tn I O
and l,(ii fl K lograms of waste a n ’;!
In ij3O. EPA e,,empted all gtitrrators
of less tnar. 1 003 kilograms, so lely o ct
the 13 5 5’s of its workload. and s.at-d
tnat it intended io initiate ru!tntah::-
to expand the law’s cuverace nit.in 2
to 5 years.
This has not occurred. AccorJingly.
the committee proposes to implement
EPA ’s 1980 coitinutment. This will
bi ing into the regu’atory system an
additional 15 m:’hion tons of hazardotis
waste.
The bill strengthens significantly
the role of citizens in enforcing the
law. As the sponsor of this pros :sion. I
bt’het’e that tt with provide an impor-
tant and necessary supplement to
EP-Vs efforts.
The bill expands the law to pretent
the export of hazardous waste to for-
eign countries witnout the recentng
country’s consent.
I would like to discuss In greater-
detail two provisions of S. 757. which I
sponsored.
cnirvc suns - -
The citizen suit amendments con-
tained in S. 757 provide an important
supplement to the efforts of the Fed-
eral and State Ga s ernments to abate
the most serious kInds of hazardous
waste situations: Those that may
present an imm:nent and substantial
endangerment to human health or the
ens ironment.
I reiterate: These amendments are a
supplement to, not a substitute for
Got ernmenc action.
tinder current law, a citizen may
bring suit to enforce a permit or other
similar RCRA requirement If EPA
fails to do so. However, citizens are not
now author:zed to sue to abate art “Un-
mtnent and substantial endanger-
ment” to health Or the environment.
Only EPA can sue to abate an immi-
nent hazard under current law. If EPA
does not act, the endangerment con-
tinues.
In light of the thousands of known
hazardous waste sites across this coun-
try, this simply dc:s not make serite.
The Environmental Protectton
Agency clearly does not hate the re-
sources to deal w Ith all of these s.res.
nor do the States.
Citizen suits to abate imminent haz-
ards can expand the national effort to
minimize these very real threats to
our well-being.
This bill authorises citizens to br’ g
imminent hazard sui in the a ’ nee
of EPA action. The rirovision is atrstc-
tured ezrefuUy in the following ‘a c
to insure that cft ren suits dn r.ot
interiere with ongoing Feil:ra! cir
State enforcer-tent efforts:
Cit ken action ca not occur until 123
days after EPA, the affected State and
the alleged defendant have been gisen
notice of intent to sue.
-------
July 2.5, 1984
gated under paragraph (1) of this Subsec-
tion.”
Ais rowcwr No. 3409
(Purpose: To clarify application of requiTe-
ment to conduct gT3ufld water monitor-
ing)
Proposed by Mr. CItAFEE (for hlmself
and Senators BczcTsr, i, Sm FYORD. R r ootrsi,
and MITCHELL).
On pace 8G. line 18. strike the quotation
marks and final period, and alter lIne 18
insert the folio ing
“This subsection shall not be consrrjt ’d to
affect other exemptions or waii’ers from
such standards provided in regulations In
effect on the date of enactrn nt of the Solid
Waste Dlipo al Act Amendments of 1994 or
as may be prowded in ret i. .ions to those r—g-
ulations, to the e ter.t con.siztent cith this
subsection. The Admirit tnitor Is authorized
on a ca ’e.by. a.ce b is to exempt from
ground a ater monitoring rcqii:rements
under this sectIon (in.lur r1g subs.ction (f))
any engineered stn,r.ture cnith the Admin-
istrator finds does not receive or conta n
liQuid wact. (nor caste cont.ainirg free Iiq-
ukis). is deslened and operated to exclude
liquid frcm precipitation or other runoff.
utiuzes mui’ip!e leak detectlon systems
aithiii the outer layer of containment, and
prot des for cor.t.nuin, operation and main-
tenance of these leak detection systems
during the operating period, closure, and
the period required for po .ct’closure moni-
toring and for a hich the Administrator con-
cludes on the basis of such findinns that
there is a reasonable certainty hazardous
constituents ciii not migrate beyond the
outer layer of containment prior to the end
of the period required for post.cio ure moni-
toring.”
ASILNDMcNT No. 3409
(Purpose: To clarify scope of nec scvtion
3001(e) ban on cer;ain cells)
Proposed by Mr. CItAFE (for himaell
and Senators STAFFORD. Rvioo j-a, and
MITCHEu,).
REINJECITON OF TREATED GP.OOl .fl WAT
On page 44. lIne 23. arter “cater.” insert
the foliocing: ‘This subsect:on shall not
apply to the injection of contar: ated
ground cater Into the aquifer from c hich it
v,as cithdiawn, If st ch injection is a re-
sponse action taken under section 104 or 106
of the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensat on and Lip bully Act of
19 0 or part of corrective action required
under this title intended to clean up such
contamination and such contamLna ted
ground cater is treated to substnrniaiiy
reduce hazardous constituents pr’or to such
injection,’,
AML,’iIlML T No. 3409
(Purpoie: To clarify authority of A !minis-
trotor to modify application of ecz? ln re-
quirements to some mining wastes)
Proposed by Mr. CHAFEE (f3r hin.i.elf
and Ser,ators SiMpsot ’ and RAxeo’ ,,.’t)
M!MNG W sTE AME DMEWT
On page 48. begtnn’i .g on line 18 thro’igh
line 2 on p.ge 49. strike the sentence folios .-
ing “the ei’ ironment.”.
At the end of S. 757, add the folOctng
nec’ aect ton:
“S;.c. , Section 30u4 Of the Solid V’as!
Di pc ’ici f tc! is a.’rendrd L v ail’J,ng at Lhe
end tI ’creu( (I) fuioc’ng net. suc., t’uoo:
“I ) If solid caste fon tPc evraetlon,
benc(ii.’ac:on or pro e sing of 0.1’s a:io na..a-
erais, including phosphate rock and over-
bu:ilen from the mir,:ng of uran u ’ ore, is
subiect to regulation under this subtitle, the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
Administrator is authorIzed to modify the
requirements of subsections (b), (flU)
(other t’ian the requirement for ground
water monitoring), and (gi. in the case of
lanrifilis or surface imppundrnents receiving
such solid caste, to take Into account the
speci character’,stics of such wastes, the
practi ”ai Jif icultups associated a:th imple-
menta: o i of such requirements, and site-
spec’! ic characteristics, i.lumng but not
i t fted to the ch:nate. geoiogy. h3’droiocy
and soil rhumistry at the stte, so long as
such nio’4:fed requ renwnts assure protec-
tion of human heaith and the entiron.
n ient.”
AMES’DSSES’ No. 3409
(Purpose: To assure that the Solid Waste
Duposai Act Amendments of l 84 do not
affect, modify, or amend the Urannun
Mill Tatlings fltdiation Control Act of
19’8, as amended)
Proposed by Mr. C’tAFEE (for h!mself
and Senator SissrsoN).
Amend S. 757 by adding the follocing new
section:
“uaszciow MILL TAILINGS
“Sm .Nothlng in the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act Amendments of 1984 sl’all be con-
ErJe-J to affect, modify, or amend the Ura-
nium M.il Tailines Radiation Control Act of
1978. as amended,”,
AMrmwz No. 3409
iPurpose: To establish minimum technologi-
cal re uirementa for existing surface urn-
pound iiicnts
Propos d by Mr. C -tAFEE (for hlm elf
md Senators SEarbmc. STAFFORD. RAwaoLpx.
and MiTtIrr.L),
On psar 49. alter line 19. Insert the fol-
iowing;
(c)(l) S t’tlon 3005te) of the Solid Waste
Dii.posal Act is amended by ln eiting “(1)’
alter “r,tcrun Status, “, by rede ignpatng
paragraphs (1), (21, and (3) as subpara-
graphs (A). (B), and (C). aid by adding the
fnilowtnj new paragraph:
‘ 2Ai Exc—pt as pro ided in subpara-
grach IC ), each suriace inipourn.-ncnt in ex
ist. nre on the date of enactment of the
Solid Waste Dtsposai Act Amendments of
1984 and qiialif :ng fur the authorization to
operate uitcer paragrapn (1) of this subsec-
tion, a hich—
“(i) does not have at least one liner, for
a hich there is no evidence that such liner Is
leaaing, or
“(U) is located in azi area of vulnerable by-
drogeocgy as dcfintd In subparagraph (0)
or as dctei .nined by criteria or gutdance for
the aecepu bie location of facllttes Issued In
accordance cith section 3004 .f),
Shill not receive, store, or treat harardous
V’Lste a!tey Inc dr.te four years alter such
d.ite of enactment un less such surface un.
pOundrnt ’nt Is in cortipliance c’tii the re
quirements of seciton 3004(f) s.mch would
apply to such imni’undii-,ent if it acre new.
For the p sruoses of clause (I) of thu subnar-
ag;a h, the term ‘liner” means a liner
chest i n 5 t”e lequiternents of reg . lauons for
n w sLr(aae Iir oundiit’t,ta in effect as of
such date of enactment, and that the sur-
face iflipound i rit Is in compliance cith
generaii applicable ground water monitorS
L i6 requlre !iie,ita for iacilities cith permits
uii .er subsection IC) of th’s section.
“(B) The ALftlTi!Iistg’ator (or the Suite, in
the case o a Stzte c:th art authorized pro-
gran-.), alter nOttee and opportunity for
cunimert, mar rnonify roe requirement _c of
subparagraph (A) br any sur(ace impound’
meut if. not iatt,r than 24 r,;or.ths alter tI’e
date of enactrr.cnt of t ue Soiid Waste Dis-
posa.I Act Amendments of 1t 84, the owner
S 9173
or operator demonstrates that such surface
impoundments is located, desiencd and op-
erated so as to assure that there ciii be no
migration of any hazardous constilw’nt into
ground water or surface cater at an time
dur:ng the period hazardous s c!e rema,’iz
in such surface Impo’.jodraent. %Uihin 12
months aaer the rece’pt of esidf!ice submit-
ted unJer ihis subparagraph and not later
than 36 mn,n’ha after such date Cf er. rt-
ment, the Administrator (or, i pppropriale,
I’te Stat.) shall ads Ise such oc er or opvra-
tOr as to whether and, if so, ‘.sr the re
quirements of suboara raph (A) shall be
modified and applied to such surface im-
poundment.
“tC) Subparagraph (A) of this paragraph
shall not a pl to any surface impour,oroent
c’hi -h (I) contains treated caste cater
during the set ondary or tertiary phase of an
aggrescive biological treatruent (a’ ih j sub-
ject t’ a permit issued under section 402 of
the Clc,an Water Act (or which heidi such
t’c ted waste water after tres.tatsni and
prim to discharge), (ill is In conip:aaic-e cith
generally applicable ground cater mmt:tor.
hig requirements for feedities a tth permtts
under subsection (C) of this section. and iii)
is part of a facility in compliance with i cc-
tion 3(’1(bh2) of the Clean Water Act, or. In
the cete of a facility for ahich no e.l luent
guidelines required under section .104.0 ‘(2)
of the Cean Water lit are in effect and no-
permit under section 402a)U) Of such Act
implementing section 3Olib)(2) of such Act
has been issued. Lu part of a facuity In corn-
pi ia.nce with a p -rmit under section 402 of
the Clean Water Act which is achiesing sig-
nificant degradation of toxic pollutants and
hazardous con,tituents contained in the ur,.
treated caste stream ann chich hat. identi-
fied those toxic po!h.t.ants and ha , ardo .is
constituent_c In the untreated waste si. earn
to the appropriate perrn:ttlrg authont i,
The Administrator shall s’udy aid report to
the Congress on the number, range of size,
construction, likelihood of hs ’ar.1oua con.
stituents migrating into ground cater, and
potential threat to human health and the
environment of existing surface lirinound.
menta excluded by this subparagraph from
the reziulrerr.er.ts of subparagraph (A). Such
report shall address the need. fe . ’ btlity.
and estimated costa of subjecting Su.li ci Lct.
hag surface impoundments to the rcquire .
tnents of subparagraph (A). In the case of
any eyiistlng surface impoundment or class
of surface impoundments from caleb the
Administrator (or the State. in the ca. e of a
State with an authorized program) deter-
mines hazardotia cunst:tuents are liz ely to
migrate Into ground cater, the Adaninistra.
tsr (or. If appropriate the State) Is author.
Leed to Impose such requirements as may be
necessary to protect human hcai h ann t te
ens ironnient. inciciding the requirements of
section 3U04’f chich cot,’ld appiy to such
impoundments if they acre new.
‘iD) ‘Ihe owner o’ ocerator of ary surface
Impoundment potentially subject to sub-
paragraph (Al of Ittu . paragraoh aho his
reason to b- !leve that on the basis of sub-
paragraph (A.(i) or (ii) or s’ibparasrz l3n IC’)
such surface impoundment is not required
to comply with the requ!rements of sub-
paragraph CM shall apply to the Adm.ti’c.
trator (Or the State, In the case of a State
with a.s authari ed prcgran,) not later than
24 months after the date of enattnaeiu of
the Sol:d Waste Disposal Act Amt,,-,. . 5
of 1984 fur a determi’atton of the RptViea.
bility of subparagraph Cl i to s , c :r --e
impoundment. Such 0cm” or ou?rE.:r a!..,’!
pros ide esi’ience peniitcnt to SU” i . eci’ ,, ’o,
including evident-c as to co -iu’,,.q’e c:th
ground water monitoring re , uIrn’m.u i and
all reasonably ascertainabie esid,’nr.’ on
-------
S 9174
whether such surface impoundment is leak-
ing. As part of such evidence an owner or
Operator relying on subparagraph (A)(i) or
(ii) shall provide a certification by a regis-
tered professional engineer with academic
training and experience In ground water hy-
drology that (li such surface impoundment
Is not located in an area of vulnerable hy-
drogeology. (Ii) the liner of such surface im-
poundinent Is de-cinged, constructed and op-
erated In accordance with the requirements
of regulations, and iiD based on a re iew of
ground sater monitoring information and
other available information, there Is no evi-
dence such liner Is leaking. As part of such
evidence an owner or operator relying on
subparagraph (C) shall provioe a certifica-
tion by a registered professional engineer
with acadcmtc training and exper!ence In
ground aater hydrololgy that such surface
impoundment satisfies the conditions set
forth in clauses ifi, (ii), and (lii) of subpara-
graph (C), based on analysis of those toxic
polluntants and hazardous constituents that
are likely to be present In the untreated
waste stream, and that hazardous constitu-
ents are not likely to migrate from the im-
poundment into ground water. Within
twelve months after the receipt of such evi-
dence and not later than 38 months after
such date of enactment, and after notice
and opportunity for comment, the Adminis-
trator (or. if appropriate, the State) shall
ad ise such owner or operator on the appli-
cability of subparagraph (A) to such surface
impoundment.
‘lE) In any case in whIch a surface Im-
poundment is initially determined to be ex-
cluded from the requirements of subpara-
graph (A) but due to a change in condition
subsequently becomes subject to subpara-
graph (A), the period for compliance In sub-
paragraph (A) shall be two years after the
date of discovery of such change of condi-
tion. In any case in which a surface un-
poundinent becomes subject to subpara-
graph (A) after the date of enactment of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments
of 1984 due to the promulgation of addition-
al listings or characteristics for the Identifi-
cation of hazardous wastes under section
3001, the period for compliance in subpara-
graph (A) shall be four years after the date
of such promulgation, the period for demon-
stations under subparagraph (B) and for
submission of evidence under subparagraph
CD) shall be not later than 24 months after
the date of such promulgation, and the
period for the Administrator (or, If appro-
pilate, the State) so advise such owners or
operators under subparagraphs (B) and (D)
shall be not later than 36 months after the
date of promulgation,
“(F) In the case of any surface impound-
ment is which the liners and leak detection
system have been installed pursuant to the
requirements of this paragraph and in good
faith compliance with section 3004W and
the Administrator’s regulations and guid-
ance documents governing liners and leak
detection systems, no liner or leaf detection
system a hich is different from that which
was no Installed pursuant to this paragr ,ph
shall be required for such unit by the Ad-
minist,rator when Issuing the first permit
under this section to such facility. Nothing
in this subparagraph shall preclude the Ad.
munistlator horn requiring instalatlon of a
new liner ahen the Adinin.strator has
reason to believe that any liner Installed
pursuant to the requirements of this para-
graph is leaking.
1i For the purposes of subparagraph
(A’iii). a surface impoundment is located in
an area of vulnerabfe hydrogeology if the
impoiinoment is over or hydrologically con-
nected to—
‘(ii a sole source aquifer, or
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
“(ii) a formation which contains an under-
ground source of drinking water If such for.
ination or the unsaturated soils hydrologi-
cally connected to such formation are char.
acterized by high hydraulic conductivity of
permeability (including karat formations,
and mediuxn-to-course-grained materials or
fractured rock) or are geologically unstable,
and there is no intervening natural barrier
forrnamtuon that would significantly restrict
jnig at Ion of waste constituents,”,
O1 page 49. line 2, before the quotation
Jmarks insert the following:
“The Adminstrator shall promulgate regu-
(latlons or issuie guidance documents imple-
menting the requirements of paragraph (1)
within two years after such date of enact-
ment. Until the effective date of such regu-
lations or guidance documents, the require-
ment for the installation of tao or more
liners may be satisfied by the installation of
a top liner designed, operated, and con-
structed of materials to prevent the migra-
tion of any constituent into such liner
during the period such facility remains in
operation (including any post-closure mont-
taring period), and a lower liner designed,
operated and constructed to present the mi-
gration of any constituent through such
liner during such period. For the purpose of
the preceding sentence, a lower liner shall
be deemed to satisfy such requirement if it
is constructed of at least a three-foot thick
layer of recompacted clay or other natural
material with a permeability of no more
than lx 10- ‘centimeter per second.”,
On page 43, line 7. strike “section’ and
Insert in lieu thereof “subsection”.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate on the amend-
ment? If not, the question Is on agree-
ing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3409) was
agreed to.
Mr. CRAFEE. Mr. President. I send
to the desk a series of explanations of
the amendments which have Just been
agreed to, These explanations are in
the same sequence as the amendments
sent to the delik and cons,dered en
bloc and can be identified by the title
at the top. I isk that they be printed
In the RECORD.
There being no objectIon, the mate-
rial was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, RD follows:
AMENDMENT TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN VARIOUS
SECTIONS 0? TRE BILL.
S. 757 contaIns numerous statutory dead.
lines for various actions and decisions by
EPA. Since reporting the bill, we have met
on set era! occasions with representatives of
EPA to assure that the deadlines are reason-
able and attainable. EPA requested scve”al
deadline extensions and asoared us that
they could meet the new deadlines we have
agreed to. This amendment will make those
changes.
As modified by this amendment, new see’
tion 3OO ib 6)rA) requires EPA to publish,
not later than iM months after enactment, a
schedule for decidir.g whether or not to re-
strict the land disposal of wastes listed
under Section 3001. This schedule must pro-
vide for review and decision on at least one-
third of the listed wasteb w,thln 48 months
after enactment, for at least taO thirds of
the listed wastes within 60 months after en-
act ment. and all listed wastes not later than
the date 72 months after enitctrnent. These
fractions refer to the number of wastes
listed, and not the t.olume of aastes listed
The schedule mandated by subsection
(b)(6)(A) must be based on environmental
considerations and objectives. It is not cx-
July 25, 1984
pected that EPA will know which wastes it
intends to propose to ban prior to publica-
tion of the schedule, therefore *e do not
expect EPA to place in the first third wastes
which will be restricted and in the last third
wastes which will not be restricted. Howev-
er, in establishing the schedule. EPA must
consider factors such as the intrinsic hazard
of a waste. In evaluating the intrinsic
hazard of a waste. EPA should consider a
waste’s toxicity and may consider other fac-
tors such as mob ltty, persistence and pro-
pensity to bioaccumulate. In addition. EPA
must consider the volume of a waste gener-
ated or managed in land disposal. Accord-
ingly, large volume aastes with a high in-
trinsic hazard shall be placed In the first
third and so on. with low hazard, low
volume wastes in the last third, Because of
the relatitely short time frame for publica-
tion of the schedule, we expect EPA to rely
on existing data for determining aaste vol-
times.
As introduced on March 15, 1983, amend-
ment number 2804 aould have simply ex-
tended the deadlines in section 5 on land
disposal limitations, Concern was expressed
that, without the imposition of a statutory
standard, pressure would be placed on EPA
to establish a schedule that would place
high-volume wastes and wastes aith high
intrinsic hazard in the last third and that
decisions whether to prohibit the land dis-
posal of such wastes would not occur for 72
months. Such a result would be unaccept-
able. Therefore, the amendment was modi-
fied to include a mandatory. Judicially en-
forceable, statutory standard for the sched-
ule.
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY ADMINISTRATOR’S AU-
ThORITY TO REQUIRE A PERMIT TO CON’
STRL’CT A HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE. OR DISPOSAL FACILITY
On May 19, 1980. EPA promulgated regu-
lations establishing procedures for permit-
ting hazardous waste management facilities.
Among oLlier things, these regulations pro-
hibit the construction of new facilities
before the Issuance of a RCRA permit. See
40 CFR. 6270.l0(f)(1). This amendment
will clarify the Administrator’s authority to
require a RCRA permit to construct a haz-
ardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal
facility and codify that portion of the May
19. 1980 regulations.
One purpose of this provision is to provide
the Agency with an opportunity to review
the choice of location for such facilities
before there has been a significant commit-
ment of resources. Recent studies have con-
cluded that locational characteristics and
requirements are at least as important to
protection of human health and the envi-
roninent as are minimum technological
characteristics and requirements. For exam-
ple, although double liners and leak detec-
tion systems are an unpro ement oter the
current most widely used technology, the
fact that double liners are known to et entu-
ally leak means that et en such double-lined
facii:ties may not be protective of human
health and the environment If they are io-
catco In areas of vulnerable hydrogeology.
The need for EPA to establish and enforce
locational criteria is as essentiai to protec-
tion of human health and the environment
as Is the need for periodic ret ision of tech-
nological standards
As introdjced on March 15, 1984. this
amendment ret ealed an inconsistenrt’ be-
tween the EPA regulations uiid r the To ie
S’ihstances Control Act (T& ’A) and the reg-
ulations under RCRA aftectinq the con-
StrUction and operst on oi land-based incin-
erators, Under RCRA. no construction may
begin prior to receipt of a fizial RCRA
-------
July ‘25, 1284
a precondition to land disposal. For wastes
with a high organic content, Incineration
should be required in lieu of land disposal.
and incinerator residues with small amounts
01 Inorganic hazardous wastes may be land
disposed without further treatment.
Determinations for treatment require.
- snents prior to land disposal do not have to
be on a waste-by-waste basis. The Adminis-
trstcr is not required to wait for the sched.
ule established under paragraphs (4), (5).
and (6) of new section 300Mb) to make de-
terminations for wastes with ainniar conS
stituents. The Administrator may make ‘ge .
neric” determinations of appropriate levels
or methods of treatment for similar wastes,
CERTAIN LAND DISPOSAL PRACTICES
• Mr. JOHNSTON. My question con-
cerns the scope of paragraph (7) of the
land-disposal provisions as modified by
amendment 2798. For example, the
drycleaning industry has developed
new treatment technology and tech-
niques which reduce the perchloroeth-
ylene content of its wastes below 2.8
percent, Preliminary testing Indicates
that leachate from such wastes con-
tains very little perc. Would paragraph
(71 be applicable to this type of’treat-
ment?
• Mr. CHAFEE. Yes: one objective oi
amended paragraph (7) is to give EPA
the discretIon to authonse the land
disposal of wastes which have been
treated. The focus of the amended lan-
guage Is the protection of health and
the environment by diminishing toxic-
ity of wastes or reducing migration of
hazardous constituents In wastes.
Thus, if wastes treated as you describe
are of low toxicity or if leachate from
them contains safe levels of hazardous
constituents, EPA may. in Its discre-
tion, promulgate regulations specify-
ing the cirumstances in which land
disposal is authorized. In considering
such questions, EPA will almost as-
suredly take into account whether vast
quantities or only small amounts of
such wastes are generated. I would an-
ticipate that EPA will promptly deter-
mine whether such wastes meet the
criteria in paragraph (7) and then pro-
mulgate the necessary regulations
within the specified time. In making
this determination, EPA will certainly
use the best Information available to it
at the tlme.s
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY APPLICATION OP RE-
QUIREMENT TO CONDY T CROUND WATER MON-
iTORING
ThIs amendment will provide an incentive
for the detelopment of safer and more pro-
tective land disposal methods for hazardous
waste. It would do so bi giving the Adminis-
trator of EPA the aurhorit . under certain
limited circumstances, to exempt facilities
from the grounds ater monitoring require-
ment now included in S. 757.
The requirement for groundwater moni-
toring at conventional landfills, surface Im-
poundments. and other treatment, storage
or disposal facilites as set forth in the Bill,
is retain. This amendment would authorize
wan-er of these requirements only “hen
EPA can find that they are unnecessary. In
order to make this finding, the Administra-
tor would have to conclude that the facility
would, in essence, be designed to incorpo-
rate the functional equivalent of ground-
water monitoring within its geif-contained
structure. EPA could not make such a find-
ing for a conventional land disposal facility.
A facility which could qualify for the ex-
emption under this amendment must first
of all be an engineered structure which re-
cei es only waste that is in solid form, such
as contaminated soil or debris, or has been
solidified. A facility accepting liquid waste.
or nate containing free liquids, would be
disqualified from further consideration for
the exemption A qualifying structure would
also have to be engineered to have inner
and outer layers of containment enclosing
the waste.
The facility would also have to meet an
additional series of stringent protective
standards. It must be designed and operated
to keep out water from precipitation or run-
off. This means that the intrinsic engineer-
ing of the structure must keep water away
from the waste. A conventional clay or syn-
thetic cap would not be good enough. The
facility would also have to incorporate inter-
nal leak detection and leachate collection
systems. These systems, which would be
built into the structure at each Internal con-
tainment layer would provide the functional
equivalent of groundwater monitoring. In
the unlikely event that any leachate did
form, the detection systems would signal
the operator before any leachate reached
the outer laser of containment.
An example of such a structure could be
an above grade eoncrcte bunker or vault
within which waste would be placed, totally
surrounded by multiple liners, and which
would inciude Internal leak detection sys-
tems above, between, and below the internal
liners, An abote grade bunker can be de-
signed so that rainfall aouid run off the
structure away from the waste. This would
be In contrast to traditional below grade
landfills where the rainwater can penetrate
through the surface above the waste and
move down through the waste, carrying
leachate to groundwater.
Finally, the Administrator could not
exempt any structure unless he was reason-
ably certain that no hazardous constituents
from the facility would get out of the struc-
ture and reach ground, groundwater, or sur-
face water. In other words, he would have to
be sure, under reasonably foreseeable cir-
cumstances, that the structure would safely
contain the waste and its constituents.
Thus, the amendment does not give the
EPA Administrator unbridled discretion to
Ignore the basic Intent of the Bill. It does
give him the authority to exempt ground-
water monitoring when he finds that such
monitoring would be unnecessary or redun-
dant. It also gives the hazardous waste dis-
posal Industry an incentive to design facili-
ties which are inherently safer and more
protective,
AMeNDMENT TO cLARIFY scors or NE7J 5EcTON
3004 (El DAN ON CERTAIN WELLs
New Section 3004 (e) as added by S. 757
would preclude the Injection of ground
water contaminated with hazardous waste
into or above formations containing under.
ground sources of drinking water even
where such injection is part of a clean-up
action under the comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, compensation and Llabil.
Ity Act of 1980 (CERCM) or RCRA. This
amendment will clarify the intent of that
provision and give EPA the discretion to
allow the use of-class IV wells In certain
limited circumstances to conduct clean-up
operations
The injection of hazardous waste into or
above drinking water sources is an inherent-
ly dangerous disposal practice that poses an
unacceptable risk to human heaith and the
environment, This amendment does not
alter the intent that such injection facilities
S 9179
be properly closed in short order and that
new facilities not be allowed in the future,
While we seek to establish a complete pro-
hibition on such injection as a disposal tech.
tuque, we recognize the potential value of
such iniection practices as an integral part
of some clean-up actions at hazardous waste
sites, The pumping, treatment and re.inj c.
tion of already contaminated water ma be
the preferred removal or remedial tech-
nique to assure adequate elean’up in a cost
effective manner. We do not Intend to bar
such injections when they are environmen-
tally beneficial and conducted solely as a
means of clean-up, rather than as a form of
Initial disposal. The prohibition, therefore.
is not intended to extend to those situations
where Injection Into or above drinking
water sources is used as a method to clean-
up contaminated aquifiers at hazardous
waste sites and the clean-up plan has been
approied under the procedures established
under this Act or under the comprehensive
En’ ironmental Response, Compensanon
and LiabIlity Act.
AMENDMENT ‘10 CLARIFY AUTHORITY OP AnaciN’
I5TRATOi1 TO MODIFY APPLICATION OF CER-
TAIN REQUIREMENTs TO 50)11 MINING
WASTES
This amendment would modify and
expand a provision of Section 6(a ) of S. 757.
as reported, concerning the authority of the
Administrator of EPA to modify certain re-
quirements that might become applicable to
some mining wastes under Subtitle C of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act.
The amendment provides that. If certain
mining a astes become subject to regulation
as hazardous wastes, the Administrator of
EPA has the authority to modify the re-
quirements of new subsectIons fb I, ff111).
and (g) of section 3004 regarding land dis-
posal limitations, minimum technological
requirements for new landfills and surface
Impoundments (other than the groundwater
monitoring requirement), and correctne
action for releases of hazardous waste, as
they apply to landfills and surface impound-
ments receiving such mining wastes, to take
Into account the special characteristics (e.g.
high-volume, low-toxicity) of the mining
wastes, the practical difficulties associated
with the implementation of such require.
ments, and various site-specIfic factors. The
modified requirements would continue to be
Subject to and must satisfy the law’s under-
lying requirement and ultimate standard
that RCRA reguiatlons assure protection of
human health and the environment, Practi-
cal or economic considerations can only be
used to select among alternative require-
ments which assure protection of human
health and the environment.
The purpose of this amendment is simply
to assure that if the AdminIstrator of EPA
decides to regulate mining wastes under
Subtitle C, he is not limited to the regula-
tory framework or standards that are decel.
oped under section 30041 b), (fU n, and (g)
for hazardous chemical wastes. The Com-
mittee Report (at p. 28-29) includes a de-
scription of some mining wastes and some of
the reasons it may be inappropriate to sub-
ject them to the same requirements which
apply to other types of waste.
Retention of the requirement that protec-
tion of human health and the en’ ironment
be assured is not intended to invoke a spe-
cific technical standard of containment,
such as a “no migration” standard, Such an
interpretation would in fact completely
frustrate the purpose of the amendment. In
this context the phrase is used in a broad.
over.arching, nontechnical sense, which can
only be translated Into technical standards
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
-------
S 9178
the material Is acceptable on the basis of
performance tests should be also be used.
The operating guideline pertaining to the
relatise quantities would, therefore, be di-
reetly ba,ed on test results used to evaluate
pert orirance.
EPA should specify standards for per-
forrn’ng and evaluating tests for absorbent
evaluation and acceptability. As experience
and correlations with performance are de .
veloped aith time on given products, the
specific surface area of the absorbent and
degree of saturation or fluid content which
control soil suction may be used In lieu of
actual tests to produce and, hence, evaluate
performance.
AMENDMENT ‘10 st’sstrrvtt THE 5515A5E “OILY
MATEP1AL5” ros rag MOfl NARROWLY U’
FiNED TERM “U5ED OIL”
The statutory definition of “used oil” In
RCRA makes use of that phrase in this sec-
tIon of the b ll Inappropriate, The defined
term is, for the purposes of this section. too
narrow and use of It would result In less it-
cycling of valuable petroleum materials,
Seteral types of oily materials are recov-
ered but would not be included in the term
“used oil”, For example:
On off-shore platform’s cnsde is some 1
times spilled and caught in a waste water
system. This is skimmed and put Into the
crude line to the refinery:
Gas pipelines na te liquid condensates
which may be drawn of f and put Into the
crude tine: and
A well may be treated or flushed with
water or oil and the oily material can be re-
covered and sent to the refinery via a crude
line.
Use of the term “oily msterlals”, in com-
biiiation with the existing restrictions t”re-
suIting from normal petroleum refining,
production, and transportation practices”)
would be broad enough to encompass the re-
cycling of appropriate materials and yet re-
strictive enough to prevent undersirabte
practices.
AMENDMENT TO DELETE DEADLINE FOil A TO
DETERMiNE AFFROPHiATENE55 or U5iNo zx-
TRatfloN PEOCEOURE roxaciry CHARACTER-
IsTIC FOR EVALUATING DELI5TING PETiTIONS
5. 757 adds a new paragraph (5 1 (D) to sec-
tion 3001(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, New subparagraph (13) requires EPA to
evaluate, within 6 months, the appropriate-
ness of using the extraction procedure toxic-
ity characterIstic (EP) when determining
w’hetiser to exclude a waste generated at a
particular facility from regulation as a haz-
ardous waste. The new subparagraph also
requires EPA to modify, within 2 years, the
EP.
A statutory requirement that EPA evalu-
ate the appropriateness of using the EP
within 6 months after enactment is no
longer necessary, particularly in l.ght of the
recently announced Agency position to re-
quest add:ttonat information from petition-
ers prior to taking action on petitions to ex-
clude, or delist, a waste generated at a par-
ticLi,ir facil ty, The Agency rots recognizes
that the EP should only be used in etaluat-
tag e eluaion petitions to the extent the
protedure is totally appropriate. tn those
cases where, for eaample. the oily nature of
a waste mighl impair the efiectiseness of
1 1 w EP. another procedure is used that
Thvabures the metals In the waste. For inor-
gaiiic wastes that are treated to retard the
ni u:lity of inorganic constituents, a muttt-
pIe exiraciion procedure is applied to siznu-
late the potent:al for release that might
occur oser thousands of years. For the or-
ganic-containing wastes where the EP may
not be an effective tool, the Agency uses the
total concentration of the contaminant in
the waste, rather than In the extract, alien
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
considering the petition. EPA’s recent adop-
tion of a policy to request information on
addItional constItuents in the waste, a
policy codified in this bill assures that the
Agency will base its decision on all poten-
tial!)’ harmful constituenis. Finally, because
each petition must be separately esatuated
on the merits and data from eat-h facility.
looking at such things as volume of waste
and planned disposition, the Agency must
go beyond looking at Just the wastes’ con-
stituents and mobility in reaching its dcci-
slot
This amendment will, therefore, delete
the requirement that EPA evaluate, within
6 months, the appropriateness of using the
EP when determining whether to exclude a
waste generated at a particular facility from
regulation as a hazardous waste. The re-
quirement that EPA make such changes as
are necessary in the EP to predict the leach.
ing potential of wastes upon exposure to
leaching media more aggressise than the
medIa currently utilized is retained in the
bill, The only change this amendment
would make to that requirement is an ex-
tension of the deadline from not later than
2 years after enactment to not later than 28
months after enactment. The exiension was
requested by EPA with assurances from the
Agency that 28 months Is a reasonable and
adequate amount of time to complete the
task.
AMENDMENT TO II sitE LOcATIONAL CRITERiA AP’
pLrcaaLz Ir ADtitNt5TwATOa FAILs TO METE
LAND DisPossi, LIMiTATION DEADLINES
- New subsection (bii9l of section 3004 pro-
“ides that if the AdmInistrator fails to pro-
mulgate regulations establishing land dis-
posal liraitatioiis -aithin the time frames es-
tablished by subsection (ii) for certain
wastes, the wastes in question may continue
to be land disposed pending promulgation of
such regulations, pros ided that disposal of
such wastes in landfills or surface impound’
mrnts occurs only at landfills or surface on-
poundmentc that are in compliance with the
requirements of new sect on 3004(fXll. New
section 3004i fl’t) estabtishes minimum
technologies requ,rernents for new landfills
and surface unpoundments, As such, only
landfills and surface impoundments that
are equipped with the technology required
for new facilitIes can be used to sattsfy new
subsection (bI rDi of section 3004.
A key component of new section 3004 (f) Is
the mandate that EPA specify criteria for
the acceptable location of new and existing
facilities, Adding technology to land dispos-
al facIlities is not the cure-all many would
have us believe. Alt liners wilt eventually
leak and, as such. locational criteria are a
much more imporiant and effective method
to protect human health and the ens iron-
ment. Indeed, such criteria are a necessary
component of any program designed to
assure such protection.
This amendment will modify new subsec-
tion ttiii9i of s.-cticiri 3u04 to make It clear
that a facilit fi:ted with doLbIe liners and
leachate collection aysi.’ms, or come ap
prosed alternatise iechnology, will not nec-
essariiy satisfy new- subsection ibfl9i. In ad.
oiUon to being equipped with acceptable
technology, such iandiiiis and surface un-
poundments must satisfy EPA s locational
criteria.
As stated in the Committee Report at
page 21. this provision is miended to provide
temporar) protection against the migration
of particularly dangerous wastes However,
it should not be considered a substitute for
the land disposal prohibitions lntenoed by
Section 5 of the bIll. The Agency is expected
and required to meet its statutory deadlines,
July 25, 1984
AMENDMENT To cLARIFY AtitiloRiTY OF Aoauri-
ESTRITOS TO ESTS5Li55i TREATMENT STAND’
A51C5 AePL1cA5LE TO LAND DI5PO5AL eaac-
T1CE 5
Under S. 757, land disposal of hazardous
wastes, particularly in landil lls and surface
impoundments, should be the management
method of last resort, New section 3004(b)
provides for the prohibition of land disposal
of certain hazardous wastes unless It is de-
termined to be protective of human health
and the environment.
For certain wastes, such as metals and In-
organica, there are no practical treatment
technologies at this time that permanently
eliminate their toxteity. Also, residues of
other treatment processes must be land dis-
posed. 8. 757 niakcs Congressioiial Intent
clear that land disposal without prior treat-
ment of these wastes with significant con-
centrations of highly persistent, highly
toxic, highly mobile and highly bioaccumu-
latise constituents is not protective of
human health and the ens ironment. Under
paragraph (7) of new section 3004(b) as re-
vised by this amendment, In order to allow
land d,sposal of these restricted wastes with
metals and Inorganics, EPA Is authorized to
specify les cIa or methods of treatment to
assure that when the treated wastes Is
placed in the ground. Its toxicity or mobili-
ty, or both, are substantially minimizet
Fre-disposal treatment standards are nec-
essary for wastes containing metals and
other inorganic constituents because know’n
treatment technologies cannot destroy
these hazardous constituents. The migra-
tion of metal finishIng and other hazardous
inorganic wastes may be presented or minI-
snized through treatment processes that im-
mobilize the constituents, Bazardous wastes
that are organic which have significant con-
centrations of orgarucs in combination with
significant concentrations of Lnorganics that
are highly toxic or highly mobile should be
treated so that land disposal involves pre-
dominantly inorganic constituents, and only
those for which mobility Is substantially re-
duced.
Treatment should substantIally diminish
the toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of haz-
ardous constituents from the waste so that
short-term and long-term threats to human
health and the environment are minimized.
This test cannot be satisfied through the
use of absorbent material as a sole means of
treatment prior to land disposal. Treatment
is required not only for purposes of protect-
ing against the short-term or acute risks as
sociated with the land disposal of hazardous
wastes, but more importantly focuses on the
long-term hazards associated with migration
of the wastes and subsequent contamination
of ground or sur nce water.
The requisite lesels of methods of treat-
ment established by the Agency should be
the best that has been demonstrated to be
achies-abie, This does not require a BAT .
type piocess as under the Clean Air or
Clean Water Acts which contemplates tech’
nolog -forcing standards. The intent nere Is
to require utilization of available technoio.
gy In lieu of continued land disposal without
prior treatment. It Is not Intended that
every a-asic receise repetitive or ultin-aie
levels of methods of treatment, nor must ali%
Inorganic constituents be reclaimed In es-
tablishing particular levels or methods of
treatment, EPA may, for example. esiaalish
a performance standard for leacuiabiiiiy of
Inorganic constituents. EPA should aiso re-
qu re the maximum reduction of certain
toxic constItuents, for example, the reduc-
tion of hexavslent chromium to its less
toxic form of trivalent chromium Dn ru .
tion of total cyanides should be req’iurs’d as
c24&
-------
S 9180
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
after careful consideration of all of the fac. AMENDMENT 1’O CLARIFY AUTHORITY OF ADMIN-
tors enumerated in the amendment. . ISTRATOR TO MODIFY APPLICATION or CER’
This amendment is a clarification of the — TAIN REQUIREMENTS TO SOME MINING
Admir. istratrors exIsting authority. -As with WASTES.
chemical and other hazardous wastes, the S Mr. RANDOLPH. I am pleased to
Admini .trator is able to choose from a join as a sponsor of this amendment.
range of regulatory options that will satisfy and I agree with the description of the
the mandate that protection of human intent and need for this amendment
health and the envircnment be assured. given by the distinguished floor man-
When faced with a specific problem, the Ad. ager IMr. CH FEEJ.
ministrator can often identify several Op This amendment Is a clarification of
tions. each of which would protect human the Administrator’s existing authority.
health and the en irorunent. As we hare made clear in the report
MINING WASTE AMENDMENT and with other amendments, the Ad.
• Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I ministrator is able to choose from a
wish to comment briefly on the mining range of regulatory options that will
waste amendment which is Included in satisfy the mandate that protection of
the package of committee amend- human health and the environment be
assured. When faced with a specific
ments. problem, the Administrator can often
After S. 757 was reported It came to identify several options, each of which
my attention that some high-volume, would protect human health and the
low-toxicity mining wastes might environment. The Administrator is not
become subject to regulation under required to select the option that
RCRA. This would not necessarily be would satisfy the statutory mandate in
inappropriate, but what did Concern the most sin.pie or most cost-effecti’. e
me was the possibility that such manner. He has a responsibility to
wastes might become subject to stand. a protect human health and the envi-
ards and regulations developed in an ronment and, as such, may choose
entirely different context solely for among several approaches. The selec-
the purpose of containing highly toxic tion of a particular approach is con-
chemical wastes. sistent with the law if it satisfies the
This amendment was designed to statutory mandate and is not an arbi-
ensure that the law will not require trary or capricious deeLsion. Distinc-
that mining wastes simply be lumped tions often can be and are made on the
together with hazardous chemical basis of waste characterIstics, waste
wastes, management practices and locational
criteria. This amendment will simply
The amendment provides that If cer clarify the Administrator’s existing au-
tam mining wastes become subject to thority to make such distinctions in
regulation as hazardous wastes the Ad- the specified Instances. A letter from
rn1n strator of EPA will have the au- Administrator Ruckeishaus to Senator
thority to modify the requirements of SIMPs0H dated April 26. 1P84. sets
the act regarding land disposal limita- forth the Administrator’s Interpreta-
tions, minimum technological require- tion of EPA’s e, isting authority to
ments for new landfills and surface make such distinctions, and I ask to
Impoundments—other than the have it included in the RECORD at this
ground water monitoring require- point.
ment—and corrective action for re- The letter follows:
leases of hazardous waste, as they ENVIRONMENTAL PRO ’rEc-rroN AGENCY.
apply to such mining wastes, to take , DC, 1pnZ 26. 1984.
into account the special characteristics Hon. ALAN K. SIMPSON,
of the mining wastes, the practical dif- U.S. Senate, Washington. DC
ficulties associated with the manage- DEAR ALAN: This responds to your letter of
ment of such wastes, and various site- April 11. 1984, requestIng ctar firation of
EPA’s authority to modify the Subtitle C,
specific factors. The modified require- standards for mining wastes subject. to regu-
ments would continue to be subject to lation under RC A. As you know, mining
the underlying requirement that they wastes are tempo’rarily excluded from regu-
always assure protection of human latlon under Subtitle C of RCRA by Section
health and the environment, which Is, 3001(b(3)(A). pending completion of a
of course, the goal of all of the major study mandated by Sections 8002(f) and (P)
environmental laws. of the Act. Our current plan is to submit
this report to Congress in the su:nmer of
I think that It Is important to point 1985. Section 3OO1(o t3)C) of RCRA re-
out that protection of public health quires EPA witiiir six months of subinictir.g
8nd the environment is a broad, over- the sti.d to d,’termine (after notice and
arching goal, which is only given pre- comment) whether to promul a:o regula-
cise meaning within the context of a tions for these aa.stcs. If regL!aticns are
specific regulatory decision. Conse- deemed warranted, the rulemaking process
will be initiated. This process generally
quently. the Acrninistrator would not tnke tao years to complete.
be bound by a di’cision made in a dif- EPA’s mandate under Subtitle C Is to
ferent. factual context in determining ar te regulations for hazardous waste that
the appropriate manner In which to protect human health ma the ens ironment.
regulate mining wastes. This does not preclude the Agency from
I wish to extend my gratitude to the taking Into account the special characteris-
tics of the waste when writing regulations.
‘loor manager of S. 757. Senator Thus. if a design standard is technically in-
:HAFEC. for recognizing this problem feasiole or there are other methods to
nd working closely with me to resolve achieve the same protection at a lower cost,
with this amendment. - the Agency is allowed to modify the Subtitle
July 2J. 1.984
C standards for the particular wa .te. EPA is
not authorized. howe er. to tailor the stand’
ards if the sole reason for doing so is the
hizh cost of the prescribed technology.
The Senate bill pros ides detailed dir-c lion
on how to modif) the existing hiu’ srdctis
waste rules, but does not pre enL the
Agency from decigmng special standards for
mining waste within the franwv ork of this
directise. Two pro isions in the bill appear
to be generating particular COnc(rfl. The
Iirst recuires a double liner and leachate
collection under new or extensions of exist-
ing disposal units. The bill allows the use of
alternatise des gn and operating practIces
thnt pro ide equivalent protection of
groundwater and surface waler. This sari-
anice could be applied, for example, a here
in,tallmng such a liner and leaL’hate collec-
tion system is infeasible or inelfectise. The
second pros ision of concern Is the prohibi-
t (on on land disposal of hazardous wastes
that contain significant concentrations of
highly tosic, highly mobile and htgiiip
b.oaccumulative constituents, EPA has not
deseloped the criteria for determining
which wastes to ban, or completed the
mining waste studs discussed abose. We
have difficulty, therefore, predicting the
effect of the provision on the mining indus-
try. We would note, however, that, even if
some mining wastes were banned, a pending
amendnient to the bili authorizes EPA to
prescribe pretreatment standards that allow
d.sposal of such wastes where the mobility
or toxicity of the constituents can be sub-
stantIally minimized.
The des:rability of lr.creasing EPA’s flexi-
biity when writing standards for mining
wastes can be better assessed after the Sec.
t!on 8002 mining waste study Is completed.
and the public has been given an opportuni-
t to comment on it. As noted abos e, mining
wastes a iii likely not become subject to reg-
ulaticn until at least 1988. It may be better
to allow EPA to gather addilional informa’
tion on these wastes before amending the
statute to pro’. ide EPA further discretion.
Sineerel -
Wi!,UAM D. RUCKE1.SH S OS.
• Mr. RANDOLPH. Of course, we rec-
ognize that under the ongoing reexam-
i,iat:on of what wastes the mining
waste suspension should apply to,
some wastes (includng previously
listed wastes) may be regulated earlier
than 1988 or even earlier than the con.
elusion of the study.
In adopting this clarifying amend-
mexit, we strike from the bill the
mtning waste waiver provisions of sec-
tion 30u4(f)(1) as no longer needed.
The description of those provIsions in
the ccmmittee report, however. are a
good dtscription of our understanding
and intent for the amendment we are
adopting, and I ask that the appropri-
ate portion of the report on S. Thi be
included in the RECORD at this point,
The material foi ows:
MINING WASTLS
Also included in this amendmenl is a proS
‘.isicii v,i,.eh atthorizt’s the Adinir,, ’ .trav,,r
to promulgate an excepisun to the docole
liner. leachate collection s1em rec .ire-
ment for certain wastes generated b) the
mmmc iridt ctrv. Tl e 1980 ameitct:nemst , 10
the so:.d Waste Dispo .al Act (seet. In
30011 b iiMAii i:)1 deferred Iromn eovere e
under subt ,Lle C, send wastes from the e ’
traction. beneliciation and processing of
ores and minerals including phospfta e noeL
and oserburden from iaranium m;niny.
-------
July 15, 1984
pending completion of the studies mandated
under section 8002 (1) and (p1. Those £PA
etudles have not been completed. When the
‘i 4 ii - ni-i’ e ”np’ ted, the PA is required
to de’rrmine which of thoee wastes I.ou1d
be regulated undcr subtiUc C.
Solid wastes from. mining and m:neral
benefk!atlon and processing are priruarJy
westo rock from the extraction process and
crushed rock, commonly called tailings. p;o-
duced from concentrating steos such 53
grmdhig. crushing. sortiug, sizln . classiftca-
Lion. V.as ing, dewatering. anwIgamat ion.
gras ity treatment. flotation. agglomeration
and c anlde!ion. The l dO amendments cov-
ered aastes from the initial stages of m ner-
al processing. a here co ,:erit rations of nun-
erals of value are rectly tit rea&ed through
ph’. . cal means, before appl,, ing ceconoary
processes sj.:h pyro iaJiirg, gl or elec-
troiitic methods. S relter slag mtattt also be
included. Massite vc!uincs of this saste ore
are produced annuall at mining and miner-
al pro ’e s:ng 1ac lities—roughly estimated
by the A.terican Mnirg Congress (AMC) to
be approximately 1.75 billion tons in a typi-
cal year, which is clearly significantly great-
er In volume than the s Iid waste generated
by sU oLzier in’lustries combined. These
wastes we e considered “special wastes”
under the 1978 proposed regulau is as
being of large volume and relathely low
hazard.
On an Individual mine ba.s:s. past AMC es-
Ii1na s for a typical lead. zinc underground
ai ::c ‘oth.ctng 50.000 tons of metal per
year requires reinos al of as much as 5.000-
8,000 tons per day of rock That toruiage
breaks doen as follotss: roughly 1.000 tons
per day of development rock, which is the
rock that has to be removed to reach the
ore, and 4.000 to 5.000 tons of mineral bear-
ing ore. Of that 4.000-5.000 tons of ore, 150
to 200 tons of mineral concentrate are pro-
duced. Because of such large volumes of
waste and rock tailings, mine surface Las-
poundments and landfills ttpicallv cover
large areas close to the mine. Thse laid
dL po r.l facilities, unlike those of other in-
dustries, often cannot be dredged, bulldozed
or dug out of the earth, and co er very large
areas ahcre the corresponding natural tea-
Lures, such as boulders, trees, stumps. de-
pressions. and elevations, cannot always be
reasonahly cleared or excavated in connec-
lion with disposal. Maintaining the integrity
of a liner with the massive weight of typical
mining waste would be extremely difficilt
Consequently, lining such areas may be im-
practical in maiy cases.
If landfills and surface znpour.dments
containing mining arid mineral proiessing
wastes are determined by the Administrator
to be appropriate for regulation under sub-
title C alter conclusion of the studies man-
dated under action 8002 (1) and (p) of the
Act. new section 3004(f) req iiies groundaat-
er monitoring at the site and v hatever
other requirements are neccssars for the
landfill or Impoundment to a.sa.irc the pro-
tection of human health and tile e uron-
mont. The Administrator m’i t dLte ’mine.
however. whether to modif’. t te sta ry
double liner-leachate co!lcc:,on system re-
quirement for such mining wa tes. and if he
determines that requirement is not neces-
sary to protect human health and the cn ’I-
ronment. he may promulgate aubttnute re-
qtiirem nts. The amendment, thcre ore.
prcservcs the performance standar& of sub-
title C but provides the Agency vith the
flexibility it needs to deterr. ine the nio t
approp !ate approach to manage the par-
ticu)sr he.ardous waste at the site The
amendment does riot preclude PA from re-
quiring double lining of landfills or surface
irilpotindinenu . for mining and mineral proc.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
caring wastes in those cases where It is ap.
propr:ate to do so.
In making a determination on whether or
not an exccoton to the double lincr require-
ment for trifling waste is appropr..te. EP.
Is to consider whether the mo ilied require-
ments assure protection of human health
and the em ironment. 1’ractical or economic
Considera?ioiis can only be used to select
among alternative requirements which
assure protection of human health and the
environment.
The mining waste modification authority
of this amendment does not cover wastes
specifically listed as hazardous wastes prior
to the 1920 legislation because of their has.
ardous nature.s
A!XENOHENT TO ASSURE TIL%T 51(5 50.ID V %STE
arsposu. ACT Aar .’DMENTs or iai co NOT
Af FacT. MODIFY. OR AUcYD THE ORANIUM
ISILZ. TAILINGS RADIArIoN CONTROL AC OF
1975. AS AMENDED
This amendment is designed to assure
that the Solid Waste Di’tpusai Act Amend-
ments of 1984 do not aifect. modify, or
amend the Uranium Tailings Radiation
C ntrul Act of 1978 as amended
S. ‘157. as it was reported fr in Committee,
includes a number of pros lsior,.c ahich, if
adopted in their presert form, mey have a
significant impact on the rekuiatury pro-
giant established by the Congress fur urani-
um mill tailings. Tn t program Is flow Un-
derway pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tail-
ings Radiation Control Act of 1918. as
amerded UMTItCA’—the statute that es-
tablishes the basic framework and the un-
derlying legal authority for uranium mill
tailings regulation,
A question was raised during the Commit-
tee’s consideration of this bill as to whether
the restrictions on land disposal contained
In section 5 are intended to apply to urani-
um or thorium tailings subject to regulation
under UMTRCA. As stated In the Commit-
tee Report at page 21, section 5 is not in-
tended to affect the statutory program that
has been established by Congress in
UMTRCA.
In additron to section 5 of the bill, it ap-
pears that there are other provisions of S.
757 whlcn may, in the absence of further
clarification, also have an impact on the
regulatory program for uranium mill tail-
ings. Although S. 757 does not directly
amend UM1’RCA. it does change. iii a
nulnber of respects, the Solid Waste Dispos-
al Act. And because VMTRCA requires that
certain standards promulgated pursuant to
UMT RCA “shall provide for the pi oection
of hutnan health and the environment con-
sistent w’th the standerds required under
subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
as amended, whIch are applicable to such
hazards’, it does. In fact, appear that the
p tential eaists far construing S. 757 as re-
qiiring cha’iges in the uranium mill tailings
regulatory program. in order to ensure con-
tinu:ng “consistency’ with the standards of
the Solid Vi a.’te D:sposal Act, as amended.
This is not the Committee’s intent, and
this ametidnient is intended to clarify that
rtoit.mg in S. ‘757 is tnt nthd to affect.
modify, or emend IThITRCA—the baste stat-
utory awhorlty for the ru’guiatinn of mill
tailings. £I’r.larly, the Corr.mittee did not
intend to alter. amend, repeal, ratify, or sna-
pet d any of the regulationr or standards of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the
Envirorjnenral ProtectIon Agerry, if they
were law fully promulgated in accordance
with the rcaulrements of UMTRCA.
S. 757 is not tn’ended. aild should not he
construed, to re u:re changes in the rtguia-
tory program for mill tai!in s that Is now
Ufldc:’way in order to sati.i y the statutory
requirement of UM’i’RCA that certain
S 91 81
standards promulgated under that Act for
the regulation of uranium mill tailings
should be “consistent” with the standards
of tne So ’d Waste Disposal Act, as amend-
ed. To the extent that S. 757 adds to, or
mooi ies the pro iaons of, the Sol:d .Vs .te
D! l,o ”.l Act, as amended. this amcnlnienl
wou’d clarify that the tIr”h)m mill tailings
regulatory i,ro ram ni d not b charged in
mccl thr- e nest or mo (1,!iej rerpi:r. n titS
for the purpise of s ti,s(ying the statutory
requirements of UMrRCA that certain
stat dards promulgated pursuant to
UMTRCA shall be con’dstent with (lie
standards of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
as smended,
The regulatory’ program promulgatcd pur-
suant to UMTRCA is a controversial pro-
gram that (a being challenged in the courts
by both ens ironmental groups and industry-.
Both the standards promulgated by EPA
and the reguta’ions p.’omulgated b NRC
are in Quest Ion. By adopung this amend’
ment, Congress is neither endorsing nor
criticising the eaisting regulatory progranL
I should like to emphasize tnat this
amendment would not Limit or otiierwlse
affect in arty nay the AdmInistrator s au-
thurity or fie, lbihty to treat uranium mill
tailings wastes in a fashion similar to the
approach taken for all other mining wastes
that are subject to regulation und2r RCRA.
Indeed, if the Administrator should decide
to etercuse his authonty to tailor the re-
qiiirerner.ts of RCRA to address the special
cbaracter’eics of mining wastes, in gener-
al—an au. h rity’ which, in a separate
amendment, we have confirmed the current
las- prot ides—then the Administrator snail.
if he doe:n it appropriate, pursue a similar
approach for uranium mill tailings wastes.
I would also note that, in several in-
stance”, this b il either endorses or repeals
existing portions of EPA a RCRA regulatory
program. By doing so, and by being sitent on
other portions of that program, we do not
in lend to tacitly’ endorse portions of the
RCRA rt’g-jlations, The volume and corn-
plea’ty of these regula’ions makr’s such an
assumpL on unrea. onabIe,
URANIWS MILL T%ILIRGS £ME! (DMEaT
• Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am
most grateful for the efforts of the
Senator from Rhode Island and of his
staff to assist us in the resolution of
this complex issue, and I am plearcd to
Join him as a cosponsor of this amend-
ment. I trust that this pros-isbn will
serve to clarify much of the confusIon
that might otherwise have arisen over
the applicability of the various new or
amended provisions included in S. ‘57.
and thcr:’,y we can enable the Uiani-
urn Mi1 Titlmgs Reg tlato;’y Program
to move forward, in addition. I am
pleased to have the lmportant assur-
ances of the Senator from Rhode
Island that the Admhnistra’or of ‘A
has the broad latltude to trt’at urnrn-
urn mill tailings wastes in a fa hlon
similar to the ap,ro ch that hc tales
for all other mining w-astcs coverea by
RCRA. and that he is a -ee:ihle to
confirming this broad dis. retionary
author.ty- in a separate atnei d’t ’crtt
agreed to by the Senate c n L!’.:s biil
Indeed, since uran urn mill tn:iln:s
sva.stes are similar (ci natuc to c’t!:.’;
rn.tung v:n,stes bec:u. e of their h li-
volut-se, low’to d:ity nature, SU ’?i c.n
apprr ath makes a great dett of sei , e
and It wouid satisfy the reqtiirt’raent
-------
S 9182
of UMTRCA that EPA ’S generally ap-
plicable standards for nonradiological
hazi:d chall ;rovide for the protec-
tion ol human health and the environ-
ment consistent with the standards re-
quired under subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
which are applicable to such hazards,
while at the same time ensuring 3w
propriate and uniform treatment of all
mining wastes.
AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM TECHNO-
LOG 5 raL ilT.Q IIIRLMEIiTS FOB EXISTING SUB-
FACE IMPOUNDMENTS
This amendment establishes a mInimum
technological retrofit requirement (double
linen or equitalency) for certain existing
surface impoundments as an Interim status
requirement. and provides statutory guid-
anceon ahat qualifies asa liner.
Surface impoundments in intenm status
must come into compliance with the mini-
mum technological double liner and leak de-
tection requirements of new section 3004(f)
within 4 years after enactment, or atop re-
celving hazardous aaste. Permit action is
not required.
Surface impoundments with one or more
intact liner that meets current EPA require
ments, asset forth in 40 CFR 204 221(a), are
not subject to this requirement, urJess lo-
catcd in an area of vulnerable hydrogeology
as defined in subparagraph (0) or as deter-
milieu by cnteria or guidance issued by
EPA. One condition of this exclusion Is com-
pliance aith those portions of the ground-
water monitonna requirements contained In
40 CFR Part 264 that are not dependent
upon issuance of a pernut
Surface impoundments which eontalns
treated waste water during or alter the sec-
ondary or tertiary phase of an aggressive bi-
ological treatment facility aubject to a
permit issued under section 402 of the Clean
Watci ”Act are not subject to this require-
ment if those portions of the ground ater
monitoring requirements contained in 40
CFR Part 264 that are not dependent upon
issuance of a permit are being cornalied aith
and if the impoundment is part of a facility
that is compliance with best available tech-
nology elflucnt guidelines issued under the
Clean Water Act. For those facilities for
which no BAT guidelines are in effect and
no Clean Water Act permit implementing
such guldeltnes has been issued, the facility
must be in compliance with a Clean Water
permit, and must have identified to the ap-
propriate permitting authority the toxic
pollutants and hszardoua constitutents con-
tained in the untreated waste stream and be
acliles’ing significant degradation of those
pollutants and constituents.
EPA or an authorized State may waive the
aeclion 3004tf) technology requirements for
ezisting impoundments if the operator dem-
onstrates the facility is located, designed
and operated so as to assu-e no migration of
a hazardoiss constituent into ground or sur-
face water while waste remains in the im-
poundment.
ALl of the provisions of section 3004(f)
apply for existing surface impnundiyients,
that is. operators may demonstrate that al-
ternative technologies prevent migration at
least as eifetiveiy as double liners, and cer-
tain mining wastes may be exempted from
the dc’ubie liner requirements.
Surfare impoundments that retrofit in
compliance and good faith reliance on the
statutory definitiiiri and EPA guidance doc-
uments. could not be required to do nore at
the time of their first permit unless there is
,,..evidence of leakage.
Until EPA reguintions or guidance docu-
ments are published, a aatisfactory upper
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 25, 1984
liner is defined as one which prevents ml- Current law does not ensure that hazard-
gration into the liner during the operating o t is wastes in surface impoundments wilt
and post-closure monitoring period, and a not contaminate underground aster sup-
satisfactonj iower liner is one ahieh pre- plies.
vents migration through the liner In such Facilities built bcfore January 26. 198.1.
period. Three feet of 10-7 cm/second penne- re not required to hate construction fit-
ability clay constitutes an adequate lO i’ 4 ures that Impede or present aaste from
liner.
scaping. nor are they required to hate leak
One variance from the double liner re- detection 5) stems. Regulation of tl,t’ce in
quirement allows a s ngie liner, that meets poundmcnl.s relies on monitoring proce-
the current 40 CFR 264 221(a) iincr require. dures winch require technoloqies that hate
ments. prov,ded that there Is no evidence not been fuly developed and are difficult to
that such liner is leaking. Evidence that the implement. Further, these regulatinos hate
liner is leaking includes: (1) contaminants not been complied with nor enforced.
from the impoundment detected in ground Piesent federal and state regulations fail to
water: (2) seeps and leaks observed coming present contaminants from entering ground
out of the Impoundment dike, and (3) a water supplies because they rely on timely.
sudden or unexplained drop in the fluid effective coireetnre action ahltn is extreme-
level in the impoundment. Any one of these ly costly and generally ineftectire.
three conditions is evidence that the liner is Reliance on grot.nd water monitoring to
leaking. To make these determinations, the regulate facilities built before January 26.
impoundment owner and operator must: (1) 1963. will neither preserve drinktng water
monitor ground water downgradient and up- quality nor protect pubise health for the f 01-
gradient of the impoundment and compare loaing reasons:
these for significant differences: (2) periodi-
cally Inspect the ahole outside perimeter of (1) Monitoring ground water is difficult.
the dike for seeps and leaks: and t3 i monitor complex and dot’s not often produce accu-
the fluid level in the impoundment and do a rate. reiiahle results To detect hazardous
liquid balance (I.e., compare the lesei cx- substances. monitoring must be. tal located
petted based on a calculation of inflow, out- near the toxic pond; tb) constructed and
flow, and percipltationfesapnration with drilled properly; tc) designed to detect the
the actuat fluid levet l. Of codrae, a sudden constttucnts placel in the pond: (d placed
drop in liquid level in an impoundment properly to intercept the flow of hazardous
without an outflow of essentially equmsalent contaminants in undergrcund bn,cins and
volume is an Indication of a major leak. The streams: and te) operated pursuant to a reli-
variance does not apply v.henecer such esi- able sampiing plan.
dence of a leak exists. (2) Mor.’toi’ing is useful only to the extent
This amendment is meant to pro; ide only that eftect.ve. timely corrective action can
a minimum level of protection during Inter- be taken on the basis of information aented
un status. EPA can require higher level 01 from the monitoring. Corrective actions.
protection and is free to require more o- such as removing contaminated soiL” or
phisticated liner systems and/or compliance pumping out contaminated ground aaters,
with locational criteria as part of a eorree- are always expensive, but seldom effective.
tire action order or as a permit requirement in presenting the spread of contamination.
Since the early bOos, liquid industrial Waiting until pollution occurs and then
wastes or wastes containing liquids have attempting to contain the contamination is
been dumped into “surface Impound- e tremeIy costly, The U.S. Office of Tech-
ments”—naturai ponds, pits and lagoons, or nology Assessment estimates that it costs 10
shallow excavated depressions in the ground to ICC) times more to clean up a contanunat-
above the aater table. Surface impound- ed site and compensate victims than to pre-
ments of ebemial tastes are used to sepa- vent pollution migration throug’i adequate
rate, through evaporation, solid tastes from waste containment. A thousand pounds of
the water in which they are auspended and aate generated today can mean one million
for the disposal, temporary storage, and to 10 million pounds of contaminated soil In
treatment of industrial wastes. three or four years and millions of gallons
The use of surface I mpoundments poses a of contaminated water later.
threat to public health an the environment - flFACE IMPoSNDMENTS
because the wastes deposited in them
escape. The pressure of the liquIds forces • Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
hazardous contents to flow downram Into agree with the distinguished floor
the surrounding soils where even dilute eon- manager’s description of our amend-
oentrations of toxic substances can, over ment ertablishing certain require-
time, pollute the round water. Heavy ratn ments for existing surface impound-
fall can cause ponds to overflow into sur- ments. I would like to ask for addition-
rounding areas, resulting In contaminsiion al clarification of one point. As I
of nearby streams and. eventually. containi- understand one provision in the corn-
nation of subsurface waters. Many of the
most dangerous contamination sites in the mlttee’s amendment, a surface Im-
nation have been caused by hazardous mate- poundment which does not qualify to
nals escaping from surface Impoundments, continue to receive or store hazardous
Almost one-third of the federat “Super- waste alter 4 years after enactment
fund” sites were a result of leaking surface may. however, receive nonhazardous
impoundments Ten of the 15 d.irip sites wastc attcr that date for storage or
identified for maximum prior i cleanup in disposal. Is that correct?
Cali(ornia were contaminateti by untined • Mr. CI-IAFEE. Yes, the amendment
Impoundments.
Under present federal laws and regula’ pros ides for this.
tlons. hazardous waste impoundme nts conS • Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Sena-
structed after January 26, 1903. must be tor. This is Important to West Virgin- -
double lined, have leak detection systems. Ia, and I believe to other States In my
and comply with standards regulat:ng State there is at least one surface m i-
where these facilities may be located How- potmndment Ihat receives waste for disC
ever, the hundreds of ponds built before
1963 are exempt trout preventive safety tea- posal which is primarily ash from the
tures , Instead, these ponds are only re- combustIon of West Virginia coal; but
quired to have four ground water monitor, also includes sludge from a city-owned
ing welis—one “upgradient” from the im. sewage treatment plant, sludge from
poundment and three “doa-ngradient” an industrial waste water treatment
-------
July 25, ‘1984
lieve Inaccurately interprets the 1977
amendments.
It has also come to my attention
that there is an ongoing debate within
the administration over the develop.
ment of a policy on the use of the
oceans for waste disposal. The lack of
a defined policy can only mean that
decu.ions are made on a case-by-case
basis without consistency.
Mr. President, we in Delaware be-
lie e that the ocean disposal of harm-
ful wastes should be ended. We believe
that the atmosphere of legal and ad-
ministrative ur certainty can only be
clearcd by the Congress once again re-
viewing this matter and clearly defin-
ing a national policy that will insure
the preservation of our valuable
marine resources.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. ROTH. I yield.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President. I r1 e in
s.ipport of and to reiterate the vieas
that have been expressed by my senior
colleague from Delaware on oce n
dumping and on the pressing ncedto
end the practice. I also agree with his
view that It Is high time that the
Senate and Cor.gress take affirmative
stcps to end the confusion that EPA
and the courts have created ccncern-
ing the permissability of sludge dump-
ing In the ocean.
Mr. President. as most Delawareans
already know, the issue of ocean
dumping is not at all partisan in our
State. Not only do the senor Senator
and I agree on this issue, but also our
sole Member of the House, Mr.
CARPEr, and the Governor, and count-
less other public officials throughout
the State. Our message is simple, very
clear, and unyielding, e want stopped
any plans and activity to dump harm-
ful sewage sludge off the Delaware
coast.
For those unfamiliar with the acthi-
ty of ocean dumping the issue can be
summarized briefly, For some years.
the Environmental Protection Agency
has continued to allow the practice of
ocean dumping of sludge In coastal
waters off the east coast. But when
Congress passed the Marine. Protec-
tion. Research and Sanctuaries Act
and later amended the law in 1977, It
was generally believed that all ocean
dumping would cease by the end of
1981. What happened to change that
beltcf as a challenge by the city of
New Yoik to plans by the EPA to end
dumping. The current EPA not on!y
lost that case, but failed to appeal a
decision that many have argued was
erroneous.
Mr. President. I do not wish to
repeat the statements made by m; cal.
league from Delaware. and it would
take ton long to detail all tne public
policy and techni:al reasons to oppose
o can dun.ping. Suffice it to say, that
we find—all Dela rareans find u; ac-
ci’ptable, and vehemently oppuse
EPAs acquiescence to the sludge
dumpers oier the past 3 years We v.ill
continue to work together to get
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
harmful sludges out of the oceans and
to stop the apparent EPA practice of
simply looking for the most “out of
sight, out of mind” solution to diffi-
cult problems.
Mr. President. I would note that for
the last two Congresses, the Merchant
Marine and Fisheries Committee of
the House has acted to consider legis-
lation that would amend the Ocean
Dumping Act and address many of our
concerns. I look forward to working
further with the senior Senator from
Delaware and with the chairman of
the Environment Committee and the
chairman of the Environmental Pollu-
tion Subcommittee on hearings and
legislation that will follow suit in the
Senate.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, if my col-
league will yield I would like to ad.
dress a question to the distinguished
chairman of the Environmental Pollu-
tion Subcommittee, the Senator from
Rhode Island. and the Chairman of
the Environmental and Public Works
Committee.
I would ask my two colleagues; in
light of the situation that exists with
regard to ocean waste disposal, is it
not timely for the Committee on Envi-
ror.ment and Public Works to be con-
sidering this issue and Is it possible
that the committee will be conducting
hearings and considering legislation In
the near future.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. the
Senators from Delaware have raised
some very important questions.
Rhode Island is the ocean State and
we in Rhode Island share the!r con-
cern for the ocean and depend on the
same economic and recreational
marine re ources that our friends in
Delaware enjoy.
I assure them that consideration of
ocean dumping legislation has the
highest priority on the Environmental
Pollution Subcommittee’s agenda and
It is my intention to conduct hearings
and report an ocean dun’pi.ng bill to
the Senate for consideration early
next year.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President. I
should just like to indicate that I
concur svith my colleagues about the
Importance of this matter and assure
them of my commitment ot the sched-
ule and agenda proposed by the chair-
man of the Subcommittee on Environ-
mental Pollution.
Mr. ROTH. I thank my friends for
their consideration and commend
them for their exceptional leadershIp
in cn ironmental matters.
AM ’ThMFNTtJO 34
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President. I send
to the desk an amendment on behalf
of myself a9d Senator Dc ToN.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislati e clerk read as folows:
The Senator from Alaharna (Mr. HarLirl.
for hmself and Mr. Drr oN. propcses ar.
amendment numbered 3416.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask
unanImous consent that reading of the
.amendment be dispensed iiith
S 9195
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, It is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 49. after line 2. add the fo1lo Ing-
“Any permit under this subsert!on ahich
Is Issued for a landfill located iiihin the
State of A!abama shall require the mn taIIa.
tion of two or more liners and a I’iachate
collection system aboie and between such
liners. notwitnstandiung any ocher provi-
sion of thls Act”.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President. I send
an amendment to the desk which deals
with an exception to the double liner
requirement described In section 6 of
this bill, on pages 47 and 48.
We have a peculiar situation in Ala-
bama with regard to this issue: My
amendment Is an effort to see that the
exception contained in the subject
provision of the bill, known as the
Simpson amendment, would not apply
to a certain hazardous waste landfill
located In Emelle, AL.
In effect, the amendment which I
am offering would require the installa-
tion of two liners with leachable col-
lection systems between them In the
Emelle landfill. The adoption of my
amendment would mean that the ex-
ception—this Is, of other technology
and or other methods—would not
apply to commercial landfills in Ala-
bama.
I think that in conference we can
clarify the language of this amend-
ment such that it would apply only to
this particular landfill in Alabama.
I have discussed this amendment
with, both the minority and the ma-
jority committee staff. In fact. I be-
lieve that the language was even writ-
ten by certain staff members of the
Committee on Environment and_
Public Works in an effort to rectify
this particular problem that we have
In Alabama.
Senator DasiToN Joins me as an origi-
nal cosponsor of this amendment. It is
my understanding that he will submit
a statement In support thereof in to-
morrow’s Racoan.
Again, Mr. President, I have dis-
cussed this amendment generally with
both floor managers and their staffs,
and I believe It is acceptable to them. I
also believe that It is acceptable to
Senator SIMPSON. as well as to the
landfill owner in Emelle.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we
have consulted with the distinguished
Senator from Alabama, and the
amendment he has submitted is ac-
ceptable to this side. As he has pointed
cut, we will straighten out in confer-
ence hatcver problems exist in this
amendment.
Mr. MITCHELL Mr. Presid nt. I
commend the Senator from Alabama
for his diligence in this matter. It is
my understanding that thh amcr.d-
mcr,t seeks to insure that doutie liners
will be Installed at the expansion of
the Emelle facility.
It is an existing facilIty hmch comes
within section 6 of the bill by irtue of
its expansion. As presently drafted,
the Lii requires double lincrs for ex-
-------
S 9196
pansions of facilities but provides an
exception for that requirement upon
application to and approval by the Ad-
ininlatrator of EPA. It is that excep-
tion v hich the Senator seeks to have
rendered Inapplicable to tths facility,
wl ch the State Is requiring to Lnstail
a dc.uble liner.
The owner of the facility Intends to
Instell doucle liners for those cells of
the landfill ahich contain PCWs.
which Is the principal aspect of the
problem, and Is exploring the possfblli-
ty of the Installation of double liners
at any other cells.
Thc amendment as drafted exempts
from the exception provision of the
bill any landfill located within the
State of Alabama. It Is the under-
standing of all concerned that that
language will be refined at the confer-
ence. to make clear that whatever de-
scription accurately describes the fa-
cility at Emelle. this provision applies
only to that facility.
Is that the Senator’s understanding?
Mr. Rfl”LlN. That is correct.
Mr. M I TC HELL Accordingly. Mt.
President, the amendment Ls accepta-
We.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. this Is
a eorr ct1on of an amendment I previ-
ously applied to this legislation. I have
no objection to the amendment of the
Senator from Alabama; but, frankly. I
do not feel It Is necessary. Apparently,
the chap In Alabama who wrote letters
to the editors around the country has
confused It thoroughly.
The Senator from Alabama has
ah as-a been most helpful. 1 have vis-
ited with some of the citizens of Ala-
bama, and 11 this amendment allays
the:r fears. It Is acceptable to me. It
has never been my intention to pre-
vent the people of Alabama or any
other State from Imposing what.eter
regulations they wish upon their fa-
cilities.
We have different geological situa-
tions in Wyoming and in Ala ba um and
different sites and different levels of
toxicity, and I think this Is appropri-
ate. -
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question Is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
The amendment (No. 3416) was
agrned to.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President. I move
to reconsider the vote by w h eh the
amendment was aerced to.
Mr. CHAPEE. I movg to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I
would like to take this opportunity to
discuss I or a moment the reg’jlatnry
program promulgated pursuant to the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiat:nn Con-
trol Act—a program that has becn
quite controversial.
in 1978. when Corgress pacsed the
Urani in Mill Tailings Rad az on Con-
trol Act IUMTRCAJ. the En’irenmen-
flU Protection Agency was directed to
promulgate “standards of general ap-
cONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
plication” In order to protect the
public health, safety, and the environ-
ment from the radiological and nonra-
diohogical hazards associated with ura-
nium mill tailings For ncmrctiiolocical
hazards. EPA ’s s’sndards ere to pro-
vide for the protection of human
health and the environment ccn:’stent
with the standards required under
subtitle C of the Soisti Waste Disposal
Act which are applicable to suen haz-
ards,
The Nuclear Regulatory Coinmis-
slon. in turn, was directed to conic up
with a detailed regulatory program for
its licensees who operated uranium
mines, incorporating EPA’s standards
and prescribing the steps that NRC li-
censees would be required to take to
meet the general environmental stand-
ards established by EPA. NRC was
also charged with the responsibillty
for all L’nplemcntatlon and enforce-
ment.
In October of last year, EPA promul-
gated Its “standards of general appli-
cation.” The EPA standards resulted
in Instant controversg. The NRC swift-
ly objected, arguing that, rather than
promulgating a “general erwlror.men-
tal standard.” EPA had really estab-
lished detailed pre.script.ve eng’.neer-
Ing requirements that intruded on the
NRC’s jurisdiction. Lawautta were filed
by both the uranium industry and the
en’. ironsnentalists—vlrtually wit hin
minutes of promulgation of EFAs
standards—challenging their a equa-
cy. Numerous Membi’ra of Congress
expressed grave coz,cerns about the
approach taken by EPA. questioning
EPA’s Interpretation tiE Its Jur:sdi:-
tion, as well as E PA’s d cison to apply
the highly prescriptive RCRA require-
ments—which were originally estab-
lished for low-volume, high-tox;city
wastes, to the high-volume, low-toxici-
ty wastes that result from uranium
mining. An absurd result.
Of particular concern to me Is the
dispute that has now developed be-
tw ceo EPA and NEC over the jurlsthc-
tionai responsibilit Ies of each agency,
This problem appears to be most acute
In—but is by no means limited to—the
area of ground water protection.
where EPA, pressed to meet a statuto-
ry deadline to promulgate its stand-
ards, has simply apphed the detailed
and highiy prcsertptive regulatory i-c-
quirements of RCRA. This process
gives little recogultion of the jurisdic-
tional dt!fIcult es that such an ap-
proach tins created for the NEC. and
tery little, If any, firx;biiity to tailor
the RCRA requ remcrts_.wtiich ‘aere
initially Intended for high-toxicity.
low-volume wastes—to the uniçue s:tu-
ation posed by the liigh-vohi’rae, low-
toxicity uranium m n!ng wases.
Untortunatcly, tne regulatory pro-
gram fer uranium mill tailings Is no’x
at a total impasse as a restiit of the
d’sacreement tht’t h s tmer;ed over
the EPA standards. with no clesr reso-
lotion now in sight. Deadlines estab-
lished by Congress have come and
gone. Some of the States that are re-
Juls’ 23, 19S4
sponsible for the regulation of the
uranium mining Industry are wholly
confused ot’cr a hat direction to flke.
And the NRC licensees are left in
l ;mho.
At t!il point. ?.Tr. Presidc nt I r. k
tininimons conaent to insert in ihi
HErOn a nuntber of letters fi-cc i sri-
was indi’.iduas. groups, and ag ”ir t
dc-acr,bing the con1u ion that ne r,zv
have as a result of i!w rtan’!zrS r o
mulgated by EPA.
It is absolutcly essential ti-.ct the’
agencies get this regulatory progrem
back on track and do so promptly. Ii
these problems are net resolt en .n a
timely fashion. Mr. President. it is my
intention to ask the chairman of the
En’. Ironment and Pubie Works Com-
mittee. the Senator from Vermont. to
schedule hearings early next session
for the purpose of considerIng a heth-
er the authority that has been con-
ferred upon EPA to promulgate vari-
ous standards for nuclear activities is
necessary. In light of the poor per-
fonr.ance of EPA in this arena and in
light of the broad authority that the
NRC already has to regulate these at’-
ti’. Ities ,
Finally, before I yie ld the floor, Mr.
President. I should like to discuss just
briefly one other important consider-
ation that has led me to conclude that
perhaps the time has come for us in
the Congress to reexamine the NRC ’-
EPA relationshlp.
This part!cular jurisdictional qiies-
lion that is now dividing the N RC arid
EPA over uranium mill ta:lings regula-
tion Is not a new question, In fa-’i. tne
entire question of where the jurisdie-
Uon of t ue EPA stops and the jur:sdic-
tion of the NRC begins has been the
subject of estensive discussion over
the years . and there is now a consider-
able body of precedent, de eloped
since 1910, to guide these tv,o agencies
in the esercise of theIr respectne re-
spomibilitles.
Because of that substantial body of
precedent, Mr. President. I must say
that I am truly frustiaied. chagrined,
and awfully disappointed that we find
these two agencies at Increasing odds
over their respecti ’ . e jurisdiction o er
nuclear matters—an issue that I
ti ought we had settled a long t:me
a;o mid or. which the Congress has al-
ready pi ovtded clear anti consistent
guidance to each of thc.;e tv,’ n;en-
cies.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Prcs dcn:. tt,e
able Senator from Vyormng (Mr.
Szstnortl corrertly brir,gs a serious sit-
uation to the attention of the Senrte.
I fully agree that we should not ha’.e
t to Imnoitant Fe’!rrai agent ics argu-
ing with each o:hrr o’ rr the ex: r,t of
their jurisdictions. This s ltuatiot i is
unsatisfa ctory and ma’ t be r sohed.
I will be plc sr:i to work ‘aith S . an-
tor Smirs’s I: bring about a r” s ’-’a
ble and pr ecise solution to a pro ’.’;in
that should n’.;’er ha c develcped
certaln:y cannot be allowed to eentm.
ue.
2 0 1
-------
S 9198
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
cumstances, clime may pay. Now is 757. These amendments contain sever-
the time to remedy this situation. . al needed reforms in the existing has-
Currently, these crimes are misde- ardous waste management system. For
meanors. This does not begin to match the first time. EPA will have the au-
the penalty to the crime. The mone- thority to’ regulate small generators of
tary cost to society of cleaning up tm- hazardous waste. According to con-
properly disposed of waste can be up gressional testimony, as much as 15
to 100 times the cost of disposing of it million metric tons of hazardous waste
properly in the first place. The cost in from small generators is not subject to
human suffering can barely be Imag- regulation.
toed. The bill before us today tough- S. 757 will also discourage land dis-
ens Federal enforcement ability and posal and will impose tighter require-
raises the maximum penalty for zen- ments on wastes that are land dis-
ous violations of the hazardous waste posed. Currently, nearly 80 percent of
laws from a maximum fine of only the hazardous wastes being generated
$25,000 per day of violation id 1 year Is disposed of in. or on. the land.
Imprisonment to $250,000 per day of RCRA’s promise to provide environ-
violation and imprisonment for as long mental and health protection from the
as 15 years. By enacting this law, we dangers of hazardous waste has not
will ensure that crime does not pay. been fulfilled. It is imperative that we
With renewed emphasis on criminal enact S. 757 and start to aggressively
enforcement in the bill, I expect that enforce a cradle to grave management
the Environmental Protection Agency system for hazardous waste.
will devote sufficient resources to In addition. S. 757 sets up deadlines
criminal Investigation and enforce- for completion of regulatory decisions
inent. Currently, for instance, EPA by EPA, Further delay in issuing regu-
has only four field criminal investiga- lations is unconscionable in view of
tors located in Chicago for the 101 the environmental and health threat
State region which generates the most posed by unsafe disposal.
hazardous waste in the Nation. And It is extremely shortsighted to think
these investigators are responsible for that hazardous wastes we fail to con-
investigating criminal violations of all trol now can be taken care of later.
Federal environmental laws, not just The tragedies of Love Canal and
hazardous waste. I recently wrote to Times Beach are only the beginning of
Administrator Ruckeishaus urging the consequences of past failure to
him to increase resources for this monitor and control toxic substances.
effort. In many respects, highly visible Unfortunately, we do not yet know the
criminal prosecutions can provide a dimensions of the problems created by
more effective deterrent to future tile- previously uncontrolled wastes. More-
gal hazardous waste disposal than nu- over, by failing to act now, we will be
merous reprunands or penalties for subjecting future generations to possi-
minor violations of the Resource Con- bly tragic risks. We took the first step
servation and Recovery Act. toward controlling hazardous waste by
There are a number of hazardous enacting RCRA in 1976; now we must
waste issues, beyond the scope of the finish the task by closing loopholes
legislation before us, which still must and strengthening the existing regula-
be addressed. While today’s legislation tions.•
deals with the critical areas of genera- sscrioii I or 5T57 RZGARDIi G INFECTIOUS
tion and disposal of hazardous waste, WASTE
it does not deal with the cleanup of • Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in re-
existing waste sites. This is why the spouse’ to S. 346, whIch I introduced
Superfund was established in 1980, as and testified on before the Senate En-
a fund available for cleanup of the viromnent and Public Works Commit’
worst sites across the country. I wel- tee, section 8 of S. 757 directs the Ad-
come the President’s support for a 58. mlnistrator to identify within 6
percent Increase in the amount of Su- months of enactment those wastes for
perfund dollars available for cleanup which a decision whether to list as a
of hazardous waste sites next year. hazardous waste will be made within
Yet ‘the number of sites awaiting time periods of 2 and 5 years. The
cleanup far exceeds the currently Agency Is also to promulgate regula-
available resources. tions identifying additional character-
The Comprehensive Environmental istics of hazardous waste within 2
Response, Compensation, and Liability years of enactment. The committee
Act of 1980, the bill establishing the report states “Where technical ques-
Superfund, roust be reauthorized with tions cannot yet be definitively an-
a fee system providing incentives to swered, EPA should not delay but
minimize waste generation, and ade- should make reasonable assumptions
quate to meet the continuing needs based on the need to protect human
across the country. health and the environment.”
Today’s reauthorization of the Re- A particular concern I have Is over
source Conservation and Recovery EPA’s inactivity In establishing regula-
Act, combined with future action on tions and final guidelines for Infec-
Superfund legislation, will go a long tious waste management. Infectious
way toward remedying the problems waste is a category of waste which in-
associated with hazardous waste In II- eludes isolation wastes, cultures and
Ilnois, and across the Nation, stocks of disease-causing agents, blood
• Mr. GLENN. Mr. President. I am and blood products, pathological
pleased to vote for the passage of S. wastes, residues of and materials con-
July 25, 1984
taminated with chemotherapy drugs,
wastes from surgery and autopsy, con-
taminated laboratory wastes, needless
and other sharp objects, dialysis unit
wastes, animal carcasses and body
parts, animal bedding and other
wastes from animal rooms, discarded
biological matter, contaminated food
products, and contaminated equip-,
ment.
Infectious waste can be treated by
incineration. Technology Is available,
as Is capacity. Treatment Is not being
utilized because it is more expensive
than improper disposal, and because it
is not required. Ineffective and Im-
proper management of infectious
waste represents a growing problem
for which Federal regulation Is neces-
sary to protect human health and the
environment.
At this time there is no final Federal
definition of infectious waste. EPA has
not established an Infectious waste
characteristic or listed infectious
wastes. Consequently, it is not regulat-
ed as a hazardous waste. More than 7
years after RCRA was enacted, there
are no Federal management require-
ments, no regulations for proper stor-
age, transportation, treatment, and
disposal of Infectious wastes. Some
States have adopted regulations re-
quiring treatment of all infectious
waste. But like other hazardous
wastes, the health and environmental
consequences of improper manage-
ment of infectious waste knows no
State boundaries. A national program
Is necessary. Otherwise, we may be
facing a new round of Superfund sites,
only this time with infectious waste,
EPA apparently does not consider
infectious waste a priority issue so
that no further regulatory action Is
anticipated in the near future. This is
unacceptable.
Infectious wastes therefore clearly
are intended to be regulated in accord-
ance with the schedule under section 8
of S. 757. More than enough time has
elapsed to enable EPA to have made
the basic decisions for minimum regu.
lation of Infectious waste. One of the
purposes of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act Is to prevent releases of hazardous
wastes, including infectious waste.
EPA should therefore give infectious
waste a much higher priority than it
has received, placing It on the fastest
regulatory track, including listing well
within the 2-year regulatory period.
Toward this end, EPA should provide
the necessary technical guidance to af-
fected institutions and States by pub.
lishing long’delayed final regula-
tions.•
• Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I
support S. 757, a bill to reauthorize
and amend the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA]. RCRA—
the Nation’s hazardous waste manage.
nient law—was enacted In 1976 as an
amendment to the Solid Waste Dispos-
al Act of 1965. The statute directs the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA] to regulate the transportation.
-------
July 25, 1984
storage, treatment, and disposal of
hazardous waste.
Th EPA estimates that some 264
mIllion metric tons of RCRA-defined
hazardous waste are generated in this
country each year—this Is over 1
metric ton per person. Hazardous
waste Is defined as garbage, refuse or
other discarded material that can
cause mortality or serious Illness, or
pose a substantial hazard to human
health and the environment when Im-
properly managed. There are 8.000
hazardous waste treatment. storage.
and disposal facilities: 13,000 trans.
porters; and 54.000 waste generators
that fall under the RCRA regulatory
scheme.
As such, hazardous waste manage-
ment has proven to be a very large
task. Unfortunately, the implementa-
tion of RCRA has lagged. RCRA regu-
lations that were to be completed In
1978 were instead not Issued until 1980
and 1981. and In one case not until
1982.
RCRA requires that an operating
permit be Issued for each hazardbus
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facility. Yet only a handful of operat-
Ing permits have been Issued, and the
remair.dcr of the 8.000 treatment, stor-
age. and disposal facilities are operat-
ing under Interim status guidelines.
These guidelines are not as stringent
as the standards for fully permitted
facilities. At the current rate. EPA es-
timates that it will take 10 years to
complete the permit process for all in-
terim status facilities.
The bill before us amends and
strengthens RCRA in a number of sig-
nificant ways. Thr bill Includes new
requirements for small quantity haz-
ardous waste generators, requires
tighter restrictions on the land dispos-
al of hazardous waste, ends the un-
regulated burning of hazardous waste
blended with fuel oil, accelerates the
process for reviewing and listing sub-
stances as hazardous wastes, estab-
lIshes minimum technology standards
for hazardous waste treatment, stor-
age. and disposal facilities, stiffens
criminal penalties for violators of
RCRA regulations, and establishes
deadlines for EPA to complete various
regulatory tasks. Taken together these
provisions should Improve the imple-
mentation of RCRA and extend regu-
latory coverage in ways that will pro-
vide additional protection for human
health and the environment.
I am pleased particularly tFtat this
bill Includes a provision that I spon-
sored in the Environment and Public
Works Committee to address the prob-
lem of uncontrolled burning of hazard-
ous wastes blended with fuels. The
EPA does not currently regulate has-
ardous wastes that are burned for the
primary purpose of “recovering usable
energy.” Recent estimates are that
some 4 million tons of hazardous
waste are being burned in boilers and
furnaces not subject to EPA regula-
tion. In my State of New York; haz-
ardous wastes have been blended sur-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
reptitiously with fuel oil and burned
unwittingly In apartment boilers in
New York City. This unregulated
burning of hazardous waste exposes
the surrounding population to poten-
tially hazardous air pollutants.
Section 9 of this bill directs the EPA
to develop and Implement a regulatory
program that establishes require-
ments, as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment,
for the burning and blending of haz-
ardous waste for energy recovery.
Under the new provision, facilities
that blend hazardous waste with fuel.
or those persons who distribute or
market fuel blended with hazardous
waste must notify EPA of those activi-
ties within 1 year. Within 2 years. EPA
must set standards governing hazard-
ous-waste-derived fuel production, dis-
tribution, marketing, and burning.
I am pleased also to have cospon-
sored two floor amendments to this
bill that I believe will help close exist-
ing loopholes In the RCRA law. These
amendments were developed to ad-
dress two problems Identified by the
Office of Technology Assessment
(OTAI in an April 6. 1984. staff memo-
randum on ground water protection
standards for hazardous waste land
disposal facilities.
The first amendment requires the
EPA to include financial responsibility
assurances for corrective action In the
performance standards that the
Agency sets for the owners and opera-
tors of hazardous waste disposal facili-
ties. Current EPA regulations require
owners and operators to provide finan-
cial responsibility assurances for the
costs of closure and post closure main-
tenence of hazardous waste disposal
facilities. However, financial responsi-
bility assurances are not now required
for corrective action that might have
to be taken to clean up any contamina-
tion caused by such facilities. In in-
stances where corrective action Is nec-
essary, cleanup costs could be substan-
tial, especially If ground water has
been contaminated. Some companies.
faced with large corrective action
costs. may choose, or be forced into,
bankruptcy. In such cases, it is likely
that cleanup would have to be accom-
plished using Superfund moneys. The
financial responsibility amendr”ent
that I have cosponsored Is designed to
avoid this eventuality by making sure
that those who o n and operate dis-
posal sites have adequate resources to
clean up any contamination that
might occur.
The second amendment provides the
EPA with authority to issue an admin-
istrative order, or to commence a civil
action in the U.S. district court to re-
quire corrective action at Interim
status hazardous waste treatment.
storage, or disposal facilities where
there Is or has been a release of haz-
ardous waste. The EPA currently has
authority to require such corrective
action at permitted hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facili-
ties. However, as of February 1984,
S 9199
only 115 facIlities had full RCRA per-
mits. The remaining facilities, close to
8.000. were operating under Interim
status. ‘It will take an estimated 10
years to make permit determinations
on the remaining interim status sites.
The EPA estimates that between 50
percent and 60 percent of the Interim
status land disposal facilities are leak-
ing and will require corrective action.
Providing the EPA with the authority
to use administrative orders to require
corrective action at Interim status I a-
cilitles, Is. therefore, most Important.
The Agency should have the same
mechanism for protecting human
health and the environment at interim
status facilities as is now available for
permitted facilities.
Mr. President. the provisions I have
mentioned, along with others In the
bill, provide for a strengthened haz-
ardous waste management law. As
such, I urge the adoption of S. ‘157.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. the
consideration of the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act today marks
the end of a long and laborious process
that began several years ago in the
Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee. I am pleased the bill that
Is before us today is not perfection. It
does not represent all of the answers
to the hazardous waste problems that
plague some areas of the country. The
bill does represent a significant step
forward in the regulation of hazardous
waste disposal methods and waste han-
dling. During the course of debate on
RCRA the bill has grown in length
and has in some places we hate writ-
ten regulations into law and I am con-
cerned about that trend. However. the
EPW committee has also made
changes in the bill that will make It
more practical in “the real orld.” We
must do all that Is possible to mini-
mize hazardous waste generation and
we must continue to carefully protect
the public health and the environ-
ment—and that is the key to RCRA—
the standard of protecting the public
health and environment—we find that
phrase through out the bill and that is
then what this action Is all about.
I must say I often tire of hearing the
press and some public Interest groups
harangue about the lack of concern of
the environment by Republicans All
types and forms of Republicans care
about the environment and t ork dili-
gently to protect it New England Re-
publicans have their pO nt of view.
Southern Republicans have their idea
of protecting the environment and
Western Republicans hold protection
of the environment as a very high ob.
jective. We may not always agree hots
this protection Is to be accomplished—
but one thing is most certain—flt- are
all sensitive to the needs of the public
and the bountiful natural resources
that all of us enjoy. So I find it pleas-
ing that we are considering this bill
today and I am confident that e can
pass this bill and that with a biparti-
san effort we can see the law enacted
-------
-Nuvem lertZSU
after the tte S ite net S
20. Cal Ovna ubtitle B Is amended
.i Inwtlng the Ioilosring new aecuon slier
se Ction 2006 and by rMaagrabn 1 anion
2007 as 2000.
ana -
p. 3006A. (a ) tinaLisrr ftwo.
tzows.—The At*tnta shall stasust
- anOfficeofOmbudsmaxi. Iobedirectedby
an Ombudsman. It shall be the feocslon of
the Office of Ombtidmsan to receive thibtiS
n i complaints. gnevances. reçuens for hi-
formation wbmsued by any ran with te-
S to any pnt m or iequs.eme imder
9b) AurnoanT To Ruma Aszsrsw —
The Ombuai cmsn shall n ad e r arc4asnct
with rmpect to the ennpiamts . revane .
and requests submitted to the OU of O w-
boSc nr . a5 flJJ eaR . aauatt no
star endatoin to the Atunid cate.
“Cc) Dvcr ow tao tmn pow cant-
AR . AntALS. Os An*UiISTKATtVE Ma x-
tnt—The establishment at the Office of
Ombudcraan shall not affect any awoaduin
for grievances. sppeala. or administrative
matters I c any other pronsion of this Ad,
say other wovision of Ma ,. s y F al
fbi Teats or toawn.—Thr table of -
tents for such Act as amended by aasertax
the foUowing new item miter the ite.m stat-
big to sectio n 200& - -
Office et c r -
The CHAIRMAN pro tenipore. Are
there any amendments to ordiora IS
•ougtt 20?
e Clerk read as follows: -
PLaits tan PUIOaMafl flsnsan
ea . Sedan 3004 Ia amended by Inseit-
tig the foil nwmg at the cod thereof:
Mssia Keommnin a Cram
Psearna—’ 11 Each landlall or surface 1w-
poundment for which an applicaticat for a
permit uSer section 3005(c) Is received by
the Adminaatnior alter the date of the en-
, mcnt of the Banrdon Waste Control
and Enfor nent A d of 1983. shall be at-
;usred (as a conditien S rusting
permit) to he double-Iistd and to monite
grotmd waln
(2) Each theoaeate etitch n. . . . , . a
perm It under sect ion 300 5Cc) after the date
of the ensn rncnt of the iLsnaSon Waste
Control and Diloreemeot Act of 1003 shall
achieve the minimum d .nicttos and it..
• nioval efficiency meqwred by rnnlatn to
effect under this subtitle on June 24. 1582
The Admtmstzator may. by rule, modify the
nqunements vet ftath mmfla nuktas if
auth modificationprovida foe nauivslent or
greater hazardous taste coationment or
equivalent or greater dean and at-
moial of bawdoua C -
Mr. VWRIO (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous con-
sent that sectIon 21 be considered as
read and pnnted In the Extant
The CHAiRMAN pro tempest. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman train New Jersey?
There was no objefl .
tianuNtifT rnm at W V
TRA]CSn Mr. Chairman. I
an antntmpnt
.eClnkresdasfo] 1ow 5
eraeont offered by Mr. Ykana: YWe
has Ii . after9ir b nt -ar.
te asl Ithe 17, tis . -
CONGRESSIONMS WORD — HOUSE
!B3 The tblHliwr requfrrenent set
kvth In subparagrapb (A l may be valved by
the Jths stralor foe any mono! ] !. U—
-(I) flash as000tall mtitaln only Imardota
nda hr 1nna y Ir ma common no-
trots or metal casting teolding sand,
‘(Ii) such wastes do not contain cinistitu-
eats which would render the wtctes hazard-
no for reasoas ether than the sasocity
eharacter lsties. end •
tnfl a moeofW steeto the same me- __
quireinents as are applicable to the ear ofa
aster sander auoo 200$thiCfl - -
Mr. TRAra (during the readingL
Mr. Chathna.n. I ask nnnnimo con-
act that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed In the
Errant ‘
The CHAIRMAN pro tanpore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mlcbl a? -. -
There was no objeata. -
(Mr. TRATTrR asked and ns given
permission to rerun and extend his re-
masts.) - . -
Mr. TRAILER. Mr. Chairman, I
for to offer an amendment which re-
solves a technical difficulty In the abil-
ity of the Environmental Protection
Agency to approve ezlbuuuwetally
sound alternative methods of hanrfhng
certain types of so l id foundry wastes. I
assure my colleagues that the amend-
ment eccipiles with the mt.ont ci pro-
widing for safe disposal of solid found-
ry wastes • -
This amendment t h U em from the
one I had printed in the Cowcnr c cios.
Al. Racoiw for Friday, October 28, us
that It. attempts to c].anfy the real
Intent of my efforts. This amendment
dearly slates by Its language that at
appLes to hazardous wastes from
fouiub-y terrace emission controls or
metal casting molding sand. Some
people have expressed concerns that
the or iginal language was too broad in
Its seope to limit itself to this problem
of foundry wastes, so I offer this mod ’-
tied version to reniedy those concerns.
The amendment Is now aecepted by
the major envu-onroental gioupo. In-
eluding the National Audobon Society,
- the Environmental Defense Fund, and
the Sierra Club. all of whom partici-
pated In Its drafting.
I tint to thank the gentleman from
New Jersey CMr Vtoajo). and the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. Inn) for
their cooperation In the development
of this amendment I aant to add we-
cl i i thnnkr to ray colleague from
Michiga n , the chairman of the full
mnxnIttee . Mr. Dmcnt,, for his assist-
ante I n this effort
The amendment Is very simple. It
conforms the requirements which f l ’ S
an establish for these certain mono-
fills with those the Ageiry can estab-
lish for aurf ace unpoundnients. Since
the two types of facilities are similar. I
believe that It Is approprIate that the
requirements for the facilities be sfrnI-
l a s . - -
Mr. Chairman. during the dtl. . on
RB.. 2994, EZRA anw arts during
the 88th Congress, 1 izned to offer
an amendment which would hare pro-
wided n l nr Sa for monoftlt
119157
Ratbet I sug ested that ft as o-
priate for EPA and Industry to work
together to develop £ standard which
would meet environmental concerns.
Since that time, I am happy to tell
my colleagues that progress has been
made. Industry and EPA have studied
the problem comprehenslvaly , and
EPA expressed its Intent to ninhltch
spec ific inonofifi standards in t July
26, 1982, Federal Register notice. Moo-
o nUs have generally been regarded as
landfills used to store or dispose of one
or more of a small group of Inorganic
wnstm. E PA noted that this group is
limited to specific wastes that the
Agency finds would not leach signifi-
cant eoncentrations In the absence of
an and leaching medium. For the
.rnord. .1 wIll append to my statement
* more complete deseription ef mono-
fills which was developed by EPS
EPA has advised my office that moo-
ofill standards could be developed
within 18 months. Bowever , EPA La .
astsnt Administrator In Thomas
wrote to me that EPA activities In thIs
area have been baited Seasae “As-
seining passage of ECRA amendments
as presently constttnted. there would
then be little benefit to development
of tailored standards for mono.flll at-
thilLies” In other words, unlam thj
bill Is amended In the manner which I
am suggesting, all the cooperative
effort to establish nonof Ill standards
will go down the drain.
If Industry Is tnnk lng a responsible
effort to control solid wastes, and if
they are doing so in a way to meet en-
vtronm eat -al concen* It is my new
that to male all the effort to de,elop
monoflfl standards mean i ngless by
changing the rules in the middle of
the game will hurt our ability to
obta in voluntary compliance from I n-
dustry on a whole range of environ-
mental issues. Why should they act La
good faith II the Federal Govnrtmna
willnoC. - -
My point to colleagues, Mr.
Chairman. Is that this situation has
been studied, and the work has been
done. We are close to promulgating
rules for monofills based upon hard
scientific evidence. not on speenlaflon_
The regulations will provtde protec-
tion for human health and the etvi-
ronment, My amendment will leave
EPA with the discretion to snake use
of the work on moriofills which has
been done already by establishing the
same requirements as are being pro-
posed In this bill for surface Impound-
meo a.
This Is not a new issue, nor Is ft one
thiS is imfanuliar to the House We
need to take advantage of the coopera-
tion demonstrated between Industry
and EPA to safeguard the environ-
nient, particularly the excellent work
done since 1981 by the American
Foundrymen’s Suofety a-ho will Sue a
f Inal report this subject in 2
months dearly demonstrating that
monoillis cart and will meet all ci ott
environmental n .p
-------
• H 9158 (3ONGRFSSIONM. RECORD—HOUSE Noi mber2, 1983
• I urge adoption of my am” t . - I urge my colleagues to support this — em nmentally onceptable trpes of used
Mr Chair—an. amendment - . .. oil recycling and the effect of such r tala-
Supplemental Information attached Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, would the tIOTIS on small quantity generators and
for Inclusion in the Ri oan at this author of the amendment - orators which are small
point Mr. iv • i yield to use (B) The yegujatiom UIZa d ‘ 5eY
____ _____ this subsection shall provide that no gener-
Mo P sov s con sot man from New York. of used oil which is exempt under pam-
• Mr. LENT. I would ask the gentle- h w ,
3tonofllls are landfills, surface Impound- man. I understand this amendment so ui n or any emiasafed icw . lketp-
mania, or waste piles used to eseat. 5tO?t. CT simply gives tQ . some mono! ills the ing and reporting requirement with respect
dispose of one or more of a small group of same exemption that Is provided for to such used oil U such g - ’ ’ —
fnornzdc WUtes. If th 5C wastes are mast . surface Impoundments by virtue of the “(I) either—
aged under conditions that preclude con- BTeaI Z 50! the (I) esters into an uit us’ vtIr-
tract the waste and acids, and the di.pn i
•Iaduity is weli located hydrogeologleaily , bUL - - . nngnient (Including an agreement or or-
there wW result an ext emely low likelihood MT. 1R8 EN .. ‘Th&t is --t yangement with an Independent Uanspoiter
______ or with an agent of the yecyrlerl for dcliv.
of ground•water mnta ’iInaUon. On July 26. t hhuI W . . -• y of such used oil to a recycling facility
1082, ‘A stated In the Fe Jeral Register Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman which has a permit under section 3005(c) (or
that Is Intends to propose separate stand- arid I want to support the gentleman’s for which a permit Is deemed to be in effect
ards for monot UI Units. • ‘ amendment, It seems to me to be only under subsection (d)). or - -
The wastes possibly eligible as avonoflll uftabl , • . • “ai recycles such used oil at one or more
wastes are relatively non ’cemplex. inorganic t to extend my facilities of the generator which baa such a
wastes that are hazardous only because
they exhIbIt the of PPTfdLUOfl to the distinguished permit under section 3005 of this subtitle
Ity (defined i I 261.24) or are a listed waste chairman of the committee and the COT for which a permit Is deemed to have
for toxicity but are not normally hazardous ranking minority member for their Ca- bOefl Issued under subsection (a) of this sec-
due to LgnltabWty. corrosiilty. reactivity, or operation and assistance In this en-
acutely hazardous. For these wastes. the .• -. . • “(I l) such used oil is not mixed by the gao-
concern is that the normally acidic condi- I yield back the balance of my time. erator with other types of hazardous wastes
and
tiona In a disposal unit receivlnx both organ- The CHAIRMAN pro tesupore. The tire generator maintains such resmdc
Ic and inorganic wastes could ca questicm is on the amendment offered such used oil. Including r .rd. .
of heary metals. Under monoful standards,
however, eligible wastes would be managed by the gentleman from Michigan (M i ’. of agreements or other arrangements for de-
to prevent t rnt rt with potential acid-pro- T rTwa). - - . - livery of such used oil to any recycling Is.
ducing wastes or conditions. mis would - - The amendment was agreed to. cility referred to In clause (IKI). as the Ad-
amoznpllshed through a net of separate I JIJIIC*Z. co vIus A O— nilrustuatcr deems nev zy to protect
monofill standards that would take into ac- The CH.AmMAN pro tempole. The ‘ ““ “ “ health and environment.
count the waste tha ictensties arid technical committee amendment on “(3) The regulations under this subsection
regarding the Dansportatlon of used oil
f -
An important waste rtermiic would page 48 In sectIon 21 Is also adOpted, which is exempt under paragraph (1) shall
be that of low organic content. m i . Without objection. ‘ require the transporters of such used oil to
tional factors may Include lomi geology, soil There was no objection. - - &i ver such used oil to a facility which has
type, hydrology, annual yalnZaU , and rain- The test of the committee amend- a permit under section 3005 of this subtitle
fall acidity. For example, the acidity of locel merit Is as follows: . or which Is deemed to have a permit under
mini all percolating through an inorganic j line 0. s 1ke “22” arui Insert subsection (d) of this section. The Ate,yInt .
waste may eventually, If the facility Is not -a.. • •• trator shall also establish other standards
‘properly designed, result In an increased for such transporters as may be necessary to
mobility of The CHAIRMAN YO t POI ’C. protect bwnan health and the envnunmeriL
— Clerk will read. ‘(4) The iegulations under this su .lmi
A nv r so H.R. 2887 Omaza aw Ma. The Clerk read as follows: - . ardthg the owner-s arid operators of faeth-
KLItACnemT or uma on. - ties whIch recycle used oil which Is exempt
Page 4B. in Hoe 12. after “(1)” insert “(A)”. Ssu22. (a) Iii OxamaL—Section 3012 e- under paragrpah (1) may include require-
Page 48, after line 17, Insert: ‘(B) ‘The restrictions on recycled oil) is ments respecting any of the matters listed
double-liner requirement set forth In sub. ended by Inserting ‘ta) Xx OzxmA3 —” In section 3004(a) and may vary a dbsg to
paragraph (A) may be valved by the Admin’ gt ’ ‘30L2 ,” and by bIt g the f g wheth ’ the facility is permitted under mc’
istralor for any monofill, pronded tbau • end theseoL Don 3005Cc) or deemed to have a mfl
(I) such monofill contains only bazard ‘(b) Inor ’zca’rzon under subsection (d) of this section, At a
wastes from foundry furn on. as n a IoDs wsses—l4ot rnI i the £dmbssitr tor shall ectablint
Da Is or metal casting molding mod, twelve months after the date of the enact- such standards for used oil recycled by
(II) mcii wastes do not contain consUtu- , hi . subsecUon, Use Administrator being inn-ned for energy recovery or by
enta which would render the wastes hazard, shall propose whether to list or Identify being applied to the land as the Administra-
ons for reasons other than the toxicity used a mobile and truth a.-’ - u lor determines axe necessary to proi
chaa er1s1ies . ‘ • ‘ bsmedous waste wider ecUon $001. Not ‘ ““ “
(lii) m 0011 mefta the i reai*e - later than twenty.four months alter such “Cd) Prxin’s.”(l) The owner or operator
mania as are applicable In — -I of date of enactment, the Administrator shall of a facility which recycles used oil which is
waiver under Section 30v5(hKS).”. •‘ make a One] detrrnihmtion whether to list exempt wider subsection (c xl ). shall be
btr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. WIfl or IdenUfy used automobile arid thick deemed to have a permit under this subaeo-
the gentleman yield? • erankcase oil and other used oil as hazard’ tion for all such treatment Os’ recycling (and
Mr. TR.AXL. . I yield to the gentle- pus wastes under 3001. artY a OClkted tank or omlainer storage) i
man from New Jersey . •. -. - - (e) V On. Wwror Is Itseymsu.—(1) mdi owner and operator comply with stand’
Mr. ILORIO, Mr. fresa , the J standards promulgated under section ards promulgated by the Administrator
gentleman’s amendment provides 1001(6). 3002. 5003. and 5004 of this subtitle under subsection (cX4) of this section: -
limited waiver for a select universe shall zot apply to used oil Identified or except that the Administrator may require
listed as a hazardous waste tinder ge 4nn . such owners and operators to obtain an bull-
monoftils. These znonofLlls must coo- ‘ .vldual permit under sectIon 300 5 (e) U he de-
tain only certain wastes and the con- “ '(2)C&) In the case of vised ofl which is lermines that sri Individual permit Is neom-
gtltuents of the waste must not ‘ I D- exempt under paragraph (1). not later than em’y to protect human health arid the envl-
elude chemicals which would render twenty-tour months after the date of the Soninent,
the waste hazardous for reasons other enactment of this subsection, the A’i nI”I ’ “(2) NotwIthstanding any other provision
than the EP characteristic, This wIll tralor shall promulgate such standards of law, any owner or operator of a facility
require an appendix VIII screening under this subsection- regarding the genera- which recycles used oil which Is exempt
d an analysis similar to the delisting Don, transportation, and recycling of such under subsection (cxl) shall not be required
IalFDS un am 1ICCI mad nil as may be necessary to protect to obtain a permit under section 3008e.
health and the environment. Xx pro- with re to .cntt used oO until the Ad.
af the bill. The monofills must £l _____ such regulations with t jv t $0 ministrator has promulgated standarde
ualI1y lot’ the waives’ provisIons of generators, the Administrator shall take under subsection (eX4) of this uectme ie
section 3005(h)($), , I nto “unt the of fact of such regulal. garding the rucycinig of siwh
-------
Nouembø 198..?
119 18e
M a . PJEAI DASC and
BU etmnged thefr votes from
• e- 10
Messm. DWARI of AlaI ma.
BLA PORT . LEWIS Of
llfornIa. L 1VIWGSTQN. N 1SON
of Flortd& and MADIGAN changed
• their votes from “ma” to aye.”
So the amendment was agreed In.
The aestdt of the ante was an-
nounced is above recorded.
D1 .
Mr. TAVZDJ. Mr. C?mlrnisn , I ast
unani.rnous consent to return to aec—
Hon 21 for the purpose of offering $
flOnCOntro ersial ‘F” ’— nt .
The CHAIRMAN VTO tempose.
there obJection to the request of the
gentleman from Lo -’ ?
TberewsanoobJe on - -
Ollfl ST UL TA
• Mr. TAII2IPJ. Mr.. ChaAman. I
an aiuenthvont.
- TheC1erkreada.sP flows: -
.Amen en& offered to’ Mi. TA U1F
Bzc. 21. Se âon 3004 is an nded W laie*
big the tolomng at Use md thereof:
(k) Mi m m as — von csm
r*ci non.- •. -
(11(A) P oe,t as , .. . JJ .AJ sub nrsgmp
(B). th hx f ill or serf sos lmpoun oei
for srt*ti an application for a pe lt wider
section O5 t) Is r Ired hI ’ the Adnilnse.
trator af&er the date of Ihe en r i t of
the dom Waste Control t 1orvene
Act of hisS l1 be req ured (as a tiuoe
of receh ’ g sech perrM to be double lined
end to Monitor gleund aster. -.
(B) With t’e .pect to c,.cti landfill or sur•
fa Icpoiindmrnt cor.te.inhig those solid
castes ashiest to the study ieOwrtd under
section 3052 ff1. (n). or (p1 id ahich land-
1W or serfaer 1mpouXme becomm sub.
ject to segtdataOn lasder ls subchanter.
ilands pr nuIgsted mder subsection (A)
- for such 1a iy absO the meidter
of cratist waler aid h other ste.nl .
aids as the £dmin &raLor inky defrrrnin.
sie nose ry to ass -e the proleclion of
human health and the en irennent and
Mr. TAUZIN (during the readingi.
Mr. Chairmen. I ask unanimous con-
lent that the amendment be omsid-
eied rend and prwited In the
Ranoan. • -
The CHAIRMAN pro tempoi-e. Is
there thjection to the request of the
gentlenmrt from Loutilarm? -.
• Their was no objection.
• Mr. TA1 I1. Mr. rman, the
ainen en1 chich I of ler today cor-
rects in oversight In sectIon 21 .1 H.R.
2867. wtdeh establishes certain design
and performance gandards. As writ-
ten. .eelion 21 requires that new per-
mitted or reper tted landfills and
gurfme bnpoWi VH1s Taneiving a baa-
ardous waste be double ned. In addi-
tion to requiring ground water mont-
toting. When this requirement was
agreed to in the * ergy and
meree Committee, on which I sin
prhtleged to sit, the potential Implica.
lions of the double lining reqinrement
to the American utility and miniag In-
dustry—with its massive cmotmts of
‘al combustion byproducts and waste
:k—were not side.
As my colleagnec map recall, the
80 • “ h ta so the Solid Waste
CONGRESSIONAl. RECORD — HOUSE
fli iosa2 * (at section 3001(bXS)(a)
U) and Eli )) deferred any hamrdous
waSte regulatory co erage of coal com-
bustion wastes and mining and miner-
.1 processIng waste (solid wastes from
the eflraetioa. and proceusii* of ores
minerals, phosphate rock., and
an’erburden fromi uranium mining)
intil completion 01 EPA studies man.
dated under sections 8002 (f), to), and
). These an eadaients were adopted
because It was generally acknowledged
that there Is an hwulfieient basis br
declaring ‘coal combustion wastes and
mine wastes hazardous absent further
study. The EPA studies are not en•
pected to be completed until about On.
tober 1984.
Second. solid wastes from snfncng
and mineral processing are, in corn-
parison to other Industrial wastes, of
enormous volume and generally of
hewer Io,dclty, r g to the Omoe
of Technology Ameasment Study.
Mining and mineral processing wastes
are primarily the crushed and ruu-
kr rock remaining after the reniova)
of the minerals. l ii a typical year. ac-
cording to the Azaer _n Mining o-
gress (AMC), approi ately 1.75 bil-
hon tans of waste rock. t. iltngs , and
dig iso produced, to com ison Ia
other Industries’ estftnated 40 million
a.nnual tom of regulated hazardous
wastes. The Mining Congress also esti-
mates that a typkai underground
mine prodnmng 58.000 tons of mineral
concentrate removes between 5,000
and 6,00 tons of rock a day. Prom
this, 150 to 200 tons of mineral concen-
trate Is produced. Similarly, a typical
surface mine removes 190.000 tons of
rock per day.
Given that the mineral eantent of
ore can be as low as lean than 1. per-
cent of the ore, you have got a lot of
ground rock to dump in a surface hn ’
poundment that may cover an area CS
300 to 300 or more acres over the life
of a mine. These disposal areas are
nec i1Iy close to the mining and
milling faclhitles and frequently in
rough terrain, unlike the much sma1l
er sites that can be selected for other
types of industrial landfills. In addi-
tion. mine intes vary li-un site to site
In terms of the geology of the ore, the
bydrotogy of the area, and climate. In
short ft win be Lmposs8le to deter-
mine whether mining and mineral
promsidng wastes present any threat
to the einironment until the EPA
study is completed next year.
We amply did mat consider the 15
tee. and Its clear that the sheet
volume of this waste ore plus the gen-
emily rough terrain near mines would
mahe a mandatory hnlng reqwiemeflt.
praetlcaL We also ought to wait for
the outcome of the JiA studies In this
area before we legislate any specific
design requirement. • -
Similarly, the b 3 y [ udflCt5 from the
combustion of coal and other fossil
fuels me of very birge volumes and 01
rel*Ivety low toxicity. Utilities mimi-
ally produce approahn-at.Iy 70 million
tuna of anal comb”.’ i byproducts
such as fly a . hettom . stag. and
flue gas emmzs ns - Out of necessity.
much of these byproducts mast be
b.ndfilled or placed i n surfece mi-
poundmei ’its. Winle the study as tl ’
wastes has not been submitted by EPA
to Congres . preliminary evaluations
by DOE, in a separate study, indicate
that, based on the EPA’s EP toxiclil
test for inorganic materials, the coal
wastes collected in their study are claa.
sifted as noubazardous. Therefore. ft
would be wiser to prorate EPA with
the flexibility ft needs to determine
the most appropriate. eflective. and
practicable apprmthi to contain the
particular hazardous waste. 11 It Is so
declared.
Consequently, this amendment re-
tains the current language in section
21 requiring double lining and ground
water monitoring m landfills and sur-
face Impoundments generally, but
adds a paragraph to deal with landfills
or surface Impoundments euntaining
anal combustion or mming and miner-
al processing wastes. Speeiucafly. If
the EPA study concludes that some of
these landfills a.ad bupoundments
should be regulated as hazardous
waste sites under subtitle C. the
amendment directs EPA to require
ground water monitoring and Issue
standards for the landfill or bnpocad-
scent, requiring appropriate and prac-
ticable measures that will protect
buman health and th en ironment.
This amendment has been reviewed
by the gentie,nsn from New Jersey
- IMr. FLosuo), the gentleman from
Ohio who sponsored section 21 in the
committee (Mr. EcxAItTI. and the gen-
tleman from Alabama (Mr. BEvzLW.
who sponsored the 1980 amend-
ments—ail of whom do not obiect to It.
In addition, the EPA has informed the
majority and minority staffs of the
Energy and Commerce Committee
that this is an acceptable and appio-
priate amendment.
I, therefore. urge Its adoption,
Mr. 110R10. Mr. Chairman, win
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO. I the gentleman
foi’ yielding..
Mr. Chairman. I SUpport the amend-
nient, and the majority supports the
amendment as desirable.
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentle-
ma
Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. LENT. Z thank the gentleman
for yieldi .
‘ Mr. Chairman. we have also we-
vfeaed the gentleman’s amendment on
this sale, and we support a.
Mr. TAUZUL I thank: the gentle-
The CHAIRMAN pro tempoi’e. The
iestmn Is an the amendnieet offered
by the g” ’ from Louesiane (Mr.
- -
-------
Novernber 1383
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. I ask
.inanlmous ennsent to return to UtIe
25 for the purpose of offering amend.
inenta.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
a z,es Drrs orrm sw
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. I o.ffes
amendments.
The Clerk read as !ollows -
Amendments otfered by Mr. Pi.mxo
Page 2. lIne 4 after “ (a)” insert •• flQ
TITLE.—” and In live 6 alter ‘(b)” insert
- -
Page 6 . lines IS and 19. strike out “Solid
Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1983”
substitute “Eamx es Wase arol
and Enforcement Act of 1983”.
Page 12. line 3. strIke out ‘section 3004”
and substitute “this section ”.
Page 15. lIne I. strike out ‘ subsecUon
(dXl) ” and substitute •ffl ppj .gye,pW
Page 17. line 10. strIke out the wor ‘W
promulgation”.
Page 18. alter line 2. insert
Ic) Coaawnows.—(i) In the first sentence
of section 3006(51(1) (as added by subSection
(b) of this section) before “ authortzed”
Insert : “Interim or Imalir.
(2 In the second sentence of section
3006gXD (as added by subsection (b) of
this section)—
(A) strike cut “esdorce” and substitute
carry out”;
(B) strike out ‘ IA) ”.
(C) insert 1in&Uy belcee ‘suthwbed”;
nd
CD) strike out ‘requirement. or” and ali
that folloss down through the end of pam.
graph (1) and substitute “requiremenL ”.
(31 In the first sentei of section
30064gX2) (is added by subsection (b) 01
this section). strike out “Is authonzed and
iub t1tute “has been granted interim or
final authorization”.
(4) In the second sentence of section
5006(g)(2) (as added by subsection Ib) of
this section) Insert ‘ahafl ’ after “The Ad.
Tnlnistr$tcT” and strike out enfor ent.
and substitute “admuustzstion”.
Page 27. tine 7. after (A)” Insert (i1Y .
Page 27. line B. sulks out ‘lour’. fl,e and
substitute “five.”.
Page 27. strike out lIne 12 through 13.
Page 21. lIne 16. stnke out ‘ (I I ) ” and sub-
stitute “(I) ”.
Page 27. strIke out line 11. and substitute
“graph (AKil)). or”
Page 27. line 20. strike out “(lii)” and sub.
atitute “(II) ”. -
Page 29. lines 21 and 22. strike out ‘inter-
est” and substitute “interests.
Page 34. line 22. insert a coma “bandling ’.
Page 44. line 10. strike out “such date of
enactment” and nibstftnie of
submission”.
Ps -ge 44. beg ’” 1 ”f In line 13, strike out
grsnung and all that follows down to the
period in lIne 14 and ‘ -“tn sucb dite
.1 enactment”.
Page 52. lIne 23. strike out 1007” and sub-
stitute “7006”.
Mr. FLORIO (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman. I ask unanmious con-
sent that the amendments be consid.
•red as read and printed In the
Rrconn.
The CHAIRMAN pro teinpore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There g -
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
Mr. PLORZO. Mr. Cha manS these
axe purely t’chnlcal amendments
which are a uiesced In by the minor-
fly. •— -
Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. PWRIO. I will be happy to
yield to the gentleman from New
Vork. .
Mr. L T. I thank the gentlenisn
Sor yielding.
- Mr. Chairman, these ere technical
*mendments, the nnncelty staff has
one over them, and they are appro-
pr ste amendments.
The CHAIRMAN pm ternpore. The
question Is on the amendments offered
by the gent1i ’i -ni n from New Jersey
____ (Mr. FL0LI0).
‘rIte am” 4 ”ts wese agreed to. -
i] 1830 -.
Mr. WORTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
(Mr. WORTLEY asked azid was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. WORTLEY. Mr. Chairman. I
rise In support of the F rdous
Waste Control and foreement Act.
KR. 2667. because It Is a balanced bill
that offers a chance to assist our Na-
tion’s small business community while
Insuring a high level of environmental
protection for the American people.
The measure reauthorizes the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act
and substantially strengthens It in a
number of important areas. It provides
Important new safeguards for human
health and the environment, Including
a ban on most toxic wastes such as at-
aenic and cyanide; a ban on the under-
ground Injection of hazardous wastes
into or above underground sources of
drinking water; and a prohibition on
the disposal of bulk liquids in landfilLs.
an extremely dangerous practice. In
‘addition, the bill requires the EPA to
study specified hazardous wastes to
determine whether they should be
banned entirely from land disposal. It
Is incredible 1 1gw his ooimtl7 has per-
mitted hazardous wsstesjo be dumped
without being checked.
‘The bill Is lair to smaU business be-
cause It provides them sufficient time
to become aware of the new regu]a-
lions and comply with those regula-
tions before being forced to satisfy
large generator regulations. As we all
know, the small business person does
lint have the extensive manpower. !C
sources or time to even attempt to
comply with large generator regula-
tions. This bill takes the reasonable
approacti, In addition, the 11111 calls on
the EPA to engage in education activi-
ties that wall help small quantity gen-
erators learn what their new responsi
bilities are.
Again. I would just like to say that
an balance this is a worthwhile bill
that takes the proper action to insure
a clean and safe envfr ment and pro-
tect our small business community.
• Mr. KOLTflL. Mr. Chairman, the
a7ardmM Waste Conirni and } t-
119 181
fn ement Act of 1933 (H.R. 2867) ac-
cornplishes several very important ob-
jectives which Improve upon the provi-
ifons in the Resource ConservaUon
and Kecovery Act of 1976 (RCRA).
Most important Is the recognition by
supporters of this bill, that land dis-
posal of hazardous waste poses a per-
manent threat to public health and
the environment through ground
water contamination, If such disposal
goes unregulated. The bill addresses
the ground water contamination luue
through provisions designed to reduce
sonety’s reliance on land dis ..osal
rnethod -’ by encouraging the use of al-
ternathc technologies such as pre-
treatment to stabilize the waste or in-
cineration.
The ground water problem Is also
addressed through the extension of
RCRA coverage to small quantity gen-
erators. These generators formerly
were permitted to dispose of their
waste into sanitary landfills or pubuc-
ly owned treatment facilities. These
facilities were not designed to handle
hazardous waste or heavy metals.
Further the bill includes a provision
which severely limits the underground
Injection of hazardous waste. It was
the concern of Congress that this in-
jection was occurring either Into or
above underground sources of drink-
lug water.
Although this bill will cause some
hardship to small Quantity generators,
It also has the support of some memO
bers of this group, such as the Neigh-
borhood Cleaners Association, repre-
senting 10.000 dry cleaning a jdahlish-
ments nationwide.
Congress In H.R .. 2867 has recog-
nized that in the case of hazardous
waste. It is less costly for society to
prevent environmental contamination
than It is to clean up the problems
after the zIern ge is done. Thus the
prevention approach avoids placing
further burdens on the Superfund
program. -
The prevention approach also recog-
nizes that in some cases of ground
water contamination, the effect Is per-
suanent and It Is prohibitive l y expen-
sive to remove the toxic contaminants
where the water is used as a drinking
water supply. In this country about 50
percent of the population relies on
ground water for their drinking water
aourec. a statistic which unde
the tu t need for ‘protection of
ground water quality through the pre-
vention of ground water conts-mina,
.t.lon .
• This problem Is of particular con-
to me as a Pennsylvania where
over 30 percent of the population
relies on ground water for their drink-
ing water. In my district we are also
working on the Nation’s third aorst
hazardous waste site: The Ri-urn
Lagoon. This site Is a potential threat
to the health of the people living
nearby and perhaps Is more of .
threat to people living downstream of
the site, With Ute stringent provin
-------
4 -rUZ L / - t’ D . —‘)
GROUND WATER MONITORING
SEC. 203. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended
by adding the following new subsection after subsection to) thereof:
“(p) GROUND WATER MoNrroaING.—The standards under this sec-
tion concerning ground water monitonng which are applicable to
surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment units, and land-
fills shall apply to such a facility whether or not—
“(1) the facility is located above the seasonal high water table;
H. R. 2867—15
“(2) two liners and a leachate collection system have been
installed at the facility; or
“(3) the owner or operator inspects the liner (or liners) which
has been installed at the facility.
This subsection shall not be construed to affect other exemptions or
waivers from such standards provided in regulations in effect on the
date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 or as may be provided in revisions to those regulations, to
the extent consistent with this subsection. The Administrator is
authorized on a case-by-case basis to exempt from ground water
monitoring requirements under this section (including subsection
(0)) any engineered structure which the Administrator finds does not
receive or contain liquid waste (nor waste containing free liquids), is
designed and operated to exclude liquid from precipitation or other
runoff, utilizes multiple leak detection systems within the outer
layer of containment, and provides for continuing operation and
maintenance of these leak detection systems during the operating
period, closure, and the period required for post.closure monitoring
and for which the Administrator concludes on the basis of such
findings that there is a reasonable certainty hazardous constituents
will not migrate beyond the outer layer of containment prior to the
end of the period required for post.closure monitoring.”.
-------
.r,We/, COe4JY’ r1, p O
SECTION 203—GROUNDWATER MONITORING
House bill.—No provision.
Senate amendment—The Senate amendment provides that Sec-
tion 3004 standards concerning ground water monitoring at land-
fills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and land treatment facili-
ties shall apply whether or not: (1) the facility is located above the
seasonal high water table; (2) two liners and a leachate collection
system have been installed; or (3) the liners are inspected. EPA
may, in certain limited circumstances, exempt an engineered struc-
tured from ground water monitoring requirements when the
agency finds they would be unnecessary.
Conference substitute.—The Conference substitute is the same as
the Senate amendment.
-------
“(
GROUND WATER MONITORING
The reported bill adds to section 3004 of the Act a new subsection
(1), which ends certain exceptions from the requirements that haz-
ardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities must moni-
tor ground water near the facility to detect any releases of hazard-
ous constituents from the facilities. New subsection 3004(1) requires
that the ground water monitoring requirements must be complied
with whether or not: a facility is located entirely above the season-
al high water table; the facility has two liners and a leachate col-
lection system; or the facility’s liner (or liners) are periodically in-
spected.
This section has the effect of nullifying several portions of the
regulations adopted by the Agency under section 3004. Current reg-
ulations (40 C.F.R. 264.222) exempt a surface impoundment from
the ground water monitoring requirement if certain conditions are
met, principally that the impoundment is located entirely above
the seasonal high water table and has two liners. A similar exemp-
tion is provided for waste piles (40 C.F.R. 264.252), and for landfills
(40 C.F.R. 264.802). These exemptions, on their face, do not meet
subtitle C’s basic requirement of protecting human health and the
environment. There is evidence that a leak could occur even from a
double-lined disposal facility, and that hazardous constituents can
migrate into ground water even if the facility is located entirely
above the seasonal high water table. Similarly, current regulations
(40 C.F.R. 264.253) exempt a waste pile from the ground water mon-
itormg requirements if it meets certain conditions, principally that
the waste pile is located above the seasonal high water table, has a
liner, and the wastes are periodically removed and the liner is in-
spected for cracks. Again, this exemption allows situations to exist
that would not be protective of human health and the environ-
ment. For example, if an inspection shows a liner is cracked, the
owner or operator is required only to repair the crack, not to detect
and clean up any releases that may have occurred before the crack
was discovered.
The amendment made by this section of the bill does not make
any changes to the Agency’s regulations concerning ground water
monitoring standards other then deleting the indicated exemptions.
The provision does not affect other exemptions from the standards.
For example, the regulations provide that the owner or operator
need not monitor ground water if the Regional Administrator finds
“there is no potential for migration of liquid from a regulated unit
to the uppermost aquifer during the active life of the unregulated
unit (including the closure period) and the post-closure care
period”. This exemption is not affected by the bill.
The amendment also does not limit the Agency’s authority to
revise the ground water monitoring regulations now in effect; it
merely provides that whatever regulations are or will be in effect
shall apply to facilities that, because of the conditions described in
the bill, are now exempted from ground water monitoring require-
ments.
-------
c ic - ( P’i ’> _ )
GROUND WATER MONITORiNG
SEC. 26. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act is amended by adding the following new subsection:
“(1) GROUND WATER MONITORING.—The 8tandards
under this section concerning ground water monitoring
which are applicable to surface impoundments, waste piles,
land treatment units, and landfills shall apply to such a fa-
cility whether or not—
“(1) the facility is located above the seasonal high
waler table;
“(2) two liners and a leachate collection system
have been installed at the facility; or
“(3) the owner or operator inspects the liner (or
liners) which has been installed at the facility. This
subsection shall not be construed to affect other exemp-
tions or waivers from such standards provided in regu-
lations in effect on the date of enactment of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984 or as may
be provided in revisions to those regulations, to the
extent consistent with this subsection. The Administra-
tor is authorized on a case-by-case basis to exempt
HR 2867 EAS
c 3
-------
77
from ground water monitoring requirements under this
section (including subsection (f)) any engineered struc-
ture which the Administrator finds does not receive or
contain liquid waste (nor waste containing free liq-
uid.s), is designed and cvperaled to exclude liquid from
precipitation or other runoff, utilizes multiple leak de-
tection systems within the outer layer of containment,
and provides for continuing operation and maintenance
of these leak detection systems during the operating
period, closure, and the period required for post-closure
monitoring and for which the Administrator concludes
on the basis of such findings that there is a reasonable
certainty hazardous constituents will not migrate
beyond the outer layer of containment prior to the end
of the period required for post-closure monitoring. “.
-------
r
5 GROUND WATER MONITORiNG
6 SEc. 25. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
7 is amended by adding the following new subsection:
8 “(1) GROUND WATER MONITORING.—The standards
9 under this section concerning ground water monitoring which
10 are applicable to surface impoundments, waste piles, land
11 treatment units, and landfills shall apply to such a facility
12 whether or not—
13 “(1) the facility is located above the seasonal high
14 water table;
15 “(2) two liners and a leachate collection system
16 have been installed at the facility; or
17 “(3) the owner or operator inspects the liner (or
18 liners) which has been installed at the facility. “.
-------
October 5, 1984
IMMINENT hAZARD AND CITIZEN SUITS
Section 7003 of RCRA currently au-
thorizes suit to immediately restrain
any person contributing to handling,
storage, treatment, transportation, or
disposal of any solid waste or hazard-
ous waste that may present an immi-
nent and substantial endangerment to
health or the environment. Though
the Issue of Inactive waste sites Is not
addressed explicity in section 7D03, the
Congress, most courts and every ad-
ministration which has administered
the act has contrued the section to
apply to such sites. Notwithstarfding
an opinion for the U.S. Court of Ap-
peals for the Third Circuit and several
district court decisions upholding the
Government’s position, some courts
have ruled to the contrary. The ad-
ministration testified that clarifying
language amending section 7003 would
be helpful.
This bill will amend section 7003 to
affirm that which is already provided
for under existing law. It will clarify
that section 7003 authorizes suits con-
cerned with Inactive sites which may
present an Imminent and substantial
endangerment.
Although section ¶003 of RCRA au-
thorizes the Administrator to sue to
abate an endangerment. whenever the
past or present handling, storage,
treatment, transportation, or disposal
of any solid or hazardous waste may
present on imminent and substantial
endangerment to health or the envi-
ronment, we now know from the Su-
perfund experience that the number
of potential problem sites exceeds the
Government’s ability to take action
each time such action is warrant,cd.
The problem is primarily one of inad-
equate resources.
Therefore, ILR. 2867 will authorize
citizens to bring suit against those who
have, contributed or are contributing
to a situation which may present an
Imminent and substantial endanger-
ment. to health or the environment. To
prevent such suits from intefering
with Government enforcement ac-
tions, a number of conditions are
placed on the authority to bring such
suits.
SUBTITLE D IMPROVEMENTS
Even with the phaseout of the small
qua tlty generator exemption, sizable
amounts of hazardous inat.erials from
such generators, household wastes.
and illegal dumping are disposed of in
municipal landfills. Current criteria
for sanitary landfills are inadequate to
deal with these facts. In addition.
there is a need to provide for better
implementation of the open dumping
ban and upgraded criteria for sanitary
landfills.
As a result of this bifl, EPA must
rei ise criteria for sanitary landfills
and for determining which practices
constitute open dumping, taking into
account potential for such facilities re-
ceiving hazardous wa,cte in household
wastes or from illegal dumping.
Within 42 months, States must estab-
lish and enforce a permit piogram or
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
other system to assure that sanitary
landfills which may receive hazardous
wastes comply with upgraded criteria.
If States do not adopt such a program,
EPA shall use the enforcement au-
thority in sections 3007 and 3008 to en-
force the ban on open dumps.
AIR EMISSIONS FROM LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Studies of hazardous waste surface
impoundments and landfills report
that significant quantities of hazard-
ous constituents in the wastes may be
emitted into the air, Proposals to regu-
late emissions from hazardous waste
facilities have been published on sev-
ei-al occasions since passage of RCRA
In 1976. Final regulations have never
been Issued. The Agency also has au-
thority to regulate emissions of haz-
ardous air pollutants under the Clean
Air Act, but its performance under
that Act has been appallingly slow,
A provision of HR. 2867 requires
EPA to promulgate regulations for the
monitoring and control of air emis-
sions from hazardous waste facilities
as may be necessary to protect human
health and the environment.
GROUND WATER MONiTORING
Current EPA regulations allow waste
piles, landfills, and surface Impound-
ments that satisfy certain conditions
to claim an exemption from the
ground water monitoring requirements
that are designed to detect any re-
leases of hazardous constituents from
the facilities. The conditions for ex-
emptions, on their face, do not meet
subtitle C’s basic requiremcnt of pro-
tecting human health and the environ-
ment. There is evidence, for example,
that a leak could occur even from a
double-lined disposal facility, and that.
hazardous constituents can miglate
into ground water even if the facility
is located entirely above the seasonal
high water table. Similarly, if an in-
spectioli shows a liner is cracked, the
owner or operator is required only to
repair the crack, not to detect arid
clean up any releases that may have
occurred before the crack was discov-
ered.
The bill will require that the act’s
ground water monitoring requirements
be completed with whether or not a
facility is located entirely above the
seasonal high water table, the facility
has two liners and a leachate collec-
tion system, or the facilitys liner—or
liners—are periodically inspected. This
section has the effect of nullifying sev-
eral portions of EPA’s regulations. It
does not make any changes to the
Agency’s regulations concerning
ground Water monitoring standards
other than deleting the indicated cx-
eniptions.
WASTE MINIMIZATION
Current laws emphasize the need to
pioperly treat, store, and dispose of
hazardous wa-ctcs. While this contin-
ues to be a primary clement of RCRA
and other pollution control laws, addi-
tional emphasis must be directed
toward first, minimizing the genera-
tion of hazardous wastes and second.
S 13821
utilizing the best treatment, storage,
and disposal techniques for each
waste.
A statement of national policy will
be added to the act as well as a i-c-
quirement that hazardous waste gen-
•erators certify that they have pro-
grams to reduce the amount and toxic-
ity of their waste and that they are
using methods to minimize the threat
that their wastes pose to human
health and the environment.
DEFINITION OP NEATING OIL IN UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANK PROVISION -
The underground storage tanks that
al-c covered by this bill do not include
underground storage tanks used for
storing heating oil for consumptive
use on the premises where stored.
There are many different grades of
heating oil used, Including No. 2. No. 4,
and No. 6. The particular type of heat-
ing oil used generally depends upon
the type and size of the furnace In
which it Is burned. The reference to
heating oil cited above includes all of
these grades of heating oil, so long as
the tank is used for storing such heat-
ing oil for consumptive use on the
premises where stored.
OTHER ISSUES
Several other issues have been con-
sidered in the course of developing
H.R. 2867 and merit. comment. These
include the Issues of permitting of
mobile treatment units: the distinction
between onsite and of fsite facilities:
direct. action provisions of Superfund;
and health asscssments.
PEflMr rING OF MOBILE TREATMENT UNITS
The EPA, in order to fulfill its legis-
lative mandate, should continually be
looking at innovative, advanced tech-
nological methods to effectively and
safely treat and handle hazardous
wastes. Legislative and regulatory mi.
tiati es are necessary to discourage
the use of landfills and land disposal
genei-aily as a disposal option of first
resort.
For many waste generators, the
availability of mobil treatment units
would make proper waste handling
and treatment economically feasible
and remove the growing financial in-
centive for cutting corners or for mid-
night dumping. Clearly, the iong.term
tightening of EPA’s current small gen-
erators exemption will mean a signifi-
cant increase in the number of regu-
lated facilities which could handle
their wastes more safely and effective-
ly through use of mobile treatment
technology—either through a circuit
rider approach where the unit periodi-
cally visited a facility—or where a unit
periodically visited a satellite treat-
ment ai-ea where waste from several
firms was aggregated and stored pend-
ing treatment.
EPA currently has legislative au-
thority to develop a permit proiedure
for mobile treatment units, however.
current permit regulations, as promul-
gated, have stymied the development
of MTU technology. I have reviewed
the work completed in September 1083
J i.
CJuffL&
c 3
-------
July 25, 1984
gated under paragraph 1) of this subsec-
Lion.”
tENT No. 3409
(Purpose: To clarify appheatlon of require-
ment to conduct ground water monitor-
ingi
Proposed by Mr. CIL %FEE (for hln’self
and Ser.ators EexTsar . S .srpo , R NDOLPH,
and MITcIU1L).
On page 86, line 18, strike the quotation
marks arid final peilod. and after line 18
insert the followmg
“This subsection shall not be construed to
affect other exemptions or waivers from
such standards provided in regulations In
effect on the date of enactm nI. of the Solid
Wa.ste Disposal Act Amendments of 1934 or
as may be pros ided in reri.iloris to those reg•
ulations, to the e ter.t con.sistent with this
subsection. The Administrator is authorized
on a ea.’e-by-cace basis to exempt from
ground aster monitoring reqtilrement.s
under this sectIon (In”lur ng subsi-ction (f))
any engineered structure a nith the Admin-
istrator finds does not receive or contain
liquid wa,cte (nor aaste containing free liq-
uids), is designed and operated to exclude
liquid frcm precipitat ion or other runoff.
utilizes multiple leak detection systems
aithiti th.’ miter layer of containment, and
provides for cor.L r.uing operation and main-
t,enance of these leak detection systems
during the operating period, closure, and
the period required for post-closure moni-
tonng and for which the Administrator con-
chides on the basis of such findings that
there is a reasonable certainty hazardous
constituents will not migrate beyond the
outer layer of containment prior to the end
of the period required for post.closure moni
toring.”
Aaiaensiirr No. 3409
(Purpose: To clarify acope of new section
300-1(e) ban on certain welts)
Proposed by Mr. CRAF E (for hirnsell
and Senators STArFORO, Rqjcoou ’ai. and
MITCHELL).
RSINJECTION OF TRESTED GROUNfl WF*T I
On page 44, lIne 23. after “a at er :’ insert
the following: “This subseci:on shall not
apply to the injection of contam:nated
ground a ater Into the aquifer from a hich it
was withdiawn. if such Injection is a re-
sponse action taken under section 104 or 106
of the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse. CompensatIon and Liability Act of
1910 or part of Corrective action required
under this title intended to clean up such
contamination and such contaminated
ground water is treated to substantially
reduce hazardous constituents prior to such
Injection.”.
AML.ThMzII’r No. 3409
(Purpose: To clarify authority of Adminis-
trator to modify application of cettain re-
quirements to some mining wastes)
Proposed by Mr. CHAFEE Ifor hiipself
and Senators Siaspsoia and RAaeou’aO
MINIRC WASTE AM OMEN?
On page 48. beglnn’iag on line 18 through
line 2 on pcge 49, strike the sentence lolLa-
Ing “the en-. ironenent.”.
At the end of 8. 757, add the foliow:ng
new section:
“Sxc. - Section 3004 of the Solid V.’as!e
Dispn al et is arr ended L’i addang at the
end ti’treof tli foliow ng ne suc c’ .ion:
.i ) If solid waste t’o’n U-c e ’raeuGn,
bent’f ‘at ion or pro cssing of o.es a:id na n-
ernls, induding phosphate ruck and over-
bu:sien from the mining of urantura ore, is
sub uect to regulation under this subtitle, the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
Administrator Is authorIzed to modify the
requirements of subsections (b), (f)(1)
(oU.er t’ an the requirement for ground
water monitoring), and (g), in the case of
landfills or surface Imp9unctment .s receiving
suuh soiid waste. to take into account the
speci . i characteristics of such wastes, the
pracLi-al dtf iculturs associated w Lh imple-
menta: oi of such requirements, and site-
specific characteristics, Ineluoing but not
ilr.iltea to the climate, geology. hydrology
and soil chemistry at the s!te. so long as
such niod:f:ed requIrements ass.ire protec-
tion of human health and the em Iron-
ment.’.”
AMoatzx’r No. 3409
(Purpose: To assure that the Solid Waste
Disposal Act Amendments of 1 34 do not
affect, modify, or amend the Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of
19 8. as amended)
Proposed by Mr CItA!tE (for hImself
and Senator Sm srsoN).
Amend S. 757 by addiiig the following new
section:
“URANIUM M CLI, TAILINGS
“Szc. ,Nothing in the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act Amendments of 1984 shall be con-
strjed to affect, modify, or a.-ner.d the Vra-
mum Mall Tailings Radiation Control Act of
1978. as amended.”.
AMENoimeer No. 3409
ipurpose: To establish minimum techziologi-
cal requirements for existing surface im-
poundinenta)
Proposed by Mr. ClIAFEE (for himself
and Ser.atnrs BEtITSEN. STAPPORD. RANOOLPU,
and MicrcIir .L).
Ott paae 49, after line 19, Insert the fol-
lowing:
(c)(l) S i’tlort 3005 cc) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act Is amended by inserting “(1)”
after ‘nterim Status. “, by rede ,ignptmg
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as subpara-
graphs (A), (B), and IC). and by adding the
followinj new paragraph:
“(2’A) Except as pro-.ided in subpara-
graph CI. each sni lace intpoui’di-wnt in ex-
isunee on the date of enactment of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act nendrnents of
1984 and qlialif )’ing br the authorization to
opet-ate wider paragraph (1) of this subsec-
tion, which—
“(i) does not have at least one liner, for
which there is no evidence that such liner is
leaxing, or
“(U) Is located in an area of vulnerable hy-
drogeology as defined in subparagraph (6)
or as dctei nined by ci-iverla or guidance for
the acceptable location of facilIties issued In
accordance with section 3004 .f),
shall not receive, store, or treat hazardous
we.ste after the dr.te four years after such
d4te of enactment unless such surface im-
poundment is in compliance w’tli the re-
quirenlenta of seciton 3004(f) wHich would
apply to such irnnoundcaent if it acre new.
For the p iruosea of clause ( I) of this subpar-
ag agh, the term ‘-liner” means a liner
meeting tr’e i equi: ements of regulations for
n a surface urpoundnsciita in effect as of
such date of enactment, arid that the sur-
face inipoundnierit La In compliance with
generally applicable ground water monitor-
in requirements for facilities with permits
uia er subsection Sc) of this section.
(B) The Administrator (or the State, In
the case o a St te wIth an authorized pro-
gram), after notice and opportunity for
comment, ma ’ moofy me reqiirements of
sL .bparagraph (A) br any surface Impound-
ment if. not later than 24 r. or.ths afLer the
date of er%acLment. of the Solid Waste Dis-
possi Act Amendments of 1984. the owner
S 9173
or operator demonstrates that such surface
impoundments is located, designed and op-
erated so as to assure that there will be no
migration of any hazardous constitucnt into
ground water or surface aster at an . time
dur:ng the period hazardous a.isie remai’ie
in such surface impoundment Within 12
months ater the receipt of es demice submit-
ted under this subparagraph end not later
than 36 mnn ’i.s after a ,ich date ci er.’srt-
ment, the Ad:nlnistrator (or, II eppropriate,
the State’ shall advise such oa’ter or op.’ra-
t r as to whether and, if so, hor the re-
quirements of subparagraph (A) shall be
modified and applied to such surface im-
poundment.
“(C) Subparagraph (A) of this paragraph
shall not agpl to any surf a .e lmpour. mcnt
which (I) contains treated waste water
during the Sea ondary or tertiary phase of an
aggresclve biological treatment (r.t’iil y sub-
ject to a permit Issued under section 402 of
the Clean Water Act (or which hclds such
treated waste water after trestmens and
prior to discharge), (ii) is in complla.nce a
generally applicable ground water monitor-
lug requirements for facilities wIth permIts
under subsection Cc) of this section, arid (iii)
is part of a facility In eompllance with see-
tIDn 301bk2) of the Clean Water Act, or. in
the cs ’ e of a facility for which no eilluent.
guidelines required under section 304. o: (2)
of the Cean Water Act are In effect and no
permit under section 402a)( 1) of such Act
Implementing section 3OItb)(2) of such Act
has been Issued. I x part of a faci tty Ira com-
pliance with a p rmit under section 402 of
the Clean Water Act which Is achieving sig-
nificant degradation of toxic pollutants and
hazardous corutituents conraii’ed in the un-
treated wa te stream ann which baa identi-
fied those toxic pollutants and hassrdois
constituents In the untreated waste at, earn
to the appropaiate permitting authority.
The Aeminlstrator shall study a:ad report to
the Congress on the number, range 01 size.
(‘oflslrucflon, likelihood of hazar’lous con-
stituents migrating into ground water, arid
potential thre.tt to human health and the
environment of existing surface Impound-
ments excluded by this subparagraph from
the requirements of subparagraph (A). Sch
report shall address the need, feasIbility,
and estimated costs of subjecting su 1i es ist-
big surface impoundments to the require-
ments of subparagraph (A). In the ease of
any exist!ng suiface impoundment or class
of surface impoundments from which the
Administrator (or the State, in the case of a
State with an authorized program) deter-
mines hazardous constItuents are lir.ely to
migrate into ground water, the Administra-
tor (or. ii appropriate the State) is author-
teed to Impose such requirements as ma) be
necessary to protect human health and the
ernironment. inchidir.g the requirements of
Section 30t)4’fl which would appi to such
impoundments if they were new.
‘(D) ‘1 he owner or Operator of any surface
impoundment potentially subject to sub-
paragraph (A of this psiragra?h ‘aho hiss
reason to bJieve that on the basis of sub-
paragraph Ati) or (in or suibparagruri,n (C)
such surface lmpound.-iuent Is not required
to comply with the requtrements of sub-
paragraph (Al shall apply to the Aclm’ii’-
trator (or the State, in the case of a State
with an authorized prcgran ) not later than
24 months after the dale of enactment of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act Am -r r nts
of 1984 fur a determi’iation of the apn:pra-
bility of subparagraph (A) to st-en s r ’-e
inipoundnment. Such owner or operat ,r SIa ’h
protide esidence pertuient to su’i PcISit’n.
including evidence as to co’: ”L-e a:th
ground water monitoring requirt-rntnu and
all reasonably ascertainable etidenc’ on
-------
July 25, 1984
a precondition to land disposal. For wastes
with a high organic content, Incineration
should be required in lieu of land disposal.
ai:U iiiciiierator residues with small amounts
of Inorganic hazardous wastes may be land
disposed c ithout further treatment.
Determinations for treatment require.
ments prior to land disposal do not have to
be on a waste.by-wastc basis. The Adniinas.
trator is not required to cait for the sched-
ule established under paragraphs (4). (5).
and (6) of new sectIon 3004(b) to make de.
terminations for wastes cith similar con-
stituents. The Administrator may make ‘ge-
neric” determinations of appropriate levels
or methods of treatment for similar wastes.
cERTAIN LAND DISPOSAL PRACTICES
• Mr. JOHNSTON. My question con-
cerns the scope of paragraph (7) of the
land-disposal provisions as modified by
amendment 2798. For example, the
drycleaning industry has developed
new treatment technology and tech.
niques which reduce the perchloroeth-
ylene content of Its wastes below 2.8
percent. Preliminary testing Indicates
that leachate from such wastes con-
tains very little perc. Would paragraph
(7) be applicable to this type of treat.
ment?
• Mr. CHAFEE. Yes: one objective of
amended paragraph (7) is to give EPA
the discretion to authorize the land
disposal of v.astes which have been
treated. The focus of the amended lan-
guage is the protection of health and
the environment by diminishing toxic-
ity of wastes or reducing migration of
hazardous constituents In wastes.
Thus, if wastes treated as you describe
are of low toxicity or If leachate from
them contains safe levels of hazardous
constituents. EPA may. In its discre-
tion, promulgate regulations specily-
ing the cirumstances in hlch land
disposal is authorized. In considering
such questions. EPA will almost as-
suredly take into account whether vast
quantities or only small amounts of
such wastes are generated. I would an-
ticipate that EPA sill promptly deter-
mine whether such wastes meet the
criteria in paragraph (7) and then pro-
mulgate the necessary regulations
within the specified time. In making
this determination, EPA will certainly
use the best information available to it
at the time.•
AME 4DMENT TO CLABIFY APPI.!CATION OP RE-
QUIREMSNT TO CONDYCT GROUNI. WATER MON-
ITORiNG
This amendment will provide an IncentIve
for the de elopment of safer and more pro-
tective land disposal methods for hazardous
waste. It would do so b) giving the Adminis-
trator of EPA the authority, under cerizin
limited circumstances, to exempt facilities
from the groundcater monitoring require-
ment now included in S. 757.
The requirement for groundwater moni-
toring at con entional landfills, surface im.
poundments. and other treatment, storage
or disposal facilites as set forth In the Bill,
Is retain. This amendment would authorize
v.aiver of these requirements only when
EPA can find that they are unnecessary. In
order to make this finding, the Administra-
tor could haie to conclude that the facility
would, in essence, be designed to incorpo-
rate the functional equivalent of ground-
water monitoring cithin Its self-contained
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
structure. EPA could not make such a find.
Ing for a conventional land disposal facility.
A facility chlch could qualify for the ex-
emption under this amendment must first
of all be an engineered structure chich re-
cei es only waste that is in solid form, such
as contaminated soil or debris, or has been
solidified. A facility accepting liquid caste.
or caste containing free liquids, could be
disqualified from further consideration for
the exemption A qualifying structure could
also hate to be engineered to have Inner
and outer layers of containment enclosing
the caste.
The facility would also have to meet an
additional series of stringent protective
standards. It must be designed and operated
to keep out water from precipitation or run-
off. This means that the intrinsic engineer-
ing of the structure must keep cater acay
from the waste. A conventional clay or s n-
thetic cap would not be good enough. The
facility would also have to incorporate inter-
nal leak detection and leachate collection
systems. These systems, which would be
built into the structure at each internai con-
tainment layer could provide the functional
equivalent of groundwater monitoring. In
the unlikely event that any leachate did
form, the detection systems would signal
the operator before any leachate reached
the outer layer of containment..
An example of such a structure could be
an above grade concrete bunker or vault
within chich caste would be placed, totally
surrounded by multiple liners, and chich
would include internal leak detection sys.
tems above, beta cen, and below the internal
- liners. An above grade bunker can be de-
signed so that rainfall would run off the
structure acay from the caste. This would
be In contrast to traditional below grade
landfills where the rainwater can penetrate
through the surface above the waste and
move down through the waste, carrying
leachate to groundwater.
Finally, the Administrator could not
exempt any structure unless he was reason-
ably certain that no hazardous constituents
from the facility would get out of the struc-
ture and reach ground, groundwater. or sur-
face cater In other words, he would have to
be sure, under reasonably foreseeable cir-
cumstances, that the structure would safely
Contain the waste and its constituents.
Thus, the amendment does not give the
EPA Administrator unbridled discretion to
ignore the baste intent of the Bill. It does
give him the authority to exempt ground.
water monitoring when he finds that such
monitoring would be unnecessary or redun.
dazit. It also gives the hazardous waste dis-
posal industry an incentive to design facili-
ties which are inherently safer and more
protective.
AMENDMD T TO CLARITY SCOPE OF NEW SECTION
3004 El BAN ON CERTAIN WEI.LS
New Section 3004(e) as added by S. 751
could preclude the injection of ground
water contaminated cith hazardous caste
into or above formations containing under.
ground sources of drinking water even
a here such injection is part of a clean-up
action under the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation and Liabil.
ity Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or RCRA. This
amendment will clarify the intent of that
provision and give EPA the discretion to
allow the use of Class IV cells In certain
limited circumstances to conduct clean-up
operations
The Injection of hazardous waste into or
abo e drinking cater sources is an inherent-
ly dangerous disposal practice that poses an
unacceptable risk to human health and the
environment. This amendment does not
alter the intent that such injection facilities
S 9179
be properly cioi,ed In short order and that
new facilities not be allowed in the future.
While ce seek to establish a complete pro-
hibition on such injection as a disposal tech
nique, ce recognize the potential value of
such injection practices as an integral part
of some clcan up actions at hazardnus caste
sites. The pumping, treatment and re.injoc.
tion of already contaminated cater may be
the preferred removal or remedial tech
nique to assure adequate clean-up in a cost
effectise manner. We do not intend to bar
such injections chen they are en ironmen-
tall beneficial and conducted solely a,s a
means of clean-up, rather than as a form of
initial disposal. The prohibition, therefore.
is nOt Intended to eatend to those situations
chere injection Into or above drinking
cater sources is used as a method to clean-
up contaminated aquifiers at hazardous
caste sites and the clean-up plan has been
appro ed under the procedures establshed
under this Act or under the Comprehensi%e
En ironmental Response. Conipensat ion
and Liability Act.
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY AUTHORITY OF ADMIN-
IsTL TOil TO MODiFY APPLICATION OF CER-
TA1II REQUIREMENTS TO SOME MINiNG
WASTES
This amendment would modify ar
expand a pro islon of Section 6(a) of S 757.
as reported, concerning the authority of the
Administrator of EPA to modify certain re-
quirements that might become ppiicSble to
some mining castes under Subtitle C of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act..
The an-.endnient provides that, if certain
mining castes become subject to regulation
as hazardous castes, the Administrator of
EPA has the authority to modify the re-
quiremeni.s of new subsections (b), ((1(1).
and (g) of section 3004 regarduig land dis-
posal limitations, minimum technological
requirements for new landfills and surface
impoundments (other than the groundeater
monitoring requirement), and correctne
action for releases of hazardous caste, as
they appiy to landfills and surface impound-
ments receiving such mining wastes, to tal e
into account the special characteristics Ce 5.
high-volume, low-toxicity) of the mning
castes, the practical difficulties associated
with the implementation of such require-
ments. and various site-specific factors. The
modified requirements would continue to be
subject to and must Satisfy the law’s under-
lying requirement and ultimate standard
that RCRA regulations assure protection of
human health and the environment. PractI-
cal or economic considerations can only be
used to select among alternatlte require-
ments ahlch assure protectIon of human
health and the environment.
The jurpose of this amendment is simply
to assure that If the Administrator of EPA
decides to regulate mining wastes under
Subtitle C, he is not limited to the regula-
tory framework or Standards that are de%el-
oped under section 3004(b). (f(1. and (5)
for hazardous chemical wastes. The Corn.
mittee Report (at p. 28-29) includes a de-
scription of some mining castes arid some of
the reasons it may be inappropriate to sub.
ject them to the same requireme a hId-i
apply to other types of waste,
Retention of the requirement that protec-
tion of human health and the en ironment
be assured is not intended to in oke a spe-
cific technical standard of containment,
such as a “no migration” standard Such an
interpretation could In fact completely
frustrate the purpose of the amendment. In
this context the phrase is used in a broad,
over-archIng, nontechnical sense, a hich can
only be translated Into technical standards
-------
H 6510
(Mrs. LLOYD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her re-
—, arks.)
v1rs. LLOYD. I thank the gentleman
r yielding.
Mr. Chairman. I have a question for
e chairman of the committee, and I
)uld like to commend hun for bring-
ing this legislation to the floor. I do
rise in support of this legislation, and
also the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
EDGAR).
I would like to ask the chairman a
question. Is it the Intent of this legis-
lation that Federal agencies comply
with the regulations enforced by this
legislation?
Mr. FLORIO. if the gentlewoman
will yield, the answer is unequivocally
yes.
Mrs. LLOYD. I thank the gentleman
for his comment.
Mrs. LLOYD Mr. Chairman, one of
the more insidious problems with toxic
waste disposal is the potential for con-
taminatton of important underground
aquifers which are used by many
people for drinking water, irrigation,
and for other domestic purposes.
in my own district in Tennessee. as
in many other locations throughout
our nation, we have a potential prob-
lem from groundwater contamination
that should be studied and evaluated
in terms of the impact on public
health and safety. My Subcommittee
on Znergy Research and Production
ently held a hearing near the site
he Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Feruiessee. This hearing brougnt at-
LiOfl to potential groundwater con-
tatnination problems from the use of
out-moded Dollution control measures
at the Oak Ridge complex. We will
make recommendations regarding
these problems in a forthcoming
report which I hope will be considered
by the com.nuttee in September.
If we need national policies to ad-
dress this potential pollution problem.
then this groundwater commission will
help in recommending them to the
Congress and the admInistratiou I,
therefore, urge my colleagues to join
me In supporting this amendment.
0 1420
The CRA MAN. The time of the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs.
LLOYD has expired.
The gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Ft.,oiuo) has 2 minutes remaining.
• Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman. I rise
today to support B.R. 2867. reauthor-
lzing the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, I rise today to support a
bill this country needs to ir.sure pro-
tection or our environment. This bill
contains tough language for hazardous
aaste generators and dlsposers. This
language is needed and I urge my cot-
eagues to support H.R. 2861 and
- at any weakening amendment to
much needed bill.
a member of the Engery and
. .. . imerce Cornniitt.ee, I have worked
closely with the sponsor of this legisla-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
tion, my friend and colleague, Jxrv
FLoP.ro, to establish ‘a comprehensive
system to address the hazardous waste
problem. The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act forced many firms
to dispose of their waste in an appro-
priate mariner, ending some of the
hazardous waste disposal practices
which endanger many communities.
This body should be proud to have en-
aeted such tough and enlightened legS
isiation on hazardous waste before the
issue was on page 1 of the newspapers.
RCRA established a cradle-to-grave
system for hazardous waste generated
by large producers. This law has
pushed many generators to incorpo-
rate the environmental and social cost
of hazardous aaste into their busmess
decisions. As a result, we have seen
more firms doliig just what the law
states: Recovering and ‘ conserving
their hazardous resources. Conse.
quently, our disposal problem is not as
severe as it would be If this body had
not had the !oreslght to enact ECRA.
My colleague from New Jersey de-
serves some redit for that success,
and today we consider legislation
which completes the cradle-to-grave
system. We si ’iild pass this legislation
arid show the - e fortitude and fore-
sight this body i :cercised when passing
RCRA.
Many Members have expressed con-
cern about the provisions affecting
small waste generators. These groups
contend that trie provisions of R.R.
2867 present an unfair burden on
these small quant ty generators. The
prcbiem with this argument is that
hazardous wastes can be dangerous in
any amount, and u to 1.000 kilograms
represents a sub antiai threat to
people as well :,s .he erwironment. I
support the i .. - e to include gener-
ators of wast* between 100 arid 1,000
kilograms ur.•.ier the purview of
RCRA. I wan:. to call the attention of
my colleagu s to the carefully con-
structed langiage of the bill. By giving
the EPA 18 months to draft regula-
tlon.s unJque y appropriate to small
quantity generat,ors, the bill recog-
nizes the position of small quantity
generators and defers to the EPA on
the proper rc .ula ’.Ions. The bill does,
however, not just depend on the good
will of the EPA to promulgate such,
regulations. By subjecting small quan-
tity generators to the tough provisions
affecting large generators. if there are
no EPA regul .tiofls in 2 years. there is
clear incentive for small quantity gen-
erators arid to expeditiously draft
small quantity generator regulations.
In plain terrrtz. the carrot and stick
system Is established, matching zncen•
tives with interest.
Mr. Chairman, there are two other
Important pro;’tSiOfls I want to call to
the attention of my colleagues. The
first is the provisions on enforcement.
In many conversations with chemical
and waste generators, the one thing I
hear repeated Is that we do not need
new laws: we just need better enforce-
menL
tuguse 4. 188J
Well. I cannot say that 1 agree with
them on the former point, but the ar-
gument that we need better enforce-
ment cannot be denied. EPA needs in-
creased enforcement powers, and EPA
needs the ability to take offenders to
court if the Justice Department does
not act quickly. It is important to keep
some enforcement power with the
EPA. for frequently the Justice De-
partment has been slow or unwilling
to act. In those circumstances, the
EPA. if the case warrants it. can move
forward on their own with a suit.
We should not tie the hands of the
EPA on enforcement. As a member of
the Energy and Commerce Subcom-
niittee on Oversight and Investiga-
tions. I have witnessed claims that
EPA would act on a suit. but they
cannot without the Justice Depart-
ment. Some of the cynical among us
may suggest that the Justice Depart-
ment presented a convenient answer
for EPA employees. I will not draw
any such conclusions. I do know that
the next time the situation arises, this
provision will enable this Member to
ask. Where is the suit? -
In addition, the bLU grants EPA em-
ployees investigative and enforcement
powers. If we expect EPA to be thor-
ough and diligent in enforcing the
provisons of RCRA. as I am confident
all Members do, then we must give
EPA employees the powers to carry
out their charge. To deny Investigators
the power to execute arid serve war-
rants or summons. or to make arrests
for offenses is a disservice to the EPA
employees and creates illusory en-
forcement at best.
The other important provision of
the bill I want to comment on, Mr.
Chairman, is the restrictions on land
disposal of hazardous waste. LaridfWs.
waste piles, arid impoundment ponds
are ugly monuments to our inefficient.
if not dangerous handling of hazard-
ous wastes. In a nation with as much
open land as we enjoy, I think many
people believe that all you have to do
is take your trash a few miles out into
the country and dump it on some
empty lot, and it won’t hurt anybody.
Incredibly enough, dumping hazard-
ous substances In open pits or in some
empty fields has been the accepted
practice of industry for the past 100
years. This practice has produced sites
which emit such a stench no one will
move near, and produced leaks into
water supplies no one will drink. The
original RCRA language moved us
toward more environmentally sound
disposal of hazardous wastes. But It.
did not go all the way. This bill will
close many of the loopholes left open
by RCRA arid will begin phaseout
dumping in landfill and waste piles.
In conclusion. Mr. Chairman, I want
to urge my colleagues in the strongest
terms to support this legislation and
oppose any weakening amendments.
This bill is a matter of the utmost ur-
gency, and we must see that hazardous
wastes no longer threaten our citizens.
-------
BURNING AND BLENDING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
SEC. 204. (aX 1) Section 3010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
amended by inserting the following after the first sentence thereof
“Not later tha’n fifteen months after the date of enactment of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984—
“II) the owner or operator of any facility which produces a
fuel (A) from any hazardous waste identified or listed under
section 3001, (B) from such hazardous waste identified or listed
under section 3001 and any ocher material, (C) from used oil, or
(D) from used oil and any other material;
“(2) the owner or operator of any facility (other than a
single- or two-family residence) which burns for purposes of
energy recovery any fuel produced as provided in paragraph (1)
or any fuel which otherwise contains used oil or any hazardous
waste identified or listed under section 3001; and
‘(3) any person who distributes or markets any fuel which is
produced as provided in paragraph (1) or any fuel which other.
wise contains used oil or any hazardous waste identified or
listed under section 3001
shall file with the Administrator (and with the State in the case of a
State with an authorized hazardous waste program) a notification
stating the location and general description of the facility, together
with a description of the identified or tisted hazardous waste in-
volved and, in the case of a facility referred to in paragraph (1) or (2),
a description of the production or energ recovery activity carried
out at the facility and such other informàtibn as the Administrator
deems necessary. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term
‘hazardous waste listed under section 3001’ also includes any com-
mercial chemical product which is listed under section 3001 and
which, in lieu of its original intended use, is (i) produced for use as
(or as a component of) a fuel, (ii) distributed for use as a fuel, or (iii)
burned as a fuel. Notification shall not be required under the second
sentence of this subsection in the case of facilities (such as residen.
-------
H. R. 2867—16
tial boilers) where the Administrator determines that such notifica-
tion is not necessary in order for the Administrator to obtain
sufficient information respecting current practices of facilities using
hazardous waste for energy recovery. Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to affect or impair the provisions of section
3001(bX3). Nothing in this subsection shall affect regulatory determi-
nations under section 3014.”.
(2) Section 3010 of such Act is amended by striking out “the
preceding sentence” each place it occurs and substituting “the
preceding provisions”.
(b)(1) S ction 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by
adding the following new subsections after subsection Ip):
“(q) HAZARDOUS WASTE USED AS Fu .—(1) Not later than two
years after the date of the enactment of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984, and after notice and opportunity for
public hearing, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations
establishing such—
“(A) standards applicable to the owners and operators of
facilities which produce a fuel—
“(i) from any hazardous waste identified or listed under
section 3001, or
“(ii) from any hazardous waste identified or listed under
section 3001 and any other material;
“(B) standards applicable to the owners and operators of
facilities which burn, for purposes of energy recovery, any fuel
produced as provided in subparagraph (A or any fuel which
otherwise contains any hazardous waste identified or listed
under section 3001, and
“(C) standards applicable to any person who distributes or
markets any fuel which is produced as provided in subpara-
graph (A) or any fuel which otherwise contains any hazardous
waste identified or listed under section 3001
as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment.
Such standards may include any of the requirements set forth in
paragraphs (1) through i7) of subsection (a) as may be appropriate.
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect or impair the
provisions of section 300ltbX3) For purposes of this subsection. the
term ‘hazardous waste listed under section 3001’ includes any com-
mercial chemical product which is listed under section 3001 and
which, in lieu of its original intended use, is (i) produced for use as
(or as a component of) a fuel, ui) distributed for use as a fuel, or (iii)
burned as a fuel.
“(2XA) This subsection, subsection (r), and subsection (s) shall not
apply to petroleum refinery wastes containing oil which are con-
verted into petroleum coke at the same facility at which such wastes
were generated, unless the resulting coke product would exceed one
or more characteristics by which a substance would be identified as
a hazardous waste under section 3001. s—
“(B) The Administrator may exempt from the requirements of this
subsection, subsection (r), or subsection (s) facilities which burn de
minimis quantities of hazardous waste as fuel, as defined by the
Administrator, if the wastes are burned at the same facility at
which such wastes are generated; the waste is burned to recover
useful energy, as determined by the Administrator on the basis of
the design and operating characteristics of the facility and the
heating value and other characteristics of the waste; and the waste
is burned in a type of device determined by the Administrator to be
-------
H. R. 2867—17
designed and operated at a destruction and removal efficiency suffi-
cient such that protection of human health and environment is
assured.
“(CXi) After the date of the enactment of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 and until standards are promulgated
and in effect under paragraph (2) of this subsection, no fuel which
contains any hazardous waste may be burned in any cement kiln
which is located within the boundaries of any incorporated munici-
pality with a population greater than five hundred thousand (based
on the most recent census statistics) unless such kiln fully complies
with regulations (as in effect on the date of the enactment of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984) under this sub-
title which are applicable to incinerators.
“(ii) Any person who knowingly violates the prohibition contained
in clause (1) shall be deemed to have violated section 3008(dX2).
“(r) LABEUNG.—(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
until such time as the Administrator promulgates standards under
subsection (q) specifically superceding this requirement, it shall be
unlawful for any person who is required to file a notification in
accordance with paragraph (1) or (3) of section 3010 to distribute or
market any fuel which is produced from any hazardous waste
identified or listed under section 3001. or any fuel which otherwise
contains any hazardous waste identified or listed under section 3001
if the invoice or the bill of sale fails—
“(A) to bear the following statement: ‘WARNING. THIS
FUEL CONTAINS HAZARDOUS WASTES’, and
“(B) to list the hazardous wastes contained therein.
Beginning ninety days after the enactment of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. such statement shall be located in
a conspicuous place on every such invoice or bill of sale and shall
appear in conspicuous and legible type in contrast by typography,
layouts, or color with other printed matter on the invoice or bill of
sale.
“(2) Unless the Administrator determines otherwise as may be
necessary to protect human health and the environment, this sub-
section shall not apply to fuels produced from petroleum refining
waste containing oil if—
“(A) such materials are generated and reinserted onsite into
the refining process;
“(B) contaminants are removed; and
“(C) such refining waste containing oil is converted along with
normal process streams into pertroleum-derived fuel products
at a facility at which crude oil is refined into petroleum prod-
ucts and which is classified as a number SIC 2911 facility under
the Office of Management and Budget Standard Industrial
Classification Manual.
“(3) Unless the Administrator determines otherwise as may be
necessary to protect human health and the environment, this sub-
section shall not apply to fuels produced from oily materials, result-
ing from normal petroleum refining, production and transportation
practices, if (A) contaminants are removed: and (B) such oily materi-
als are converted along with normal process streams into petroleum-
derived fuel products at a facility at which crude oil is refined into
petroleum products and which is classified as a number SIC 2911
facility under the Office of Management and Budget Standard
Classification Manual.
-------
H. R.2867—18
“(8) REcoaDa EPING.—Not later than fifteen months after the date
of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations requiring that
any person who is required to file a notification in accordance with
subparagraph (1), (2). or (3), of section 3010(a) shall maintain such
records regarding fuel blending, distribution, or use as may be
necessary to protect human health and the environment.”.
(2) Section 3003 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by
adding the following new subsection after subsection (b):
“(c) FuEL FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE.—Not later than two years
after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984, and after opportunity for public hearing, the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing standards,
applicable to transporters of fuel produced (1) from any hazardous
waste identified or listed under section 3001, or (2) from any hazard-
ous waste identified or listed under section 3001 and any other
material, as may be necessary to protect human health and the
environment. Such standards may include any of the requirements
set forth in paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (a) as may be
appropriate.’.
-------
11P7
SECTION 204—BURNING AND BLENDING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
House bill—The House bill provides that within 12 months pro-
ducers, burners, distributors, and marketers of a fuel produced
from a hazardous waste (including used oil) must notify EPA,
unless specifically exempted by EPA. Within 2 years EPA must
promulgate technical standards. Until EPA promulgates technical
standards, cement kilns in urban areas (over 500,000 population)
burning hazardous waste must meet incinerator standards.
A warning label must appear on the invoice or bill of sale accom-
panying waste-derived fuel. Fuels produced from petroleum refin-
ing wastes are exempt from the labeling requirement under certain
circumstances.
Senate amendment.—The Senate amendment provides that
within 15 months, producers, burners, distributors, and marketers
of a fuel produced from a hazardous waste must notify EPA, unless
specifically exempted by EPA. A single or two family residence
burning hazardous waste derived fuel is exempt from the notifica-
tion requirement. Within 15 months, EPA must establish record-
keeping requirements and within 2 years EPA must promulgate
technical standards.
Beginning 90 days after enactment and until EPA promulgates
regulations superceding this requirement, a warning label must
appear on the invoice or bill of sale accompanying waste-derived
fuels. Fuels produced from petroleum refining wastes and from oily
materials resulting from normal petroleum refining production and
transportation practices are exempt from the labeling requirement
under certain circumstances.
Petroleum refinery wastes converted into petroleum coke are
exempt from standards, labeling, and recordkeeping requirements.
91
EPA may exempt facilities burning de minimis quantities of wastes
as fuel. In both cases certain conditions must be met.
Conference substitute.—The Conference substitute is the same as
the Senate amendment with the addition of the House provision
that, until EPA promulgates technical standards, cement kilns in
urban areas (over 500,000 population) burning hazardous waste
must meet incinerator standards.
-------
I -iT f1 ,rtT ‘7 —1 ? ’
39
Section 6. Burning and blending hazardous waste for energy recov-
ery
Section 6 corrects a major deficiency in the present RCRA regu-
lations by requiring EPA to exercise its existing authority over
hazardous waste-derived fuels by regulating their production, dis-
tribution and use. The Committee intends that EPA exercise this
authority in tandem with its authority over used oil so that used
oil-derived fuels are regulated at the same time.
Currently, EPA exempts facilities that burn hazardous waste for
the primary purpose of energy recovery. EPA has estimated that
10 or 15 million metric tons of hazardous wastes are burned each
year in boilers; over one-half of all hazardous waste generated is
burned in facilities not now regulated under RCRA. EPA has ac-
knowledged that burning hazardous wastes for energy recovery is
similar to incinerating then and “could pose a parallel or greater
risk of enviornmental dispersal of hazardous waste constituents
and products of incomplete combustion.” (48 FR 14481—2 (April 4,
1983)).
Fuel blending is one of several areas where EPA’s failure to pro-
mulgate regulations has led to direct threats to human health and
the environment. Hazardous wastes have been blended with heat-
ing oil and sold to unsuspecting customers who burn them under
conditions which may not protect human health or the environ-
ment.
The potential impact of this loophole is even more significant as
more and more wastes may be burned in boilers, cement kilns, or
other heat recovery units to avoid RCRA regulation and treatment
costs. In addition to the obvious adverse health and environmental
consequences of continued unregulated burning, the present loop-
hole acts as a disincentive to the development and expansion of
hazardous waste treatment facilities. The Committee intends his
section and Section 5, restricting the land disposal of hazardous
waste, to provide a meaningful regulatory program to increase the
treatment of hazardous waste and the development of new treat-
ment capacity.
EPA has asserted its jurisdiction over burning and blending of
hazardous wastes for energy recovery. EPA also has established en-
forcement guidelines to identify “illegitimate” or “sham” burning
for energy recovery and bring such practices under regulation.
The Committee commends these new initiatives by EPA. Howev-
er, the Committee still believes, as it did last year, that legislation
is necessary to assure that the Committee’s objectives in compel-
ling EPA to develop and implement a comprehensive regulatory
p—ogram over burning and blending for energy recovery are
achieved, within the timetables set by the Committee. The provi-
sions of Section 6 do not grant EPA any new statutory authority;
RCRA now provides EPA full authority to regulate hazardous
wastes that are blended or burned for energy recovery and to regu-
late the owners and operators of the blending and burning facili-
ties. The Committee wants to assure that EPA will exercise its au-
thority over all facilities that blend or burn hazardous waste for
energy recovery.
-------
40
The term “facility,” as defined under RCRA and as intended to
be applied by the Committee, includes cement kilns and industrial
furnaces, not just boilers, that burn hazardous waste for energy re-
covery. EPA has recently proposed that cement kilns and “indus-
trial furnaces” that burn hazardous waste for fuel would continue I
to be exempt from regulation. The Committee does not consider
such exemption, particularly for cement kilna, to be consistent with
its intent in closing the burning and blending exemption if it were
to be extended beyond the two year date for promulgating regula-
tions contained in this Section. This continued exemption could
well be inconsistent with the RCRA mandate to regulate hazardous
wastes as necessary to protect human health and the environment.
The Committee does not consider cement kilns burning hazardous I
waste for energy (not recycling cement kiln dust for clinker) tb be
distinguishable from a commercial hazardous waste incinerator in
its potential impact on human health and the environment.
Notification.—Subsection (a) amends RCRA Section 3010 to re-
quire filing of a notification by anyone who is producing a hazard-
ous waste-derived fuel, burning a hazardous waste fuel for energy
recovery, or distributing anu marketing a fuel produced from a
hazardous waste (including transporters). This is a self-implement-
ing requirement, so that if EPA fails to issue timely regulations, all
persons covered by the provisions are required to notify. The Com-
mittee intends this program to apply to hazardous waste-derived
fuels, fuels blended with hazardous wastes, and hazardous wastes
burned without blending as fuels. Hazardous waste, as used in this
provision, includes not only wastes identified or listed as hazardous
under EPA’s regulations, but also includes any commercial chemi-
cal product (and related materials) listed pursuant to 40 CFR
261.33, which is not used for its originally intended purpose but in-
stead is burned or processed as fuel. (Under current EPA regula-
tions, burning as fuel is not deemed to be a form of discard; hence
listed commercial chemical products, unlike spent materials, by-
products or sludges, are not deemed to be “wastes” when burned as
fuel. They are only “wastes” when actually discarded or intended
for discard.) Hazardous waste or used oil generators who do not
deal directly with the persons who ultimately burn the wastes (or
used oil) as a fuel, and do not burn these materials themselves, are
not covered by this provision because they neither produce,
market, nor distribute a waste-derived fuel.
The Committee desires that the Agency assemble an accurate
picture of the current nature and scope of current hazardous waste
fuel production, distribution, and burning. In this regard, the Com-
mittee recommends that the 3010 notices that are required under
Section 6 of these amendments contain the following information:
From Fuel Producers:
wastes utilized in fuel production, toxic constituents in the
waste and in the waste portion of the fuel, and percentage of
the waste component of the fuel;
BTTJ content of the fuel produLed;
where and to whom the fuels are sent;
quantities of waste-derived fuels produced.
From Marketers/Distributors:
where they got the fuel from;
-------
41
whether they change the content;
where and to whom they market the fuel;
quantities of fuel distributed, and frequency of distribution.
From Ultimate Users:
source of their waste-derived fuel;
types of wastes or waste-derived fuel burnt, and quantities
burnt;
description of the combustion unit in which the fuels are
burnt (including such information as boiler design, heat input
and out-put, and temperature of combustion);
type of primary boiler fuel used and portion of heat input
provided by the waste or the waste-derived fuel; -
BTU content.
The notification requirement is contained in an amended Section
3010(aXl). This has two-fold significance. First, all notifications
filed under this provision will go to both EPA and to states with
authorized hazardous waste programs rather than to one or the
other, as with other notifications. Second, the notification is a pre-
requisite for interim status (see RCRA Section 3005(eX2)) if EPA
later determines that these persons should be regulated as hazard-
ous waste management facilities. This should create a strong incen-
five for persons required to notif r to comply with the requirement.
The bill also contains a provision indicating that special classes
of waste material listed in Section 3001(bX3XA), which are not now
subject to regulation as hazardous wastes, are not subject to the no-
tification and regulatory provisions of these amendments. An ex-
ample are the high volume wastes generated from the combustion
of coal or other fossil fuel, typical of the utility industry. However,
utilities that burn hazardous wastes such as spent solvents, spent
acids, or corrosive boiler cleaning wastes in their boilers are subject
to the notification requirement and could be subject to the stand-
ards requirements as well.
Standards for Production, Burning, Distribution, and Market-
ing.—Subsection (6)(b) of the bill amends Section 3004. It requires
the Administrator to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary
to protect human health and the environment, governing hazard-
ous waste-derived fuel production, burning, distribution and mar-
keting. Used oil, (whether or not a hazardous waste) mixed with
other hazardous wastes can be regulated under these provisions.
The regulations apply to anyone required to submit a Sec. 3010 no-
tification under this section, e.g., the owners and operators of any
facility that blends or burns hazardous wastes as a fuel or anyone
who markets or distributes hazardous waste fuels.
The Committee believes that the standards should include the re-
quirements listed in subsection (a) of Section 3004 as appropriate.
EPA may make different standards effective at different times. For
example, manifesting and recordkeeping may be immediately re-
quired, while other performance or technical standards may be im-
posed at a later time within the two year deadline. The technical
standards ap .licable to facilities burning hazardous waste as a fuel
may consider various factors, including destruction efficiency, and
waste content of the fuel. Furthermore, it is the Committee’s inten-
tion that the Administrator, in controlling the burning of hazard-
ous waste and the emissions from such facilities, make no such dis-
-------
42
tinction on the basis of whether the facility is on the site of the
generator, or is an off-site facility.
Because EPA already has the authority to regulate the blending
and burning of hazardous wastes for purposes of energy recovery,
the Committee’s objective is to accelerate the Agency’s rulemaking
to close a major gap in the present regulations and to set an out-
side deadline for the regulation of all burning of hazardous wastes
and blended fuels. In promulgating regulations, the Agency must
regulate all combustion units burning hazardous waste-deriving
fuel for energy recovery—including boilers, cement kilns, and other
industrial furnaces—under the same ultimate standards as other
hazardous waste management facilities regulation as may be neces-
sary to protect human health and the environment. This may lead
to the result that these units are regulated under the same sub-
stantive requirements as apply to presently regulated treatment
facilities. When a combustion unit operates like an incinerator—es-
pecially in terms of the type and volume of hazardous waste being
burned—the Committee expects that the Agency will apply the
same substantive requirements as are now applied to presently reg-
ulated treatment facilities.
Labeling.—The Committee intends that the Agency expeditiously
implement a requirement for fuel blenders to notify their custom-
ers of the presence of hazardous wastes in their fuel. The Commit-’
tee is concerned that people are unwittingly burning hazardous
wastes in uncontrolled circumstances, with obvious health and en-j
vironmental risks. The user could be at risk not only from boiler
emissions, but could be exposed to fire or explosion hazard (since
hazardous waste-derived fuels may have a lower flash point), or
risk boiler damage (from hydrochloric acid formed by chlorinated
wastes) as well. Transporters also may be unaware that they may
be facing special risks from carrying hazardous waste-derived fuels.
Consequently, starting one year after the p ge of the Hazard-
ous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983, distributors of
hazardous waste-derived fuels who are required to notify must put
a warning label on the invoices or bill of sale accompanying each
shipment of hazardous waste-derived fuel. (The provision does not
apply to fuels which contain used oil alone.) The label would have
to warn the user (and transporter) that the fuel contains hazardous
waste and identify the }m,nrdous waste it contains. This latter re-
quirement can be satisfied by identi ring wastes by generic classes
(for instance, “chlorinated solvents’) rather than by the precise
chemical name (“spent trichioroethylene”).
Although this provision is self-implementing (i.e., regulations are
not needed to effectuate the requirement), the requirement is tied
to the noitification provisions of this bill. Thus, if EPA acts to limit
the class of blenders ard distributors required to notify, these per-
sons may not have to prepare warning labels if EPA determines
such labels would not be needed to protect human health and wel-
fare and to carry out the Committee’s intent in requiring a label.
It is the Committee’s intent that this provision apply not only in
those states where EPA is operating a hazardous waste program,;
but in authorized states as well. This will assure that users and
transporters of hazardous waste-derived fuels in authorized states
will not have to wait until their states adopt labehng leglslaton or
c,2 W
-------
43
regulations—a process that could take several years—before they
receive the warnings required by this section.
Exemption for Petroleum Fuel Products Produced at Refineries.—
This provision provides a limited and conditional exemption from
the labeling requirement for certain petroleum fuel refiners. Refin-
eries often take oily refining wastes and reintroduce these wastes
into the refining process where the oil component is incorporated
into product and contaminants are removed. The Committee does
not believe that refineries should automatically have to place a
warning label on these fuels should EPA fail to exempt refineries
from the labeling requirements within 12 months.
The exemption from the labeling requirement is narrow, howev-
er. EPA may still explicitly require a warning label for these fuels’
as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment.
In addition, the exemption applies only to wastes generated on-site
in the refining process itself. It does not apply to other wastes gen-
erated at a refinery such as spent solvents or discarded pesticides.
Finally, these wastes must be introduced into the refining process
at a point where contaminants are removed. (This standard is
drawn from the definition of “re-refined oil” contained in Section
1004(3) of RCRA.)
Standard for Transporters.—This provision amends Section 3003,
by adding a new subsection (c) that requires EPA, no later than
two years after enactment, to promulgate regulations, as may be
necessary to protect human health and the environment, to control
transporters of hazardous waste-derived fuels. In developing stand-
ards, EPA may require transporters to meet the requirements con- 1
tamed in Section 3003(a), but may vary these requirements, on
adopt different ones, as may be necessary to protect human health
and the environment.
Utility and Mining Wastes—Section 6(g) provides that “nothing
in this subsection shall be construed to affect or impair the provi-I
Mona of section 3001(b)(3).” That section, added to RCRA in 1980,
provides that specified utility and mining astes 2 should not be
subject to regulation under subtitle C until at least six months
after EPA submitted studies of those wastes to Congress. The sec-I
tion then specified that the Administrator could request, gather,
and make public, information about the generation, handling, and
disposal of those waste materials.
Reference to Section 3001(bX3) in this bill has one specific pur-
pose. We are reaffirming our intent that substantive regulation of
the specified wastes must await completion of the relevant studies.
It should be clear, however, that that deferment is limited to the
wastes specified in 3001(bX3); it does not include solvents, de-
greasers, pesticides, smelting or other wastes generated independ-
ently of the processes listed in 3001(bX3). Thus, facilities burning or 1
blending those other wastes are not exempt from the provisions of
this bill. Furthermore, we reaffirm the intent of the 1980 Act that
the Administrator has the duty and the authority to gather and
‘(i) Fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue gas emission control waste generat-
ed primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels Ui) solid waste from the extrac-
tion, benefication, and processing of ores and minerals, including phosphate rock and overbur-
den from the mining of uranium ore, and (tu) cement kiln dust waste.
use information about the specified wastes includin th
equl submission of information related ‘to the st die: :quir
-------
i p-r —-U’f
P
BURNING AND BLENDING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
This provision corrects a major deficiency in the present subtitle
C regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency has adopted
regulations that govern the burning of hazardous wastes in inciner-
ators. These regulations, however, exempt facilities that burn haz-
ardous wastes for the primary purpose of recovering usable energy.
It has been estimated that some 10 to 20 million tons of the hazard-
ous waste generated annually in this country are being burned as
fuel, a practice that is now exempt from subtitle C regulation.
The reported bill amends various parts of subtitle C to direct the
Agency to develop and implement a regulatory program that estab-’
lishes requirements, as may be necessary to protect human health
and the environment, for the burning and blending of hazardous
wastes for energy recovery. The provisions of this bill reaffirm the
Agency’s full authority to regulate all hazardous wastes that are
blended or burned for energy recovery—including hazardous
wastes mixed with used oil—and to regulate the owners and opera-
tors of the blending, distributing, and burning facilities. This au-
thority over these facilities should be exercised in an expeditious
manner.
Under some circumstances, it may be difficult to determine if a
waste-derived fuel should be classified as a used oil fuel or a haz-
ardous waste fuel. for example, used oil contains contaminants,
such as lead, that may be present either through use of the oil or
through deliberate adulteration. Both hazardous waste fuel and
contaminated used oil fuel should be regulated in accordance with
these new provisions, as necessary, to protect human health and
the environment. The Agency, however, has some discretion as to
how to classify these types of fuel mixtures.
Notification
The bill adds a new sentence of section 3010 that requires the
filing of a notice by anyone who is producing a hazardous waste-
derived fuel, burning a hazardous fuel for energy recovery (other
than in a single or two-family residence), or distributing and mar-
keting a fuel produced from a hazardous waste. “Hazardous waste-
derived fuel” means fuel derived from hazardous waste, used oil, orf
from a mixture of either hazardous waste or used oil and other ma- 1
terials. The notification requirement goes into effect twelve monthsj
after the date of enactment of this legislation. The notice, to be
filed with the Administrator and the State (where there is an au-
thorized State hazardous waste program), must include a statement
containing the location and general description of the facility in-
volved, the identified or listed waste involved, a description of the
production or energy recovery activity being carried out, and such
other information as the Administrator deems necessary. This noti-
fication requirement is self-implementing. All persons covered by
c,ZO
-------
37
the provision are required to file a notification, unless the Adminis-
trator by regulation determines that such notification is not neces-
sary to obtain sufficient information with respect to current prac-
tices of facilities using hazardous wastes for energy recovery.
The notification requirement applies to hazardous waste-derived
fuels, fuels blended with hazardous wastes, and hazardous wastes
burned without being blended as fuels. The term “hazardous
wastes”, as used in this provision, includes not only wastes identi-
fied or listed as hazardous under EPA’s regulations, but also in-
cludes any commercial chemical product (and related materials)
listed pursuant to 40 CFR 261.33, which is not used for its original-
ly intended purpose but instead is burned or processed as fuel.
(Under current EPA regulations, burning as fuel is not deemed to
be a form of discard; hence listed commercial chemical products,
unlike spent materials or by-products or sludges, are not deemed to
be “wastes” when burned as fuel. They are only “wastes” when ac-
tually discarded or intended for discard. This amendment changes
that interpretation.)
Hazardous waste or used oil generators, who do not deal directly
with the persons who ultimately burn the waste (or used oil) as a
fuel or offer the material for sale or use as a fuel and who do not
burn these materials themselves, are not covered by this provision.
Such generators neither market nor distribute a hazardous waste-
derived fuel, and, therefore, they do not know and do not control
the ultimate disposition of their waste.
All notifications filed under this provision will go both to EPA
and to States with authorized hazardous waste programs rather
than to one or the other, as with other notifications.
The notification is a prerequisite for interim status (see section
3005(e)(2)) if the Administrator later determines that these persons
should be regulated as hazardous waste management facilities.
This should create a strong incentive for persons subject to the no-
tification requirement to comply.
The amendment also provides that activities involving special
classes of waste material listed in section 3001(b)(3)(A), which are
not now subject to regulation as hazardous wastes, are not subject
to the notification requirements. For example, the high volume
wastes generated from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuel,
typical of the utility industry, are not covered. However, utilities
that burn hazardous wastes such as spent solvents, spent acids, or
corrosive boiler cleaning wastes in their boilers are subject to the
notification requiremeht, and could be subject to the technical
standards as well.
Standards, labeling, record keeping, and transportation
The reported bill amends section 3004 by adding three new sub-
sections—(h), (i), and (j), to require standard setting, labeling and
recordkeeping requirements, respectively. Section 3003 is also
amended, by adding a new subsection requiring transportation
standards.
Standards
Under new subsection 3004(h), the Administrator is directed to
promulgate regulations as may be necessary to protect human
c2 ’ct
-------
38
health and the environment, setting forth standards governing haz-
ardous waste-derived fuel production, burning, distribution and
marketing. Such regulations shall be promulgated no later than
two years after the date of enactment of this legislation. These reg-
ulations shall apply to anyone required to submit a section 3010 no-
tification in accordance with the provisions added by this bill, the
owners and operators of any facility that produces, blends or burns
hazardous wastes as fuel or anyone who markets or distributes haz-
ardous waste-derived fuels. (Used oil, whether or not a hazardous
waste, mixed with other hazardous wastes, can be regulated under
these provisions, although the Agency has some discretion as to
how to regulate difficult-to-classify contaminated used oil mix-i
tures.) These regulations shall apply whether or not such persons
are subsequently relieved by regulation of the requirement to file a
section 3010 notification.
Standards established by these regulations may include the re-
quirements listed in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (a) of
section 3004, as appropriate. The Agency may make different
standards effective at different times within the two-year deadline.
The technical standards applicable to facilities, or classes of facili-
ties, burning hazardous wastes as fuel may vary based upon var-
ious factors, including but not limited to destruction efficiency of
the burning unit and waste content of the fuel to be burned. The
Administrator may find it necessary to regulate the burning of cer-
tain wastes to protect human health and the environment, while
not regulating others. However, the Administrator, in controlling
the burning of hazardous wastes and the emissions from facilities
that burn such wastes, may not make distinctions solely on the
basis of whether the facility is on the site of the generator or is an
off-site facility.
The Administrator must make regulatory determinations for
each type of combustion unit burning hazardous waste-derived fuel
for energy recovery (e.g., boilers, cement kilns and other industrial
furnaces) under the same ultimate standard that applies to other
hazardous waste management facilities—regulations as may be
necessary to protect human health and the environment. Some or
all of these units may be therefore regulated under the same sub-
stantive requirements that apply to presently regulated treatment
facilities. When a combustion unit, such as a cement kiln, operates
like an incinerator (especially in terms of the type and volume of
hazardous waste being burned), the Agency must apply the same
substantive requirements that are applied to regulated inciner-
ators.
The standards to be established under the authority of new sub-
section 3004(h) do not apply to the special classes of waste material
for which subtitle C regulation is suspended under section
3001(b)(3)(A).
New subsection (h) of section 3004 provides for two exceptions to
the technical standards, labeling and recordkeeping require-
ments—one involving petroleum refining wastes containing oil
which are converted to petroleum coke and the other involving de
minimis quantities of hazardous wastes burned as fuel.
New section 3004(h)(2)(A) exempts petroleum refinery wastes con-
taining oil which are converted into petroleum coke at the same fa-
-------
39
cility where they are generated, unless the resulting coke product
itself would be identifiable as a hazardous waste on the basis of one
or more of the characteristics promulgated under section 3001.
This provision exempts petroleum coke, a commercial industrial
fuel product, from regulation as a hazardous waste fuel even where
hazardous wastes from petroleum refining are used in the produc-
tion of the coke. It is normal practice in a refinery to recycle oily
waste, such as wastewater treatment sludge, by introducing the
material into the coking process. In this way, the carbon value of
these wastes is utilized, and the waste need not be disposed of. This
exemption applies only to oily refining wastes; the exemption does
not apply, for example, to a waste generated by the production of
petrochemicals such as pesticides or solvents, regardless of whether
these wastes might happen to be generated at a facility which is
also a petroleum refinery. Also, wastes such as out-dated pesticides’
or spent solvents generated at a refinery site are not covered by
the exemption. These wastes are not unique to refineries and
should be regulated if necessary under this Act when used as fuel,
regardless of their point of generation.
This provision exempts the actual petroleum coke product from
regulation as hazardous waste fuel. Hazardous wastes used in
making coke are exempted only when they are actually converted
into coke, not when managed in other ways (such as by disposal, or
recycling by being placed on the land). In addition, the exemption
for hazardous waste to be converted to coke begins with actual in-
troduction to the conversion process. For example, hazardous
sludges being stored in a surface impoundment pose the same risk
whether they are to be recycled or disposed of, and thus should be
regulated accordingly. The exemption applies only to the full coke
product, not any waste that may sometime be used in coke produc-
tion, and only to petroleum coke that is actually used as a final
product. Certain commercial specifications are routinely used by
producing industries to control the quality of coke products. If a re-
finery produces coke that does not meet these standards, and there-
fore must be disposed of on the land or by burning in an inciner-
ator, this disposal remains subject to all subtitle C rules.
Under the second exemption in new subsection 3004(h), the Ad-
ministrator may exempt from regulation facilities burning de mini-
mis quantities of hazardous wastes as fuel provided the waste is
generated and burned on-site (i.e., at the same facility or at a facili-
ty in close geographic proximity and under common ownership and
control), the waste is burned to recover useful energy, and the
waste is burned in a manner sufficient to protect human health
and the environment, based on the type of waste being burned and
the combustion unit used for burning. This provision applies to
hazardous wastes being burned directly, or burned after mixing
with other materials (such as used oil). Subject to these generation
conditions, if the Administrator decides to exempt from regulation
facilities burning de minimis quantities of hazardous wastes, the
Agency must establish administratively what de rninimis levels
are, and the circumstances under which safe burning of de minimis
quantities of hazardous wastes can occur.
The de minimis provision, however, is not intended to allow large
boilers to burn hazardous wastes in small amounts, relative to total
-------
40
wastes burned, if the burning of hazardous wastes in such facilities
is not protective of human health and the environment.
Labeling
Under new subsection 3004(i), any person who owns or operates a
facility that produces a hazardous waste-derived fuel or any person
who distributes or markets a fuel produced from a hazardous waste
must include on the invoice or bill of sale accompanying such fuels
a warning label indicating that the fuel contains hazardous wastes
and listing the wastes contained in the fuel. The labeling require-
- ment goes into effect ninety days after the enactment of this legis-
lation and remains in effect until such time as the Administrator
promulgates standards under section 3004(h) that specifically su-
percede this subsection.
The labeling requirement addresses the concern that people are
unknowingly burning fuels blended with hazardous wastes in un-
controlled circumstances, resulting in health and environmental
risks. Transporters also may be unaware that they are carrying
hazardous waste-derived fuel. The interim labeling requirement
would have the effect of warning the user (and transporter or other
intermediary) that the fuel contains hazardous wastes and identify-
ing those wastes.
The requirement to list the wastes in the fuel can be satisfied by
identifying wastes by generic classes (for instance, “chlorinated sol-
vents”) rather than by the precise chemical name (“spent trichior-
oethylene”). This provision need no longer apply, at the Adminis-
trator’s discretion, once the Agency promulgates substantive stand-
ards for hazardous waste fuels.
Although this provision is self-implementing (regulations are not
needed to effectuate the requirement), the requirement is tied to
the notification provisions of this bill. Thus, if the Agency acts to
limit the class of blenders and distributors required to notify, these
persons may not have to prepare warning labels if the Agency de-
termines such labels would not be needed to protect human health
and the environment and to carry out the intent of this provision
in requiring a label.
The provision applies not only in those States where EPA is op-
erating a hazardous waste program, but in States with authorized
programs as well. This will assure that users and transporters of
hazardous waste-derived fuels in authorized States will not have to
wait until their States adopt labeling legislation or regulations—a
process that could take several years—before they receive the
warnings required by this section.
The labeling requirement provision contains a limited and condi-
tional exemption for certain fuels produced from petroleum refin-
ing waste containing oil or from used oil resulting from normal pe-
troleum refining production and transportation practices. Refiner-
ies often take oily refining wastes and refining transportation
wastes and reintrodue these wastes into the refining process where
the oil component is incorporated into a product and contaminants
are removed. Refineries should not automatically have to place a
warning label on these fuels.
The exemption from the labeling requirement is narrow. The
Agency may still explicitly require a warning label for these fuels
-------
41
as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment.
The exemption does not apply to other wastes generated at a refin-
ery such as spent solvents or discarded pesticides. Finally, these
wastes must be introduced into the refining process at a point prior
to where contaminants are removed. (This standard is drawn from
the definition of “re-refined oil” contained in section 1004 (39) of
the Act.)
Record keeping
This provision directs the Administrator to promulgate regula-
tions, within twelve months after this legislation is enacted, requir-
ing those who produce, burn, distribute or market hazardous waste-
derived fuel to keep appropriate records of their activities, as may
be necessary to protect human health and the environment. Such
records will be needed if the other provision of these amendments
are to be enforceable.
Standards for transporters
The bill amends section 3003 by adding a new subsection (c) that
requires the Administrator, no later than two years after enact-
ment of this legislation, to promulgate regulations, as may be nec-
essary to protect human health and the environment, to regulate
transporters of hazardous waste-derived fuels. In developing these
standards, the Agency may require transporters to meet the re-
quirements contained in paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (a)
of section 3003, but may vary these requirements, or adopt differ-
ent ones, as may be necessary to protect human health and the en-
vironment.
4ôc /
-------
/1U . p 3 ’ 1
1 BURNING AND BLENDING FOR ENERGY RECOVERY
2 SEC. 7. (a) N0TIcE.—(1) Section 3010 is amended by
3 inserting the following after the first sentence thereof: “Not
4 later than twelve months after the date of the enactment of
5 this sentence—
6 “(1) the owner or operator of any facility which
7 produces a fuel (A) from any hazardous waste identi-
8 fled or listed under section 3001, (B) from such hazard-
9 ous waste identified or listed under section 3001 and
10 any other material, (0) from used oil, or (D) from used
11 oil and any other material;
12 “(2) the owner or operator of any facility which
13 burns for purposes of energy recovery any fuel pro-
14 duced as provided in paragraph (1) or any fuel which
15 otherwise contains used oil or any hazardous waste
16 identified or listed under section 3001; and
17 “(3) any person who distributes or markets any
18 fuel which is produced as provided in paragraph (1) or
19 any fuel which otherwise contains used oil or any haz-
20 ardous waste identified or listed under section 3001;
21 shall file with the Administrator (and the State in the case of 1
22 a State with an authorized hazardous waste program) a noti-,
23 fication stating the location and general description of the
24 facility, together with a description of the identified or listed
25 hazardous waste involved and, in the case of a facility re-
HR 2867 RFS
-------
1 ferred to in paragraph (1) or (2), a description of the produc-
2 tion or energy recovery activity carried out at the facility andj
3 such other information as the Administrator deems necessaryi
4 For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ‘hazardous
5 waste listed under section 3001’ also includes any commer-
6 cial chemical product which is listed under section 3001 and
7 which, in lieu of its original intended use, is (i) produced for
8 use as (or as a component of) a fuel, (ii) distributed for use as
9 a fuel, or (iii) burned as a fuel. Not more than one notification
10 shall be required under this subsection in the case of a facility
11 which burns for purposes of energy recovery any fuel which
12 is generated at the site of such facility unless the burning
13 practices to which such notice applies changes following such
14 notification. Notification shall not be required under this sub-
15 section in the case of facilities (such as residential boilers)
16 where the Administrator determines that such notification is
17 not necessary in order for the Administrator to obtain su.ffl-
18 cient information respecting current practices of facilitiesj
19 using hazardous waste for en.ergy recovery. Nothing in this;
20 subsection shall be construed to affect or impair the provi-
21 sions of section 3001(b)(3). Nothing in this subsection shall
22 affect regulatory determinations under section 3012 (as
23 amended by the Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980).”.
1 (2) Section 3010 is amended by striking out “the’
2 preceding sentence” and substituting “the preceding’
3 provisions”.
-------
4 (b) ST &NDAEDs.—(1) Section 3004 is amended by
5 adding the following at the end thereof:
6 “(.g) HAZARDOUS WASTE USED AS FUEL.—Not later
7 than two years after the date of the enactment of this subsec-
8 tion, and after notice and opportunity for public hearing, the
9 Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing
10 such—
11 “(1) standards applicable to the owners and oper-
12 ators of facilities which produce a fuel (A) from any
13 hazardous waste identified or listed under section
14 3001, or (B) from any hazardous waste identified or
15 listed under section 3001 and any other material;
16 “(2) standards applicable to the owners and oper-
17 ators of facilities which burn for purposes of energy re-
18 covery any fuel produced as provided in paragraph (1)
19 or any fuel which otherwise contains any hazardous
20 waste identified or listed under section 3001; and
21 “(3) standards applicable to any person who dis-
22 tributes or markets any fuel which is produced as pro-
23 vided in paragraph (1) or any fuel which otherwise
24 contains any hazardous waste identified or listed under
25 section 3001
-------
1 as maybe necessary to protect human health and the envi-
2 ronment. Such standards may include any of the require-
3 ments set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (a)
4 as may be appropriate. The standards under paragraph (2)
5 may consider differences in destruction efficiency, and waste
6 content of the fuel, and shall, where appropriate, not include
7 requirements beyond the notification referred to in section
8 3010. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect
9 or impair the provisions of section 3001(b)(3). For purposes
10 of this subsection, the term ‘hazardous waste listed under
11 section 3001’ includes any commercial chemical product
12 which is listed under section 3001 and which, in lieu of its
13 original intended use, is (A) produced for use as (or as a
14 component of) a fuel, (B) distributed for use as a fuel, or (C)
15 burned as a fuel. After the date of the enactment of this
16 subsection and until standards are promulgated and in effect
17 under paragraph (2) of this subsection, no fuel which contains
18 hazardous waste may be burned in any cement kiln which is
19 located within the boundaries of any incorporated municipal-
20 ity with a population greater than five hundred thousand
21 (based on the most recent census statistics) unless such kiln
22 fully complies with the regulations (as in effect on the date of
23 the enactment of this subsection) under this subtitle which
24 are applicable to incinerators. Any person who knowingly
-------
1 violates the prohibition contained in the preceding sentence
2 shall be deemed to have violated section 3008(d)(2).
3 “(h) Li ELn o.—Notwithstanding any other provision
4 of law, it shall be unlawful for any person who is required to
5 file a notification in accordance with paragraph (1) or (3) of
6 section 3010 to distribute or market any fuel which is pro-
7 duced from any hazardous waste identified or listed under
8 section 3001, or any fuel which otherwise contains any haz-
9 ardous waste identified or listed under section 3001 if the
10 invoice or the bill of sale fails—
11 “(1) to bear the following statement: ‘WARN-
12 ING: THIS FUEL CONTAINS HAZARDOUS
13 WASTES’, and
14 “(2) to list the hazardous wastes contained there-
15 in.
16 Such statement shall be located in a conspicuous place on
17 every such invoice or bill of sale and shall appear in conspicu-
18 ous and legible type in contrast by typography, layouts, or
19 color with other printed matter on the invoice or bill of sale.
20 “(i) EXEMP’rIoN.—(l) Unless the Administrator deter-
21 mines otherwise as may be necessary to protect human
22 health and the environment, the requirements of subsection
23 (h) shall not apply to fuels produced from petroleum refining
24 waste containing oil if—
c,24W
-------
1 “(A) such materials are generated and reinserted
2 onsite into the refining process;
3 “(B) contaminants are removed; and
4 “(0) such refining waste containing oil is cQnvert-
5 ed along with normal process streams into petroleum-
6 derived fuel products
7 at a facility at which crude oil is refmed into petroleum prod-
8 ucts and which is classified as a number SIC 2911 facility
9 under the Office of Management and Budget Standard Indus-
10 trial Classification Manual.
11 “(2) For exemption of used oil which is recycled from
12 standards under this section, see section 3012(c).”.
13 (2) Section 3003 is amended by adding the following
14 new subsection at the end thereof:
15 “(c) FUEL FROM hAZARDOUS WASTE.—NOt later
16 than two years after the date of the enactment of this subsec-
17 tion and after opportunity for public hearing, the Administra-
18 tor shall promulgate regulations establishing standards, appli-
19 cable to transporters of fuel produced (1) from any hazardous
20 waste identified or listed under section 3001, or (2) from any
21 hazardous waste identified or listed under section 3001 and
22 any other material, as may be necessary to protect human’
23 health and the environment. Such standards may include any
24 of the requirements set forth in paragraphs (1) through (4) of
25 subsection (a) as may be appropriate.”
( 2z’c 1
-------
c- -cR-
BURNING AND BLENDING OF HAZARDOUS W4STES
SEc. 9. (a) NOTIcE.—(1) Section 3010 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act is amended by inserting the following
after the first sentence the reof: “Not later than fifteen
months after the date of the enactment of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act Amendments of 1984—
“(1) the owner or operator of any facility which
produces a fuel (A) from any hazardous waste identi-
fied or listed under section 3001, (B) from such haz-
ardous waste identified or listed under section 3001
and any other material, (C) from used oil, or (D) from
used oil and any other material;
“(2) the owner or operator of any facility (other
than a single- or Iwo-family residence) which burns for
HR 2867 LAS
c,2O ’
-------
36
purposes of energy recovery any fuel produced as pro-
vided in paragraph (1) or any fuel which otherwise
contains used oil or any 1zazardou_ waste identified or
listed under section 3001; and
“(‘3.) any person who distributes or markets any
fuel which is produced as provided in paragraph (1) or
any fuel which otherwise contains used oil or any ha:-
ardous waste identified or listed under section 3001
shall file with the Administrator (and with the State in the
case of a State with an authorized hazardous waste pro-
gram) a notification stating the location and general de-
scription of the facility, together with a description of the
identified or listed hazardous waste involved and, in the
case of a facilily referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), a de-
scription of the production or energy recovery activity car-
ried out at the facility and such other information as the
Administrator deems necessary. For purposes of the preced-
ing sentence, the term ‘hazardous waste listed under section
3001’ also includes any commercial chemical product which
is listed under section 3001 and which, in lieu of its origi-
nal intended use, is (i) produced for use as (or as a compo-
nent of) a fuel, (ii) distributed for use as a fuel, or (iii)
burned as a fuel. Notification shall not be required under
the second sentence of this subsection in the case of facilities
(such as residential boilers) where the Administrator deter-
HR 2867 LAS
c 2 OC/
-------
37
mines that such notification is no! necessary in order for the
Administrator to obtain sufficient information respecting
current practices of facilities using hazardous waste for
energy recovery. Nothing in this subsection shall be con-
strued to affect or impair the provisions of section
3001( b.) (3.). Nothing in this subsection shall affect regulato-
ry determinations under section 3014 (as amended by the
Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980). “.
(2) Section 3010 of such Act is amended by striking
out “the preceding sentence” each place it occurs and substi-
tuting “the preceding provisions ‘
(li) STANDARDS.—(1) Section 3004 of such Act is fur-
ther amended by adding the following at the end thereof.
“(h) HAZARDOUS WASTE USED AS FuEL.—(1) Not
later than Iwo years after the dale of the enactment of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984, and after
notice and opportunity for public hearing, the Administrator
shall promulgate regulations establishing such—
“(1) standards applicable to the owners and oper-
ators of facilities which produce a fuel, (A) from any
hazardous waste identified or listed under section
3001, or (B) from any hazardous waste identified or
listed under section 3001 and any other material;
“(2) standards applicable to the owners and oper-
ators of facilities which burn, for purposes of energy
HR 2867 EAS
c2O t
-------
38
recovery, any fuel produced as provided in paragraph
(1) or any fuel which otherwise contains any hazard-
ous waste identified or listed under section 3001; and
“(3) standards applicable to any person who dis-
tributes or markets any fuel which is produced as pro-
vided in paragraph (1) or any fuel which otherwise
contains any hazardous waste identified or listed under
section 3001
as may be necessary to protect human health and the en vi-
ronment. Such standards may include any of the require-
ments set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection
(a) as may be appropriate. Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to affect or impair the provisions of section
3001 (b) (3). For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘ha:-
ardous waste listed under section 3001’ includes any com-
mercial chemical product which is listed under section 3001
and which, in lieu of its original intended use, is (A) pro-
duced for use as (or as a component of) a fuel, (B) distrib-
uted for use as a fuel, or (C) burned as a fuel.
“(2.)(A) This subsection, subsection (i), and subsection
(j) shall not apply to petroleum refinery wastes containing
oil which are converted into petroleum coke at the same fa-
cility at which such wastes were generated, unless the re-
suiting coke product would exceed one or more characieris-
HR 2867 EAS
-------
39
tics by which a substance would be identified as a hazard-
ous waste under section 3001.
“(B) The Administrator may exempt from the require-
ments of this subsection, subsection (i), or subsection (j) fa-
cilities which burn de minimi3 quantities of hazardous
waste as fuel, as defined by the Administrator, if the wastes
are burned at the same facility at which such wastes are
generated; the waste is burned to recover useful energy, as
determined by the Administrator on the basis of the design
and operating characteristics of the facility and the heating
value znd other characteristics of the waste; and the waste is
burned in a type of device determined by the Administrator
to be designed and operated at a destruction and removal ef-
ficiency sufficient such that protection of human health and
environment is assured. ‘
“(i) LABELZNG.—(1) Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of law, until such time as the Administrator promul-
gates standards under subsection (11) specifically superced-
ing this requirement, it shall be unlawful for any person
who is required to file a notification in accordance with
paragraph (1) or (3) of section 3010 to distribute or market
any fuel which is produced from any hazardous waste iden-
tified or listed under section 3001, or any fuel which other-
wise contains any hazardous waste identified or listed under
section 3001 if the invoice or the bill of sale fails—
HR 2867 EAS
2ocI
-------
40
“(A) to bear the following statement: ‘WARN-
iNG: THIS FUEL CONTAINS HAZARDOUS
WASTES and
“(B) to list the hazardous wastes contained
therein.
Beginning ninety days after the enactment of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984, such statement
shall be located in a conspicuous place on every such in-
voice or bill of sale and shall appear in conspicuous and
legible type in contrast by typography, layouts, or color with
other printed matter on the invoice or bill of sale.
“(2) Unless the Administrator determines otherwise as
may be necessary to protect human health and the environ-
ment, this subsection shall not apply to fueL9 produced from
petroleum refining waste containing oil if (A) such materi-
als are generated and reinserted onsite into the refining
process; (B) contaminants are removed; and (C) such refin-
ing waste containing oil is converted along with normal
process streams into pert roleum-deri ved fuel products at a
facility at which crude oil is refined into petroleum products
and which is classified as a number SIC 2911 facility
under the Office of Management and Budget Standard in-
dust rial Classification Manual.
“(3) Unless the Administrator determines otherwise as
may be necessary to protect human health and the environ-
-------
41
ment, this subsection shall not apply to fuels produced from
oily materials, resulting from normal petroleum refining,
production and transportation practices, if (A) contaminants
are removed; and (B) such oily materials is converted along
with normal process streams into petroleum-derived fuel
products at a facility at which crude oil is refined into pe-
troleum products and which is classified as a number SIC
2911 facility under the Office of Management and Budget
Standard Classification Manual.
“(j) RECORDKEEPJNG.—NO1 later than fifteen months
after the’ enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Amendments of 1984, the Administrator shall promulgate
regulations requiring that any person who is required to file
a notification in accordance with subparagraph (1), (2), or
(3), of paragraph 3010(a) must maintain such records re-
garding fuel blending, distribution, or use as may be neces-
sary to protect human health and the environment. ‘
(2) Section 3003 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
amended by adding the following new subsection:
“(c) FUEL FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE.—Not later
than two years after the date of the enactment of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984 and after oppor-
tunity for public hearing, the Administrator shall promul-
gate regulations establishing standards, applicable to trans-
porters of fuel produced (1) from any hazardous waste iden-
HR 2867 LAS ,2L7 Y ”
-------
42
tified or listed under section 3001, or (2) from any hazard-
ous waste identified or listed under section 3001 and any
other material, as may be necessary to protect human health
and the environment. Such 3tandIllYL9 may include any of
the requirements set forth in paragraphs (1) through (4) of
subsection (a) as may be appropriate. ‘
ow”
-------
Criij ,:;; 4jq ffMz.j j3
AS rz X j !8
3 BURNING AND BLENDING FOR ENERGY RECO VERY
4 SEc. 6. (a) N0TIcE.—(1) Section 3010 is amended by
5 inserting the following after the first sentence thereof: “Not
6 later than twelve months after the date of the enactment of
7 this sentence—
8 . “(1) the owner or operolor of any facility which
9 produces a fuel (A) from any hazardous waste’identi-
10 fled or listed under section 3001, (B) from such ha:-
11 ardous waste identified or listed under section 3001
12 and any other material, (C) from used oil, or c’D) from
13 used oil and any other material;
14 “(2) the owner or operator of any facility which
15 burns for purposes of energy recovery any fuel pro-
16 duced as provided in paragraph (1,) or any fuel which
17 otherwise contains used oil or any hazardous waste
18 identified or listed under section 3001; and
19 “(3) any person who distributes or markets any
20 fuel which is produced as pro iaed in paragraph (1) or
21 any fuel which otherwise contains used oil or any ha:-
22 ardous waste identified or listed under secion 3001;
23 shall file with the Administrator (and the State in the case of
24 a State with an a tthorized hazardous waste program) a note-
25 fica lion slating the location and general description of the
HR 2867 RH
-------
19
1 facility, together with a description of the identified or li.sted
2 ha:ardous waste involved and, in the case of a facility re-
3 ferred to in paragraph (1) or (2), a description of the produc-
4 lion or energy recovery activity carried out at the facility and
5 such other information as the Administrator deems neces-
6 sary. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ‘ha:-
7 ardous waste listed under section 3001’ also includes any
8 commercial chemical product which is listed under section
9 3001 and which, in lieu of its original intended t se, is (1)
10 produced for use as (or as a component of) a fuel, (ii) distrib-
11 uted for use as a fuel, or au ,) burned as a fuel. _Vol more than
12 one notification shall be required under this subsection in ihe
13 case of a facility which burns for purposes of energy recorery
14 any fuel which is generated at the site of such facility unless
15 the burning practices to which such notice applies changes
16 following such notification. Notification shall not be required
17 under this subsection in the case of facilities i’such as re.ii-
18 dential boilers) where the Administrator determines that such
19 notification is not necessary in order foi the Administrator to
20 obtain sufficient information respecting cu—rent practices of
21 facilities using ha:ardous waste for energy recovery. Nothing
22 in this subsection shall be construed to affect or impair the
23 procisions of section 3001(5) (3.). Nothing in this subsection
24 shall affect reg !!atory determinations under section 3012 ‘as
25 amended by the Tsed Oil Recycling Act of 1980. .
HR 286 RH
-------
20
1 (2) Section 3010 is amended by striking out “the pi.
2 ceding senlence”and substituting “the preceding provisions’
3 (1) STANDARDS.—(1) Section 3004 is amended by
4 adding the following at the end lhereof.
5 “ge) HAZARDOUS WASTE USED AS FUEL.—Nol later
6 than two years after the date of the enactment of this subsec.
7 lion, and after notice and opportunity for public hearing, the
8 Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing
9 such—
10 “(1) standards applicable to the owners and oper.
11 alors of facilities which produce a fuel 4) from any
12 ha:ardous waste identified or listed under section
13 3001, or (B) from any hazardous waste identified or
14 listed under section 3001 and any other material;
15 “(2) standards applicable to the owners and opcr-
16 alors of facilities which burn for purposes of encr .y rc-
17 co ’er1d any fuel produced as proi..’ided in paragraph (1)
18 or any fuel which otherwise contains any ha:ara ous
19 waste identified or listed under section 3001; and
20 “c’3) standards applicable to any person who di-
21 tributes or markets any fuel which is produced as pro.
22 vided in paragraph (1) or any fuel which othei cise
23 contains any hazardous waste identified or listed ‘under
24 section 3001
HR 2867 RH
-------
21
1 as may be necessary to protect human health and the envi-
2 ronment. Such standards may include any of the require.
3 men Is set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection
4 (a) as may be appropriate. The standards under paragraph
5 (2) may consider differences in destruction efficiency, and
6 waste content of the fuel, and shall, where appropriate, not
7 include requirements beyond the notification referred to in
8 section 3010. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
9 affect or impair the provLsions of section 3001(b) (3). For
10 purposes of this subsection, the term ‘ha:ardous waste listed
11 under section 3001’includes any commercial chemical prod-
12 uct which is listed under section 3001 and which, in lieu of
13 its original intended use, is (A) produced for u.se as (or as a
14 component of) a fuel, (B) di8tributed for use as a fuel, or
15 burned as a fuel.
16 “Os) LABELING.—Notwithslanding any other provision
17 of law, it shall be unlawful for any person who is required to
18 file a notification in accordance with paragraph (1) or (3) of
19 section 3010 to distribu e or market any fuel which is pro..
20 duced from any hazardous waste identified or li Ied under,
21 section 3001, or any fuel which otherwise contains any ha:-!
22 ardous waste identified or listed under section 3001 if the
23 inzoice or the bill of sale fails—
HR 2S67 RH
-------
22
1 “(1) to bear the following statement: ‘WARX-
2 ING: THIS FUEL CONTAiNS HAZARDO US
3 WASTES and
4 “(‘2) to list the hazardous wastes contained there-
5 in.
6 Such statement shall be located in a conspicuous place on
7 every such invoice or bill of sale and shall appear in con-
8 spicuous and legible type in contrast by typography, layouts,
9 or color with other printed matter on the invoice or bill of
10 sale.
11 “(i) ExE.’ fPTzoz .’ .—(1) Unless the Adminsi rotor deter-
12 mines otherwise as may be necessary to protect human heulth
13 and the en zroTLment, the requirements of subsection (? ) shall
14 not apply to fuels produced from petroleum refining u:ase
15 containing oil if—
16 “(A) such materials are generated and reinserted
17 on i1e into the refining process;
18 “(B) contaminants are removed; and
19 “(C) such refining waste containing oil is con-
20 verted along with normal process streams into pet ro-
21 leurn-derived fuel products
22 at a facility at which crude oil is refined into pet roleu,n prod-
23 ucts and which is classified as a number SiC 2911 facili!y
24 undcr (he Office of Management and Budget Standard in-
25 dzistrial Classification Man ual.
HR 2S67 RH
c 7 7-OV
-------
23
1 “(2) For exemption of used oil which is recycled from
2 standards under this section, see section 3012(c,). ‘
3 (2) Section 3003 is amended by adding the following
4 new subsection at the end thereof:
5 “(c) FUEL FROM HAZARDOUS W4STE.—Not later
6 than two years after the date of the enactment of this subsec-
7 lion and after opportunity for public hearing, the Adminis-
8 trator shall promulgate regulations establishing standards,
9 applicable to transporters of fuel produced (1) from any ha-
10 ardous waste identified or listed under section 3001, or (2)
11 from any ha:ardou$ waste identified or listed under section
12 3001 and any other material, as may be necessary to protect
13 human health and the environment. Such standard-s may in-
14 dude any of the requirements set forth in paragraphs (2)
15 through (4,) of subsection (a) as may be appropriate.”
c2 O 1
-------
ç [ cPFn7 1 7f /J
AS tiç or’-7 .O
13 BURNING AND BLENDiNG OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
14 SEC. 9. (a) N0TIcE.—(1) Section 3010 of the Solid
15 Waste Disposal Act is amended by inserting the following
16 after the first sentence thereof: “Not later than twelve months
17 after the date of the enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal
18 Act Amendments of 1983—
19 “(1) the owner or operator of any facility which
20 produces a fuel (A) from any hazardous waste identi-
21 fied or listed under section 3001, (B) from suck haz-
22 ardous waste identified or listed under section 3001
23 and any other material, (C) from used oil, or (D) from
24 used oil and any other material;
S 757 RS
c2L7
-------
55
1 “(2) the owner or operator of any facility (other
2 than a single- or two-family residence) which burns for
3 purposes of energy recovery any fuel produced as pro-
4 vided in paragraph (1) or any fuel which otherwise
5 contains used oil or any hazardous waste identified or
6 listed under section 3001; and
7 “(3) any person who distributes or markets any
8 fuel which is produced as provided in paragraph (1) or
9 any fuel which otherwise contains used oil or any haz-
10 ardous waste identified or listed under section 3001
11 shall file with the Administrator (and with the State in the
12 case of a State with an authorized hazardous waste program)
13 a notification stating the location and general description of
14 the facility, together with a description of the identified or
15 listed hazardous waste involved and, in the case of a facility
16 referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), a description of the pro-
17 duction or energy recovery activity carried out at the facility
18 and such other information as the Administrator deems nec-
19 essary. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ‘haz-
20 ardous waste listed under section 3001’ also includes any
21 commercial chemical product which is listed under section
22 3001 and which, in lieu of its original intended use, is (i)
23 produced for use as (or as a component of) a fuel, (ii) distrib-
24 uted for use as a fuel, or (iii) burned as a fuel. Notification
25 shall not be required under the second sentence of this subsec-
S 757 KS
-------
56
1 lion in the case of facilities (such as residential boilers)
2 where the Administrator determines that such notification is
3 not necessary in order for the Administrator to obtain suffi-
4 cient information respecting current practices of facilities
5 using hazardous waste for energy recovery. Nothing in this
6 subsection shall be construed to affect or impair the provi-
7 sions of section 3001(b) (3). Nothing in this subsection shall
8 affect regulatory determinations under section 3014 (as
9 amended by the Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980). ‘
10 (2) Section 3010 of such Act is amended by striking out
11 “the preceding sentence” each place it occurs and substitut-
12 ing “the preceding provisions”.
13 (b) STANDARDS.—(1) Section 3004 of such Act is fur-
14 ther amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
15 “(h) HAZARDOUS WASTE USED AS FuEL.—(1) Not
16 later than two years after the date of the enactment of the
17 Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1983, and after
18 notice and opportunity for public hearing, the Administrator
19 shall promulgate regulations establishing such—
20 “(1) standards applicable to the owners and oper-
21 ators of facilities which produce a fuel, (A) from any 1
22 hazardous waste identified or listed under section
23 3001, or (B) from any hazardous waste identified or
24 listed under section 3001 and any other material;
S 757 ES
-------
57
1 “(2) standards applicable to the owners and oper-
2 ators of facilities which bur’n, for purposes of energy
3 recovery, any fuel produced as provided in paragraph
4 (1) or any fuel which otherwise contains any hazard-
5 ous waste identified or listed under section 3001; and
6 “(3) standards applicable to any person who dis-
7 tributes or markets any fuel which is produced as pro-
8 vided in paragraph (1) or any fuel which otherwise
9 contains any hazardous waste identified or listed under
10 section 3001
11 as may be necessary to protect human health and the envi-
12 ronment. Such standards may include any of the require-
13 ments set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection
14 (a) as may be appropriate. Nothing in this subsection shall
15 be construed to affect or impair the provisions of section
16 3001(b) (3). For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘hazard-
17 ous waste listed under section 3001’includes any commercial
18 chemical product which is listed under section 3001 and
19 which, in lieu of its original intended use, is (A) produced for
20 use as -(or as a component of) a fuel (B) distributed for use
21 as a fuel or (C) burned as a fuel.
22 “(2) (A) This subsection, subsection (i), and subsection
23 (j) shall not apply to petroleum refinery wastes containing oil
24 which are converted into petroleum coke at the same facility
25 at which such wastes were generated, unless the resulting
S757RS
e 2L75’
-------
58
1 coke product would exceed one or more characteristics by
2 which a substance would be identified as a hazardous waste
3 under section 3001.
4 “(B) The Administrator may exempt from the require-
5 ments of this subsection, subsection (i), or subsection tj) facil-
6 ities which burn de minimis quantities of hazardous waste as
7 fuel, as defined by the Administrator, if the wastes are
8 burned at the same facility at which such wastes are generat-
9 ed; the waste is burned to recover useful energy, as deter-
10 mined by the Administrator on the basis of the design and
11 operating characteristics of the facility and the heating value
12 and other characteristics of the waste; and the waste is
13 burned in a type of device determined by the Administrator to
14 be designed and operated at a destruction and removal effi-
15 ciency sufficient such that protection of human health and
16 environment is assured. “
17 “(i) LABELING.—(1) Notwithstanding any other provi-
18 sion of law, until such lime as the Administrator promulgates
19 standards under subsection (ii) specifically superceding this
20 requirement, it shall be unlawful for any person who is re-
21 quired to file a notification in accordance with paragraph (1)
22 or (3) of section 3010 to distribute or market any fuel which
23 is produced from any hazardous waste identified or listed
24 under section 3001, or any fuel which otherwise contains any
S 757 RS
-------
1 hazardou3 waste i ntified or listed under section 3001 if the
2 invoice or the bill of sale fails—
3 “(A) to bear the following statement: ‘WARN-
4 1NG: THiS FUEL CONTAiNS HAZARDOUS
5 WASTES’, and
6 “(B) to list the hazardous wastes contained
7 therein.
8 Beginning ninety days after the enactment of the Solid
9 Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1983, such statement
10 shall be located in a conspicuous place on every such invoice
11 or bill of sale and shall appear in conspicuous and legible
12 type in contrast by typography, layouts, or color with other
13 printed matter on the invoice or bill of sale.
14 “(2) Unless the Administrator determines otherwise as
15 may be necessary to protect human health and the environ-
16 ment, this subsection shall not apply to fuels produced from
17 petroleum refining waste containing oil if (A) such materials
18 are generated and reinserted onsite into the refining process;
19 (B) contaminants are removed; and (C) such refining waste
20 containin ’ oil is converted along with normal process streams
21 into pertroleum-derived fuel products at a facility at which
22 crude oil is refined into petroleum products and which is
23 classified as a number SiC 2911 facility under the Office of
24 Management and Budget Standard Industrial Classification
25 Manual.
S 757 RS
-------
60
1 “(3) Unless the Administrator determines otherwise as
2 may be necessary to protect human health and the environ-
3 ment, this subsection shall not apply to fuels produced from
4 used oil, resulting from normal petroleum refining production
5 and transportation practices, if (A) contaminants are re-
6 moved; and (B) such used oil is converted along with normal
7 process streams into petroleum-derived fuel products at a fa-
8 cility at which crude oil is refined into petroleum products
9 and which is classified as a number SIC 2911 facility under
10 the Office of Management and Budget Standard Classifica-
11 tion manual.
12 “(j) RECORDKEEPING.—NO1 later than twelve months
13 after the enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act A mend-
14 ments of 1983, the Administrator shall promulgate regula-
15 tions requiring that any person who is required to file a noti-
16 fication in accordance with subparagraph (1), (2), or (3), of
17 paragraph 3010(a) must maintain such records regarding
18 fuel blending, distribution, or use as may be necessary to
19 protect human health and the environment. ‘
20 (2) Section 3003 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
21 amended by adding the following new subsection:
22 “(c) FUEL FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE.—Not later
23 than two years after the date of the enactment of the Solid
24 Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1983 and after opportu-
25 nity for public hearing, the Administrator shall promulgate
S 757 RS
c,2O
-------
61
1 regulations establishing standards, applicable to transporters
2 of fuel produced (1) from any hazardous waste identified or
3 listed under section 3001, or (2) from any hazardous waste
4 identified or listed under section 3001 and any other materi-
5 al, as may be necessary to protect human health and the envi-
6 ronment. Such standards may include any of the require-
7 ments set forth in paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection
8 (a) as may be appropriate. ‘
-------
I4Ltfl’I A%7I4)itb0U9C f4
23 Bniwuo AND BLINDING FOB ENERGY RECOVERY
24 Sit 6. (a) NoTIoE.—(1) Section 3010 of the Solid
25 Waste Disposal Act i i amended by inserthig the following
Jo ,’
-------
17
1 after the first sentence thereof: “Not later than twelve
2 months after the date of the enactment of this sentence—
3 “(1) the owner or operator of any facility which
4 produces a fuel (A) from any hazardous waste identi-
5 fied or listed under section 3001, (B) from such hazard-
6 ous waste identified or listed under section 3001 and
7 any other material, (0) from used oil, or (D) from used
8 oil and any other material;
9 “(2) the owner or operator of any facility which
10 burns for purposes of energy recovery any fuel pro-
11 duced as provided in paragraph (1) or any fuel which
12 otherwise contains used oil or any hazardous waste
13 identified or listed under section 3001; and
14 “(3) any person who distributes or markets any
15 fuel which is produced as provided in paragraph (1) or
16 any fuel which otherwise contains used oil or any haz-
17 ardous waste identified or listed under section 3001
18 shall file with the Administrator (and the State in the case of
19 a State with an authorized hazardous waste program) a noti-
20 fication stating the location and general description of the
21 facility, together with a description of the identified or listed
22 hazardous waste involved and, in the case of a facility re-
23 ferred to in paragraph (1) or (2), a description of the produc-
24 tion or energy recovery activity carried out at the facility and
25 such other information as the Administrator deems necessary.
hR 2867 ffl——3
-------
18
1 For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ‘hazardous
2 waste listed under section 3001’ also includes any commer-
3 cial chemical product which is listed under section 3001 and
4 which, in lieu of its original intended use, is (i) produced for
5 use as (or as a component of) a fuel, (ii) distributed for use as
6 a fuel, or (iii) burned as a fuel. Not more than one notification
7 shall be required under this subsection in the case of a facility
8 which burns for purposes of energy recovery any fuel which
9 is generated at the site of such facility unless the burning
10 practices to which such notice applies changes following such
11 notification. Notification shall not be required under this sub-
12 section in the case of facilities (such as residential boilers)
13 where the Administrator determines that such notification is
14 not necessary in order for the Administrator to obtain suffi-
15 cient information respecting current practices of facilities
16 using hazardous waste for energy recovery. Nothing in this
17 subsection shall be construed to affect or impair the provi-
18 sions of section 300 1(b)(3). Nothing in this subsection shall
19 affect regulatory determinations under section 3012 (as
20 amended by the Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980).”.
21 (2) Section 3010 is amended by striking out “the pre-
22 ceding sentence” and substituting “the preceding provi-
23 sions”.
24 (b) STANDARDS.—(1) Section 3004 of such Act is
25 amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
HR 2867 IH
-------
19
1 “(e) HAZA1 DOUS WASTE USED AS IkTEL.—Not later
2 than two years after the date of the enactment of this subsec-
3 tion, and after notice and opportunity for public hearing, the
4 Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing
5 such—
6 “(1) standards applicable to the owners and oper-
7 ators of facilities which produce a fuel (A) from any
8 hazardous waste identified or listed under section
9 3001, or (B) from any hazardous waste identified or
10 listed under section 3001 and any other material;
11 “(2) standards applicable to the owners and oper-
12 ators of facilities which burn for purposes of energy re-
13 covery any fuel produced as provided in paragraph (1)
14 or any fuel which otherwise contains any hazardous
15 waste identified or listed under section 3001; and
16 “(3) standards applicable to any person who dis-
17 tributes or markets any fuel which is produced as pro-
18 vided in paragraph (1) or any fuel which otherwise
19 contains any hazardous waste identified or listed under
20 section 3001
21 as may be necessary to protect human health and the envi-
22 ronment. Such standards may include any of the require-
23 ments set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (a)
24 as may be appropriate. The standards under paragraph (2)
25 shall consider differences in destruction efficiency, waste con-
HR 2867 III
-------
20
1 tent of the fuel, and burning practices and shall, where ap-
2 propriate, not include requirements beyond the notification
3 referred to in section 3010. Nothing in this subsection shall
4 be construed to affect or impair the provisions of section
5 3001(b)(3). For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘hazard-
6 ous waste listed under section 3001’ includes any commercial
7 chemical product which is listed under section 3001 and
8 which, in lieu of its original intended use, is (A) produced for
9 use as (or as a component of) a fuel, (B) distributed for use as
10 a fuel, or (C) burned as a fuel.
11 “(f) LABELING.—Notwithstanding any other provision
12 of law, it shall be unlawful for any person who is required to
13 file a notification in accordance with paragraph (1) or (3) of
14 section 3010 to distribute or market any fuel which is pro-
15 duced from any hazardous waste identified or listed under
16 section 3001, or any fuel which otherwise contains any haz-
17 ardous waste identified or listed under section 3001 if the
18 invoice or the bill of sale fails—
19 “(1) to bear the following statement: ‘WARN-
20 ING: THIS FUEL CONTAINS HAZARDOUS
21 WASTES’, and
22 “(2) to list the hazardous wastes contained there-
23 in.
24 Such statement shall be located in a conspicuous place on
25 every such invoice or bill of sale and shall appear in conspicu-
HR 2867 IH
-------
21
1 ous and legible type in contrast by typography, layouts, or
2 color with other printed matter on the invoice or bill of sale.
3 “(g) ExEMPTI0N.—Unless the Adminstrator deter-
4 mines otherwise as may be necessary to protect human
5 health and the environment, the requirements of subsection
6 (f) shall not apply to fuels produced from used oil or petro-
7 leum refining waste containing oil if—
8 “(1) such materials are generated and reinserted
9 onsite into the refining process;
10 “(2) contaminants are removed; and
11 “(3) such used oil or refining waste containing oil
12 is converted along with normal process streams into
13 petroleum derived fuel products,
14 at a facility at which crude oil is refined into petroleum prod-
15 ucts and which is classified as a number SIC 2911 facility
16 under the Office of Management and Budget Standard Indus-
17 trial Classification Manual.”.
18 (2) Section 3003 of such Act is amended by adding the
19 following new subsection at the end thereof:
20 “(c) FUEL FRoM HAZARDOUS WASTE.—Not later
21 than two years after the date of the enactment of this subsec-
22 tion and after opportunity for public hearing, the Administra-
23 tor shall promulgate regulations establishing standards, appli-
24 cable to transporters of fuel produced (1) from any hazardous
25 v ste identified or listed under section 3001, or (2) from any
HR 2867 III
/) C.,!
-------
22
1 hazardous waste identified or listed under section 3001 and
2 any other material, as may be necessary to protect human
3 health and the environment. Such standards may include any
4 of the requirements set forth in paragraphs (1) through (4) of
5 subsection (a) as may be appropriate.”.
1; CZ’
-------
- _ . .. — ...c a a1
wIthin 66 months. EPA ’s statutory mandate
Is to prohiolt the land dlgpceal of these
wastes unless it finds that one or more
methods of disposal will not harm public
health or the envIronment, 11 EPA falls to
meet either of its first two deadlines and L I
there Is no treatment capacity. then the
wastes that have not been reviewed would
have to be sent to land disposal facilities
that are double-lined and have leachate col.
lecUon systems. I I EPA falls to meet Its
final deadline, then all unreviewed wastes
would be banned from land disposal, unless
the generator qualifies for a limited vast-
ance.
FLR. 2867 contains a number of provisions
designed to promote compliance with the
bills regulatory safeguards Dy Increasing
clvii and criminal penalties for violators. For
example. ptacLng another person In dangtr
of death or serious bodily Injury bY Illegal
disposal or management of hasardous wa.ne
csrnes a maxImum 15 year prison sentence
and a 1250.000 fIne. A corporation could be
fined It million.
In addition, citizens would be provided the
right to sue responsible parties and compel
them to clean up hazardous waste sites.
Congress has recognized that leaving all en-
foreement responsibility to PA and the
slates has not been satisfactos In light of
the widespread non-compliance by hazard-
ous waste facilities. Citizen involvement, In-
cluding lawsuits, to force abatement of
public health dangers, Is designed to law-
suits, to force abatement of public health
dangers, Is designed to complement the guy-
ernnient’s enforcement efforts and encour-
age greater compliance by the regulated
communitY.
cROuwowares COMMissI’ is
MR. 2867 also establishes a 19-member
National Groundwater Cornnitssion to Invea-
ligate and report on causes of groundwater
contamination and to recommend a national
strategy for addressing threats to the Na-
Uons freshwater ariulfera.
is a Commonsense compromise be.
tween the House and Senate versions
of ‘he tank regulatory program which
will provide a mJnlmum amount of dis.
ruptton to the regulated community,
In light of this sensible compromise
provision. I can support H.R. 2867 and
look forward to the President signing
It into law thin year.
Mr. Speaker. I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lszrrl,
the ranking minority member of the
subcommittee who has worked so hard
and effectively with respect to this
program.
Mr. LENT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of the conference report on
HR. 2867—the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 19B4. This is a
carefuUy crafted compromise bill
which has resulted from many years
of hard work by both Members and
staff. I want to particularly commend
the chairman of the full committee on
Energy and Commerce, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. DINGSU.3, the
gent’eman from New Jersey (Mr. I
FL0RI0], the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Bnoirsuu.], the gentle.
ma’s from Ohio (Mr. EcKART]. and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Rxrr a].
In my opinion, this conference
report represents a fair compromise
between the provisions of H.R. 2867
and S. 757—its Senate companion
measure. In most Instances the differ-
ences between the two bills have been
split almost equally—resulting In an
Important new environmental statute.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste En.
forcement Act of 1984 represents a
dramatic new shift in our national
policy about hazardous waste disposal.
After this measure is enacted, small
quantity generators of hazardous
waste who are now able to generate
2,209 kilograms or 1 ton of hazardous
wasfe a month will have to dispose of
their waste in a properly permitted Ia-
duty rather than In an unregulated
dump.
Following enactment, the EPA will
be on a strict timetable for reviewing
and banning hazardous waste from
land disposal. Some of the most toxic
chemicals will be banned by statute
unless EPA determines that is not nec-
essary to protect human health and
the environment. These chemicals in- I
elude arsenic, cyanide, and diox Ins.
For too many years In this country, 1
we have permitted the practice of
dumping hazardous Wastes in the land
to go virtually unchecked. Even now
that the EPtt is requiring landfills to
be lIned. 1 do not feel confident that I
these liners will remain secure in the
long term. Therefore, I believe It is ap-
propriate for the Congress to Inter-
vene at this time and to establish a
new policy which calls for a review of
known hazardous wastes and a deter-
mination whether these wastes are ap-
propriate for land disposal.
We simply cannot afford to s.llow
these dangerous and persistent chemi-
IZAAii O WSOERGROVIID 570M01 TAJIXS
KR. 2857 establIshe, a comprehensive
regulatory program to prevent leaks from
Underground storage tanks. There are more
than I million underground tanks In the
United States which contain hszardous sub-
stances or gasoline. An estimated 100,000
are preeenuy leaking ipotenually Contain-
mating groundwater) and another 350,000
are expected to leak in the next five years.
KR. 2867 mandates the use of leak detec-
tion systems, the development of new tank
standards which will protect against corro-
sion, as well as many other safeguards.
Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FLORIO. f’yleld to the gentle-
KR. 2857 closes a number of regulatory man from Pennsylvania,
loopholes which have allowed the djsposal Mr. EDGAR. I thank the gentleman
of significant quantities of hazardous waste for yielding.
to remain uncontrolled, Among these loop- Mt. Speaker, I would just like to
holes is the “small generator” exemption commend the gentleman on the legis.
which permits the disposal of UP tO one lation and point out that the legisla-
metric ton a month (per generatorl Into so-
called sanitary landfills or Into aewers—dis. tion does Include the establishment of
possi practices which obviously are not pro- a National Groundwater Coxnrnmk.
tective of human health or the environ- slon, which the gentleman and I have
ment. The legislation requires regulation of worked on, and I want to congratulate
generators who produce more than 100 kilo- him for his efforts,
grams 1220 pot,nds each month. These gen- M i’. FLORIO. I thank the gentle-
craters will be required to send their han- man. P
rdous wastes to an appropriate diwosal or Mr. Speaker, I reserve the ba1 nce of
treatment facility.
T flother major loophole which is a 1my time.
dressed by this legtslation concerns the use ( 0 2140
of hazardous wastes as fueL Currently, some Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Speaker, I
of the most dangerous wastes, such as PCBa
and dioxin. are blended Into used oil or yield myself 5 minutes.
other fuel and burned in residential boilers I rise In support of R.R. 2867. 1 be-
which are not capable of destroying the lieve it is an important environmental
toxic component of these wanes. This orac- measure which Is deserving of passage
tice, which has become Increasingly preva- this year.
lent, particularly In the Northeast. creates a My understanding of this measure Is
substantial risk to those citizens whose that It incorporates a number of com-
health is most vulnerable, especially the eld-
erly. young children and persons with respi promises on important issues such as
ratory illnesses. Under the legislation, EPA smaLl quantity generators, PCBs and
must issue regulations that would allow underground storage tanks.
burning of hazardous wastes only under clv- f The language adopted on small
eusnstances that would not harm public quantity genez-ato is virtually identi ’
health. ..‘—.‘ cal to that otan agreement reached by
- the bt!siness nd environmental corn-
munltj SAils .pear. It provides for a
workable J’?g mZatory program for small
quantity generators of between 100,
kilogra ms ‘a i 1 1,000 kilograms of has-
ardous waste per month. Appropriate-
ly, this program is restricted to that
universe of generators—there Is no
regulation below 100 kIlograms per
month. In my opinion, regulation of
these small generators should not go
below 100 kIlograms per month. I be-
lieve the conferees did well In adopting
this commonsense compromise.
Further, the conferees agreed to
drop a House provision which would
have required the listing of PCB’s
under RCRA. I advocated and com-
pletely support this approach. PCB’s
are already regulated under the ‘Voxic
Substances Control Act and EPA Is in
the process now of reviewing’whether
or not supplemental regulation is ap-
propriate under RCR& It Is clear that
FCB’s are now, and will continue to
be. carefully monitored .and that a
mandatory listing procedure Is Inap-
propriate. -
Further, the conferees adopted a
compromise underground storage tank
proposal. It appears that this proposal
c2O,K
14 Hi 2 ñ( L!) ‘ l
-------
S 13814
planatory statement of the committee
of conference. (‘The Conference sub-
stitute Is the same as the Senate
amendment.”)
Before I yield the floor, Madam
President, I should like to ask my dis-
tinguished colleagues, Senators
CHAFES and RANDoLpH, whether this
explanation of the conference agree-
ment on section 703 of this bill, deal-
ing with uranium mill tailings, Is con-
sistent with their understanding of
this provision, and the agreement of
the conferees?
Senator CHAFEE. Yes, Madam
President. the explanation of the Sen-
ator from Wyoming accurately ex-
plains the agreement of the conferees.
Senator RANDOLPH. I, too, agree
with that explanation, and concur
that it represents the agreement
reached by the conferees.
Senator SIMPSON. I thank my dis-
tinguished colleagues for those a.ssur-
ances. Thank you Madam President.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Madam President,
the conference report on H.R. 2867,
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1934, represents a 3-
year effort to address the serious prob-
lems of hazardous and municipal
waste disposal in this country. This
measure makes major Improvements
in existing law. When enacted, greater
protection to public health and the en-
vlroninent will be provided.
I have said in the past that the 1976
amendment, the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act, was misnamed,
because it did little to.move the Nation
toward materials and energy recovery.
The hazardous waste regulatory pro-
gram under subtitle C, which is the
heart of the 1976 act, was disappoint-
ingly slow in Implementation. This
bill, however, by adding real teeth to
the regulatory program and firmly
moving away from land disposal for
hazardous wastes, could legitimately
be called the Recycling, incineration,
and Treatment Act of 1984. In making
these changes in the law, the Congress
shows that it Is serious about encour-
aging the use of alternative technol-
ogies.
‘On July 25 of this year, the Senate
unanimously adopted amendments to
the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The
House approved similar legislation
nearly a year ago. Over the past 2
weeks, the 26 House and Senate con-
ferees met on four occasions to resolve
differences between the two measures.
The conference report contains
changes from the previously adopted
bill, S. 757, that merit clarification and
discussion. Accurate interpretation
and implementation of several prori-
slons requires that the intent be care-
fully understood. The statement of
managers describes many of these pro-
visions, but I wish to make additional
observations about several of particu-
lar concern to me.
Among those of greatest interest for
me are amendments revising subtitle
D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. 3m-
plernentatlon of the existing program
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
has faltered, primarily because of
budget decisions. The subtitle D pro-
gram has not been funded or imple-
mented for several years, prompting
me to introduce the amendment that
was adopted during earlier Senate con-
sideration of this measure,
That amendment seeks to improve
the management of municipal landfills
and eliminate open dumps. It author-
izes funding to enable States to oper-
ate programs upgrading sanitary land-
fills and closing out existing open
dumps. The lack of Federal assistance
in recent years has brought this effort
to a standstill. Under my amendment
$15 million of the buaget provided the
Environmental Protection Agency in
fiscal year 1985 could be allocated for
this purpose. Our expectation is that a
portion of the congressional Increase
in the EPA budget will be used for this
work. The amendment authorizes $20
million for each year through fiscal
year 1988.
The Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency will be re-
quired to revise existing landfill crite-
ria In recognition of the fact that vir-
tually all landfills serve as repositories
for some hazardous waste, Household
waste, small generators, and illegal
dumpers contribute to landfills. It is
necessary to apply controls and moni-
toring requirements to assure that
these facilities are adequate, The
amendment requires that these stand-
ards be promulgated by March 31,
1988, ThIs will allow consideration of
the Information gathered in the small
quantity generator study.
States will be required to establish
regulatory programs to assure that
solid waste management facilities
comply with subtitle D criteria. This
may include a permitting program or
comparable system subject to the ap-
proval of the Administrator. The
amendment requires that States bring
solid waste facilities into compliance
with existing requirements in 3 years.
They will have an additional 18
months to meet the revised criteria
after they are promulgated. In the
event that a State should fail to Imple-
ment a solid waste management pro-
gram. the Administrator is authorized
to prohibit open dumps. States imple-
menting approved solid waste pro-
grams are completely responsible for
enforcement.
The underlying standard for facili-
ties subject to this amendment to sub-
title D remains protection of human
health and the environment. Require-
ments imposed on facilities may vary
from those for subtitle C facilities,
however, and still meet this standard.
They may be phased in over time, as
the Administrator deems appropriate,
to take account of the practicable ca-
pability of the facilities covered.
New statutory requirements for sub-
title D facilities may hasten the clo-
sure of many solid waste facilities that
have only a few years of remaining ca-
pacity. The requirements could also
precipitate the closure of facilities
October 5, 1984
with substantial capacity, but that are
either unable or unwilling to accept
new regulatory costs.
By allowing the administrator to
consider the practicable capability of
solid waste disposal facilities, the Con-
gress has expressed its desire to avert
serious disruptions of the solid waste
disposal industry. The Administrator
could phase in new requirements other
than ground water monitoring and
corrective action over time. Phasing
may be tailored to the characteristics
of broad categories of facilities. Such
phasing might include, for example
imposing requirements first on large
facilities which have the greatest po-
tential, for affecting human health
and the environment in the absence of
added regulatory controls. Phasing
also might lncluLle imposing some re-
quirements Immediately on existing
units but giving time to meet other re-
quirements so that facilities are not
faced with all major new requirements
at once.
The public Is alarmed by The pi’ofu-
sion of chemical contamination inci-
dents that threaten homes, neighbor-
hoods and whole communities, Recent-
ly, this concern has been centered
almost exclusively on massive industri-
al chemical dumps and has let to ne-
glect of a foremost threat to health
and the environment,
We assume that our trash will be
picked up at home, but seldom ques-
tion where it goes, how it is disposed
of, or whether it is an environmental
problem. In fact, a substantial amount
of hazardous material finds its way to
sanitary landfills and open dumps
through household waste. small cener-
ator waste, and Illegal dumping. Ne-
glect of open dumps and sanitary land-
fills will continue to produce Super-
fund sites. Fully half of the original
national priority list encompassed
landfills. In most cases ground water
contamination has occurred.
Implementation of the existing sub-
title 0 program has faltered largely
through misguided budget decisions,
The current administration has failed
to recognize that municipal landfills
and dumps are very much a part of
the hazardous waste disposal problem.
The subtitle 0 amendments in this bill
will do much to help correct this situa-
tion.
Another area of my concern is the
exemption for petroleum coke under
the provisions for the control of burn-
ing or blending hazardous waste. The
Agency is authorized to determine ad-
ministratively which entitics must give
notification, and tIle administrator has
asked that the notification deadline be
postponed until the regulatory pattern
is determined. rn this way, notification
can generally be required from those
the agency proposes to regulate. Since
petroleum coke i exempted from reg.
ulat ion under these provisions, the
Agency would not be requiring notifi-
cation from purchasers, distributors.
marketers, or users of petroleum coke.
-------
October 5, .1934
I am a strong supporter of the
“direct action” provisions of the bill,
dealing with financial responsibility. It
is the intent of tITh committee that
this approach to financial responsibil-
ity be applied to each environmental
statute as the opportunity to amend
those statutes - becomes avaiiable.
Thus, while the conferees deleted this
provision as applied to the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response,
Compensaton and Liability Act
(CERCLA], it was deleted only be-
cause all CERCLA amendments to this
bill were deleted. It is our Intention
that a similar amendment will be
added to CERCLA and title III of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act at
the earliest appropriate time.
Another CERCLA-related matter is
the Senate-proposed technical amend-
meat clarifying that taxes for the
post-closure liability fund wiil not
ezpre at the end of this fiscal year.
WIule we saw this as only a technical
and clarifying amendment, in the eyes
of the House Committee on Ways and
Means it constituted an extension of a
tax. Since Hit. 2867 is not a revenue
measure, there was some question
whether section 28(c) of the Senate
bill could constitutionally be included
in the bill. To avoid this problem, the
Senate recoded. This, however, does
not indicate any lessening of our sup-
port for the post-closure liability fund
or of our desire to correct this tcchni
cal problem.
In implementing the hazardous
waste regulatory program and the
amendments made by this bill, it is im-
portant that there be equity of regula-
tion and enforcement between on-site
and off-site disposal. Both can cause
serious problems, and evenhanded
treatment will avoid singling out off-
sac disposal (or unnecessarily harsh
controls.
The conference report contains the
Senate provision excluding facilities
within the State of Alabama from the
alternative technology provisions con-
tained in the minimum technological
requirements. By adoption of this
Senate provision, the conferees do not
imply that any facility within the
State of Alabama couid, or could not,
comply with any minimum technologi-
cal variance requirements envisioned
by this provision. This Alabama exclu-
sion does not prejudice or affect con-
sideration of pending or future permit
app iications by facilities in Alabama to
the extent that such applications may
comply with this or other Federal and
State statutes and regulations.
This provision solely affecting facili-
ties within Alabama extends only to
the alternative technology demonstra-
tion otherwise available regarding
minimum technology requirements
and does not affect other alternative
operating or design options available
to owners or operators of Alabama
land disposal facilities under this or
other Federal or State statutes or reg-
ulations. For example, if pretreated
wastes under other provisions were cx-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
pressly permitted to utilize land dis-
posal facilities of differing technologi-
cal design or operating requirements,
this Alabama exclusion gould not
apply to that alternative authority.
Under new section 3004(o), the pro-
vision which bans the placement or
maintenance of a “prohibited” waste
in a treatment impoundment unless
treatment residues removed within 1
year of placement does not apply to
those wastes which have been subject
to the pretreatment of detoxification
requirements established by the ad-
ministrator under section 3004(m)- Re-
moval of hazardous treatment residues
does not necessarily require complete
drainage of the impoundment, and in
appropriate cases can be carried out
by vacuum or mechanical devices
which remove concentrated ‘bottom
sludges,
Madam President, many statistics
and studies have been cited during
consideration of amendments to the
Solid Waste Disposal Act. Several
facts gleaned from these studies em-
phasize present and future challenges
to managing waste disposal.
EPA estimates that in 1981, 71 bil-
lion gallons (264 million metric tons)
of wastes were generated that are con-
sidered hazardous under the Solid
Waste Disposal Act. This amount ex-
ceeded previous EPA estimates by 60
percent.
Of this total, 14.70 billion gallons of
wastes were disposed of. The dominant
method of disposal was through un-
derground injection we us, accounting
for 8.60 billion gallons. Surface m i-
poundment disposal accounted for an-
other 5.10 billion gallons. Nearly an-
other billion gallons nre disposed of
in landfills.
In 1981, 4,812 facilities treated,
stored or disposed of hazardous
wastes. Of thcse, only 326 were com-
mercial facilities. The majority of fa-
cilities were managing wastes associat-
ed with industrial manufacturing op-
erations.
Over 14,000 generators reported
being subject to hazardous waste regu-
lations in 1981. This figure does not in-
clude the small quantity generators
that will not be regulated by emend-
mncnts to the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
These figures served to illustrate the
dimensions of the hazardous waste
issue. They also portray the irnmedta-
cy of developing environmentally
sound methods to address the vast
quantities of waste generated annual-
ly. It is disturbing that EPA had un-
deresti nated the amount of wastes
generated by over half, for the first
year for which reliable statistics are
available.
Madam President, the original Solid
Waste Disposal Act was enacted nearly
20 years ago as a short addition to
Clean Air Act amendments, it ad.
dressed concerns about the prolifera-
tion of refuse throughout the country.
These statistics demonstrate that solid
and hazardous waste issues necessitate
S13 315
a comprehensive national manage-
ment progrart
Solid waste management has been
the environmental program in which I
have taken the keenest personal inter-
est. In 1970 I authored the Resource
Recovery Act, which established the
first large-scale Federal effort to sup-
port demonstrations of recycling and
energy recovery technology. That act
also called for a study of hazardous
waste disposal. I was again a principal
author of the 1976 amendments to the
Solid Waste Disposal Mt . or the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery
Act, as it is often called. The founda-
tion of our hazardous waste regulatory
program is subtitle C of that act, and
the comprehensive solid waste man-
agement provisions I discussed earlier
are in subtitle D.
In 1980, at the same time the com-
mittee was developing the Comprehen--
sive Environmental Response, Corn-
pensation, and Liability Act, the Con-
gress passed amendments I sponsored
further strengthening the hazardous
waste regulatory program. During this
Congress as ranking minority member
of the committee I have worked with
Senator Cns.rss and Senator Sn.n’ona
to bring to fruition the bill we consid-
er today.
ConsIderation of this conference
report will culminate my 20 years of
involvement with this legislation. I
know from this experience that the
amendments we propose today will re-
quire further improvements in the
future.
“Superfund” will continue to be a
household word until the provisions
and objectives of the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act are met to the letter.
I believe that there continue to be
two significant gaps in existing eiivi-
ronmental legislation that require the
attention of Congress.
Through experience with the Solid
Waste Disposal Act and the remedial
provisions of Superfund, we have come
to realize the fragile nature of ground
water supplies. ExIsting regulations
and statutes do not adequately protect
this vital resource. Underground
quifers do not follow State and local
jurisdictions. It Is unrealistic to
assume that uniform protection stand-
ards will be applied in the absence of
national requirements. This matter
should be of utmost priority In the
coining year.
The second issue that Congress
cannot continue to ingore is a Federal
system for providing redress to per-
sons injured by involuntary exposure
to hazardous contaminants. I strongly
support the demonstration proposal
contained in S. 2892, the pending Su-
pcrfund amendments, to provide
victim assistance on a limited basis.
This program, however, will not sub-
stitute for broader legal and financial
ntcchanisins I proposed during com
n lttce consideration of this measure.
The importance of victims’ compensa-
tion is not yet weli enough understood
-------
S 13820
tional constituents, EPA’s regulations
did not allow the Agency to.do so. This
has resulted in some wastes which are
still hazardous being exempted from
the hazardous wastes lists and, conse-
quently, from all RCRA regulation.
Under the Agency’s prescnt regula.
Lions, to be a hazardous waste, a waste
must exhibit a characteristic of haz-
ardous wastes or be listed by name.
None of the characteristics of hazard-
ous wastes promulgated so far—ignit-
ability, cori’oslvity, reactIvity, or ex-
traction procedure—identifies wastes
on the basis of organic toxicity. Fur-
thermore. EPA’s listing process has
been virtually stalled for several years.
This bill will direct EPA to consider
criteria, constituents, or other factors,
in addition to those for which a waste
was listed, when evaluating petitions
to delist or exclude from regulation a
hazardous waste generated at a par-
ticular facility.
EPA is to consider additonal hazard-
ous constituents and criteria when de-
ciding whether to delist a waste. The
threshold test Is that EPA have Infor-
mation reasonably indicating that
pre5ence of additional cons ituents
could cause the waste to still be f az-
ardous. EPA is specifically empowered
to obtain information from the peti-
tioner relevant to this reasona,ble basis
determination. The bill thus provides
that the Initial petition must be ac-
companIed by Information adequate to
evaluate the petiton. This Includes in-
formation necessary in determining
whether there is a reasonable basis to
bclieve the waste couid still be hazard-
ous. Examples of information that can
appropriately be requested in an ini-
tial application are data dn conzt.itu-
ents used as raw materials, catalysts,
solvents, or ingredients in the process
generating the waste.
Once EPA obtains this data, the
Agency must determine—based on the
Information In the petition and on
other relevant information available
to the Agency—such as industry stud-
ies data or data from similar peti-
tions—whether the waste reasonably
could be hazardous. If EPA makes this
finding, the Agency may then proceed
to request that the petitioner submit
more comprehensive information on
the waste, such as chemical analyses,
After receiving this date, EPA then
will determine whether the waste is
hazardous under the criteria for list-
ing In section 00l of RCRA, as imple-
mented by EPA’S regulations,
The Administrator is directed to
Identify or list those hazardous wastes
which shall be subject to subtitle C
pros Lslons solely because of the pres-
ence of constituents such as carcino-
gens or teratogens at levels that will
endanger human health.
BUflNIflG AN DLEUOWG
Currently, EPA exempts facilities
that burn hazardous wastes for the
primary purpose of energy recoverY,
EPA has estimated that 10 or 15 mil-
lion metric tons of hazardous wastes
are burned each year In boilers; over
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
one-half of all hazardous wastes gener-
ated are burned In facilities not now
regulated under RCRA. EPA has ac-
knowledged that burning haz rdous
wastes for energy recovery Is similar to
incinerating then and “could pose a
parallel or greater risk of environmen-
tal dispersal of hazardous waste con-
stituents and products of Incomplete
combustion.”
Fuel blending is one of several areas
where EPA’s failure to promulgate
regulations has led to direct threats to
human health and the environment.
Hazardous wastes have been blended
with heating oil and sold to unsuspect-
ing customers who burn them undar
conditions which may not. protect
human health or the environment.
The potential impact of this loop-
hole Is even more significant as more
and more wastes may be burned In
boilers, cement kilns, or other heat re-
covery units to avoid RCRA regulation
and treatment costs,
Therefore, we require that within a
year. EPA must be notified by facili-
ties which blend hazardous wastes to
produce fuel or which distribute,
market or burn hazardous wastes or
blended fuel for energy recovery.
WIthin 2 years EPA must set stand-
ards for transporters of such fuel and
for facilities which burn such fuel ade-
quate to protect human health and
the environment. Labeling of such fuel
which contains hazardous wastes is re-
quired. A limited statutory exemption
is allowed for petroleum coke and,
with respect to the labeling require-
ment, for onsite petroleum refinery
operations. A regulatory exemption is
authorized for facilities which burn de
minimis quantities of hazardous
wastes in fuel.
MANDATORY IUSPECTIOiS AND FmERAL
FACILITIES
Current law does not mandate that
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes be regularly Inspect-
ed. Although officers, employees, and
representatives of the States and EPA
are authorized by section 3007(a) of
RCRA to enter and inspect any facili-
ties where hazardous wastes are han-
dled, too few Inspections are being
conducted to effectively monitor com-
pliance with RCRA and applIcable reg-
ulations, Inspections that do occur are
conducted under widely varying State-
formulated criteria regarding the
qualifications of inspectors and the
scope of the Inspection.
The bill will establish a program re-
quiring inspection at least once every 2
years for treatment, storage, and dis-
posal facilities. EPA will complete a
study to evaluate feasibility of using
private Inspectors to supplement Fed-
eral or State inspectors. EPA must
also begin a program to perform thor-
ough Inspections of Federal treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities on an
annual basis. Authorized States may
also Inspect Federal facilities. EPA
must initiate Inspections at each State
or local treatment, storage, or disposal
facility.
October 5, 1.984
All Federal agencies must conduct
and update a detailed inventory of
hazardous waste facilities for submit-
tal to EPA. If agencies do not respond.
EPA will complete the inventory.
FESSRAX . ENFORCEMSNT
RCRA provides criminal penalties
for transporting waste to an unpermit-
ted facility and for submitting false In-
formatIon in documents required to be
filed under the act, However, the stat-
ute presently does not specifically ad-
dress the criminal liability of genera-
tors of hazardous waste who knowing-
ly cause the waste to be transported to
an unpermitted facility. It also does
not address material omissions or the
failure to file required reports. Simi-
larly, where hazardous waste is know-
ingly transported without a manifest,
there would be no criminal liability
unless the waste’ Is subsequently deliv-
ered to an unpermitted facility. Al-
though most facilities are operating
under interim status permits, there is
currently no criminal liablltty for
knowing violations of such require-
month. Portions of the knowing endan-
germent provisions are redundant and
unnecessarily restrictive.
Criminal penalties are provided in
H,R. 2867 for knowingly causing waste
to be transported to an unpermitted
facility; for knowingly transporting or
causing waste to be transported with-
out a manifest; where knowing omis-
sions or false statements are made;
and where interim status requirements
are violated. Maximum criminal penal-
ties are increased and redundant pro-
visions In the knowing endangerment
section are removed, By specifically
adding criminal liability for causing
wastes to be transported to an unper-
mitted facility or without a manifest,
there Is no intent to affect the applica-
tion of title 13, United States Code,
section 2 to all provisions of RCRA.
EXPORT OF RAZARDOUS WASTE
Current regulations allow hazardous
wastes to be exported from the United
States with minimal notice to receiv-
ing countrles, There Is currently no re-
quirement that receiving countries be
fully apprised of the nature of the
shipment nor a requirement that they
consent to receipt of the shipment,
Within 12 months after enactment
of hR. 2867 no person shall export
hazardous wastes unless notice of
intent to export and details of the
shipment are provided to EPA. the re-
ceiving country has been notified by
the State Department and has con-
sented to receive such hazardous
wastes, and a copy of the receiving
country’s written consent Is attached
to the manifest accompanying each
shipment.
Where there exists an International
agreement between the United states
and the receiving country establishing
notice and export procedures for the
handling of hazardous wastes, notice,
and consent for each shipment shall
not be required.
-------
H 8152
back-door loophole Is a whole
that i am sure the gentleman did not
Intend.
Mr. VOt )AI R. There Is no Inten-
tion of doing that, and I do not believe
that It does what the gentleman says.
Mr. ECKART. It would wreak havoc
with the section and perhaps we can
do some work with the gentleman on
It In the future. I understand that the
gentleman Is well Intentioned and well
motivated.
Mr. LENT. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. ECKART. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman..
for yielding and I want to thank him
for his statement and support It. I
want to join with the gentleman In op-
posing this ban because. as the gentle-
man knows, as a member ofthe com-
mittee, after months of legislative con-
‘alderatlon, the Energy and Commerce
Committee carefully crafted these pro-
visions that are in the bill before us to
address the problem of disposing of
hazardous wastes Into the ground.
SectIon 5, which we are now discuss-
ing. outlines a very precise schedule of
review whereby land disposal of haz-
ardous wastes will be banned within a
reasonable period of time unless the
Administrator makes an afirmative de-
termination that one or more methods
of land disposal should be allowed for
certain wastes.
I feel that this method makes sense
end there is no reason why this very
carefully thought-out plan should be
completely disregarded by passage of
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Missouri. - .
I can appreciate the spirit In which
the amendment is offered but I must
regrettably rise In opposition to It.
Mr. ECKART. I thank the gentle-
man for his remarks-
Clearly we all wish that this problem
would go away and we could just make
It go away with the stroke of pen. But
clearly the language preferred today Is
not consistent toward that end and I
would urge its rejection .
Mr. RLrLazt. Mr. Chairman. I rise
In opposition to the VoLkzner amend-
ment. This amendment would ban all
placement of 1 azardous waste Into the
ground If such waste may be “effec-
tively disposed of through Inciner-
• atIon. recycling, or any other method.”
I oppose this amendment for a
number of reasons, which I will dis-
cuss, but they are all related to one
Issue: The Subcommittee Ofl Corn-
merce. Transportation, and Tourism
of the Energy and Commerce Commit-
tee. on which I serve, literalLY spent
weeks formulating the phased-In land
disposal ban contained In section 5 of
HR. 2867. The Volkmer amendment
would wipe out all of this work with
one illadvised. Inadequate provision.
Looking •t my specific objections,
first, I do not know what it means if
wastes can be “effectively disposed of”
by Incineration or recycling. Does that.
mean that any waste that can. techni-
caily. be incinerated will be required to
be, regardless of cost or availability of
Incineration capacity? This certainly
makes no sense. What It the nearest
facility is 1,000 miles from the gener-
ator? Or 2,000 mIles? This amendment
does not address this problem. What If
a certain method of land disposal Is as-
tually the preferred disposal tech-
nique for a certain waste? Again, the
amendment contains no flexibility to
address this situation.
Second. what about the cost of alter-
native disposal? Should there be any
concern whether shipping the waste
the 1 ,000to 2,000 miles will put a comrn
pany out of business? What If It Is
simply not feasible to go to an alterna-
Uve disposal method? This problem Is
not addressed by the amendment.
Third, what does “or any other
method” of alternative disposal mean?
Does this “other method” have to
have been commercially demonstrated,
or can It. be one that someone merely
claims will work? Who determines the
state of the art In alternative disposal?
The Administrator? The disposal in-
dustr 7 The generator? The amend-
ment does not address this problem.
SectIon 5 of H.R. 2867 Is the result
of a well-thought out, bipartisan
agreement reached by the subcommit-
tee, It contains many of the safe-
guards which are missing from the
Volkmer amendment. Tinder sectIon 5,
several wastes are listed for which
land disposal will be banned in 12
months. Others are Identified for
which land disposal will be banned on
a staggered schedule, with all hens
being effective no later than 54
months. In each Instance, however,
the Administrator may determine that
the prohibition of one or more meth-
ods of land disposal for a certain waste
Is not necessary to protect human
health and the environment. Congress
should not absolutely declare that all
hazardous wastes are unfit for any
form of land disposal. The expert
agency must have the flexibility to de-
termine If some methods are sale.
A further safeguard Is provided by
section 5 In the case of alternative Ca-
pacity. What If there Is no Inciner-
ation or other alternative disposal
method reasonably available or feasi.
ble to use? SectIon 5 recognizes this
possibility and allows the Adm,iiistra.
tar to grant up to a 42-month reprieve
from a land disposal ban for lack of al-
ternative capacity.
As my colleagues can see, It makes
absolutely no sense to substitute the
phased-in land disposal prohibiton of
sectIon 5 wIth the rigid, vague, ill-ad-
vised approach contained In the
Volkiner amendment.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this
a inemdinent.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Missouri (Mr. VoLKatzR).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to section 5?
October 6’, 1983
If not, the Clerk will designate sec-
ton 8,
The text of section 6 Is as follows:
Mm atssa ixo p05 semoy itscovssv
Sic. 6(a) Nouce.—.-4l) Section 3010 Is
amended by Inserting the following after
the first sentence thereof: “Not later thail
twelve months after the date of the enact-
ment 8f this sentence—
“U) the owner or eperator of any facility
which produces a fuel (A) from any ti
ous waste Identified cc listed wider section
SOOt, (B) from such hazardous waste Wenti’
tied or listed under section 3001 and any
other materiaL (C) from used oil, or (D)
from used oil and any other material:
“(2) the owner or operator of any facility
which burns for purposes of energy recov-
en’ any fuel produced as provided In para-
graph (1.) or any fuel which otherwise conS
tabs used oil or any hazardous waste identi-
fled or listed under section 3001: and
“(3) any person who distributes or mar-
kets any fuel which Is produced as provided
In paragraph (1) or any fuel which other-
wise contains used oil or any hazardous
waste Identified or listed under section 3001;
aflall tile with the Administrator (and the
State In the case of a State with an author-
fred hazardous waste program) a notifica-
tion stating the location and general de-
laiption of the facility, together with a de-
scription of the Identified or listed hazard-
ous waste Involved and, In the case of a fa-
cility referred to In paragraph (1) or (2), a
description of the production or energy re-
covery activity carried out at the facility
and such other Information as the Adminis-
trator deems necessary. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, the term ‘hazardous
waste listed under sectIon 3001’ also In-
eludes any eommeicIal chemical product
which Is listed under section 3001 and
which, In lieu of Its original intended use, Is
(1) produced for use as (or as a component
of) a fuel. (m l ) distributed for use as a fuel.
or (iU) burned as a fuel. Not more than one
notification shall be required under this
subsection In the case d l a faclUty which
burns for purposes of energy recovery any
fuel which Is generated at the site of such
facility unless the burning practices to
which such notice applies changes following
such notLflcatton. Notification shall not be
required under this subsection In the case of
facilItIes (such as residential betters) a here
the Administrator determines that. such no-
tlllcation Is not necessary In order for the
Administrator to obtain sufficient Informa-
tion respecting current practices of facilitIes
using hazardous waste for energy recovery.
Nothing In this subsection shall be con-
strued to sued or Impair the provisions of
section 3001lbX3). Nothing In this subsec-
tion shalLaffect regulatory determinations
under iection 3012 las amended by the Used
Oil Recycling Act of 1980).”,
(2) SectIon 3010 I a amended by striking
out “the preceding sentence” arid substitut-
Ins “the preceding Provisions”,
(b) SrArrneJuis.—( 1) Section 3004 Is amend-
ed by adding the following at the end there-
of;
“(g) HAZARDOUS Wasre UseD AS FUu . .—Not
later than two years alter the date of the
enactment of this subsection, and after
notice and opportunity for public hearing.
the Administrator shall promulgate regula-
tions establishing such—
“(1) standards applicable to the owners
and operators of f6cIiltIes which produce a
fuel (A) from any hazardous waste Identi.
fled or listed under section 3001. or (B) from
any hazardous waste Identifed or listed
under section 3001 and any other material,
tONGR.ESS!ONAL RECORD — HOUSE
-------
October 6, 1983
“(2) standards applicable to the owners
and operators of facilities which burn for
purposes of energy recovery any fuel pro-
duced as provided in paragraph (1) or any
fuel which otherwise contains any hazard-
ous waste Identlied or lIsted under section
$001: and
“(3) standards applicable to any person
who distributes or markets any fuel which is
produced as provided In paragraph (1) or
any fuel which otherwise contains any haz-
ardous waste identified or listed under sec-
tion 3001
as may be nec sry to protect human
health and the environment Such stand-
ards may include any of the requirements
set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of
subsection (a) as may be appropriate. The
standards under paragraph (2) may consider
differences In destruction efficiency, and
waste content of the fuel, and shall, where
appropriate, not include requirements
beyond the notification referred to in see-
ton 3010. Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to affect or impair the provi.
Mons of section 3001(bX3). For purposes of
this subsection, the term ‘hazardous waste
listed under section 3001’ Includes any com-
mercial chemical product which is ]lsted
under section 3001 and which, in lieu of its
original intended use. is (A) produced for
use as (or as a component of) a fuel, (B) dis-
trIbuted for use as a fuel, or (C) burned as a
fuel.
“(h) Lagnn,c.—Notwlthstsndlng any
other provision of law, it shall be unlawful
for any person who is required Ia file a noti-
fIcation In accordance with pars.grqb (1) or
(3) of section 3010 to distribute or market
any fuel which is produced from any bar.-
ardous waste Identified or listed under sec-
t lon 3001. or any fuel which otherwise con-
tains any hazardous waste identIfied or
‘Sated under section 3001 U the invoice or’
ie bW of sale falls—
“(1) to bear the following statement
-WARNU4O: THIS flfl CONTAINS HAZ-
ARDOUS WASTES’. and
“(2) to list the hazardous wastes contained
therein.
Such statement shall be located in a con-
spicuous place on even such invoice or bill
of sale and shall appear in conspicuous and
legible type in contrast by typography, lay-
outs, or color with other printed matter on
the invoice or bill of ale.
“(I) EnxnIox.—(t) Unless the Adminis-
trator determines otherwise as may be nec-
wary to protect human health and the en-
vironment, the requirements of subsection
(b) shall not apply to fuels produced from
petroleum refining waste containing oil tf—
“(A) such materials are generated and
reinserted onsite into the refining process:
“(UI contaminants are removeth and
“(C) such refining waste contain ing o h Is
converted along with normal process
streams into petroleum-derived fuel prod-
ucts
at a facility at which crude oil Is refined
into petroleum products and which is claasi’
fled as a number SIC 2911 fatUity under the
Office of Management and Budget Standard
Industrial Classification Manual.
“42) For exemption of used oil which is re-
cycled from standards under this section,
see section 3012(c).”.
(2) Section 3003 is amended by adding the
following new subsection at the end thereof:
“Cc) Fun. F Ro M HazaRDous Want—Not
later than two years after the date of the
enactment of this subsection and after op-
nortunlty for public hearing, the Adminis-
- r shall promulgate regulations estab-
ig standards, applicable to transporters
el produced Cl) from any hazardous
identified or listed under section 3001.
or (2) from any bazsrdous waste Identified
or listed under section 3001 and any other
material, as may be necessery to protect
human health and the environment. Such
standards may include any of the require-
ments set forth In psragrapha (1) through
(4)of subsection (a) as may be appropriate.”
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
(Mr. Tllfl.WY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks)
Mr. BLILEY. I seek to engage the
manager of the bill In a colloquy. Sec-
tion 6(0) requIres that EPA issue reg-
ulatIons wIthin 2 years on facilities
which burn waste-derived fuel for
energy recovery. The section specifies
that those standards “shall consider
differences In destruction efficiency.
waste content of the fuel, a-nd shall,
where appropriate, not include re-
quirements beyond the notification (to
EPA) referred to in section 3010 “
of RCRA,
The committee report states that
“All combustion units including
boilers, cement kl]ns, and other Indus-
trial furnaces (must be regulated),
under the same ultimate standards as
other hazardous waste management
facilities” such as Incinerators. The
report also notes that a blanket ex-
esnptlon from these regulations for
cement kl]ns and other industrial fur-
naces would not be proper.
0 1540
My understanding of sectIon 6(0)
and the report taken together Is that
while a blanket exemption for all
cement kllns and other Industrial fur-
naces should not be allowed, EPA
should, In Its regulations, follow the
mandate of this provIsion and recong-
nice, where appropriate, differences
among facilities such as kllns and
other Industrial furnaces, boilers, and
Incinerators based on differences In
destruction efficiency arid the waste
content of the fueL Ig my understand-
ing correct?
Mr. FLOR IO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLILEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. PLOItIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, yes, the gentleman Is
, lorrect. Section 6(0) allows EPA to
recognize beneficial recycling activities
that are environmentally suund. In
the Interest of encouraging legitimate
recycling of waste-derived fuels while
insuring that the environment and
human health Is protected. EPA
should account In its regulations for
differences in destruction efficiencies
and waste content of the fuel.
Mr. BLILEY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman. I yield back the bal-
ance of my time.
aUUioMfliT orrtnn ar an, FROST
Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment
The Clerk read as follows:
A mend ment offered by Mr. Pnoar: Page
21. line 15, after “as a fuel.” Insert: “After
118153
the date of the enactment of this subsection
and until stsadsrds are promulgated and in
effect under paragraph (21 of this subsec’
lion, no fuel which contains hazardous
waste may be burned In any cement kiln
which is located within the boundaries of
any incorporated municipality with a popu-
lation greater than 500,000 (based on the
most recent census statistics) unless such
kiln fully complies with the regulations (as
In effect on the date of the enactment of
this subsection) under this subtitle which
are applicable to incinerators. Any person
who knowingly violates the prohibition con-
tained In the preceding sentence shall be
deemed to have violated section 3005(d)(2).”
Mr. FROST (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous conS
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed In the
REcoa n.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to section 6 that would
provide Interim controls on the burn-
ing of hazardous wastes for energy re-
covery by cement kllns located In
areas with populations of 500,000 or
greater.
As my colleagues know, sectIon 6 re-
quires the EPA to develop the regula-
tions for cement kilns and other facili-
ties who are engaged in or proposed to
engage In the burning of hazardous
wastes for energy recovery. However,
the provisions of section 6 gwe the
EPA 2 years to develop these regula-
tions. In my co ngress lorit l district, a
cement plant has proposed to burn
hazardous wastes as a part of their
fuel mix. Yet there are currently no
controls on this type of activity other
than compliance with the Clean Air
Act.
My constituents have expressed
their grave concern, which I share,
that the Clean Air Act will not provide
adequate monitoring of the emissions
that could be produced by the burning
of hazardous wastes In these cement
kilna nor will It provide adequate mon-
itoring of the operation of the plant
under these cIrcumstances.
w. PL0R IO- Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FaOST. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. FLOR IO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman. I would lust express
my support for this amendment. The
gentleman Is correct. It is important
that cement kilns in densely populated
areas are required to meet incinerator
standards before they use hazardous
wastes as fuels.
Of course, as the gentleman correct-
ly stated, once EPA promulgates spe-
clflc regulations in such areas, auth
regulations will supersede this provi-
sion. But In the meantime the gentle-
man’s amendment is highly desiianle
and I support It.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
-------
118154
Mr. FROST. 1 the g tln.
Mr. Chalz an. W e the ftvlron.
mental Ppo$ectten Agency Ima had the
authority, and Ms reco d fta au-
thority. t regulate ficflltfes b nd1ng
and b ..fng ‘dous waste for
energy recovery, the Agency baa failed
to develop relevant regulations. See.
tlon 6 of BR. 286 compela the EPA
to close th ma losphole In RCRA
regulations wIthin 2 years. My amend-
ment would close this loophole Imme-
diately for cement bUns In urban areas
with populations of 500,000 or greater.
The committee report accompanying
fl.R. 2867 quot a the EPA’s acknowl-
edgment that suth burning Is envi-
ronmentafly Identical to burn1i the
same material In an IncIner r and
could pose a parallel or greater risk of
environmental dkpersal of hazardous
waste constituents and produsts of in-
complete combuslon.” Despite their
acknowledgment that risk Is Involved
In the bosing of hssa.rdoua waste for
energy recovery, Agency has not
moved forward to Impose regulations
on this activity. Instead, they have
proposed 1st eflm controls for some.
but not all. sf.Olese b cthties. I believe
it Is Imperative thnt EPA move wttb
all due speed to de’relop a cwapaehen-
sive regulatory w hpt,a . for tha burning
of these substances In order that this
acknowledged gap In RCR,A regula-
tions can be closed and cur citizens
can be assured that Ml facilities buring
hazardous waste for energy recovey
are doing so in an environmentally
safe manner.
My amendment addresses a particu-
lar concern of the committee and
seeks to immediately close one part of
the existing regulatory loophole. The
report language specifically states that
the committee wants assurai ce that
EPA will exercise its authority over all
facilities that blend or burn hazardous
waste for energy recovery, and facility,
as defined by RCR,A, Includes cement
kllns burning hazardous waste for
energy recovery. The committee does
not consider a cement kiln to be distin-
guishable from a commerrial hazard-
ous waste Incinerator hi Its potential
Impact on human health and the envi-
ronment. I could not agree mare.
In my district, a cement plant re-
cently made pllcation to the Texas
Air Control Board for a Clean Air Act
modified source permit to burn haz-
ardous waste as part of their frel ‘nix.
If the TACB granted the modified
source permit to the plant, that
permit would not be oriented toward
regulating the kinds of . hazardous
emissions and products of Incomplete
combustion that could possibly be
emitted from this kiln as a result of
the introduction of hazar’dous waste in
the fuel mix. Rather, the permit
would primarily address the Issue of
control of pollutants regulated under
Clean Air, such as lead, sulphur and
carbon monoxide. Consequently, the
Clean Air Act, wh4ch Is the only law
now regulating kiln emissions, cannot
ie solely relied upon to regulate what-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSI
arer hawdmn .einiedons may emn
mite from the cement kiln stacks.
The EPA has M med me that of
the componnds classified as hazardous
the plant pn,posed to burn, all could
be destroyed to a high degree IT prop-
erly fed into the r11nk . r end of the
Ll]n. Huwcvcr, they went on to tell me,
since they are no femilini ’ with the
proposed operating mode and combus-
tion conditions of the plant, they
could not speculate as to whether the
five chlorinated compounds In the mix
would, In fact, be difficult to destroy
In this kiln. Since there Is no appropri-
ate regulation relating to the possible
Miai’doos emissions that could be cre-
ated by burning these compo mds, the
Ikelihood exists that we might not
Imow if They were properly fed Into
the clinker end of the kiln and If they
ware adequately destroyed.
This plant is located In a densely
populated residential area of the city
of Dallas and Its plan to burn hazard-
soa waste fri an essentially uxwezuiat-
ad fashien, was, to say the very least.
of great concern to the residents of
the area. The proposal generated a sig-
Icant level of controversy. This con
b’oversy was based on a number of fac-
tors, not the least of which was the
concern of the residents of the area
that no governmental agency would
monitor or control what kinds of haz-
ardous emissions might come out of
the stack. As a result ef the communi-
ty opposition, the plant has subse-
quently withdrawn its application to
the Texas air euTTtrul board, but the
company has not dismissed the possi-
b4llty that an application may be made
again In the future.
As a result of the situation hi Dallas,
and because of my strong concurrence
with the thrust of the committee
report relating to the burning and
blending of hazardous waste for
energy recovery, I am proposing that
until EPA promulgates the regulations
mandated in aectlon 6, that those k.llns
located In urban areas with a popula-
tine of 500,000 or more be barred from
burning wastes unless that cement
kiln makes application for, and re-
ceives, a permit as a hazardous waste
incinerator in the existing regulatory
framework. Cement kllns, burning
hazardous waste as fuel, act as the
hinctional equivalent of a commercial
hazardous waste incinerator, and until
the EPA develops regulations specifi-
cally applicable to facIlities burning
hazardous waste for energy recovery,
cement kllns should operate under
regulations applicable to hazardous
waste incinerators.
While there Is general agreement
that cement bins can ultimately prove
useful In the destruction of hazardous
wastes while at the same time using
those substances for energy recovery,
it Is my view that kilns must be viewed
as having the potential to emIt hazard-
ous waste constituents. We cannot rely
solely on the Clean Air Act to regulate
these facilities: The statutory authorl.
ty exists for the EPA to regulate these
ktober 19&?
facilities under RCRA and my amend-
ment provides for the immediate Im-
plementation of that aiathnrijy for
these buns.
I inge adoption cit the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-
sce of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Ti-ic question Is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. Psosi).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to section 6?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
mrnw STATUS; P Mi’XS
c. 7. (a) Axsioi, Dviuss I2rrnu7
BTATvz.—8ection 3005(e) Is amended by lii-
serting “(1)” after liqruiu Srarus.—”,
redesignathig paragraphs (1) through (3) as
mibparacraphs (A) through (C). and adding
the following at the end thereot
“(2) Any owner or operator of a treat.
meet, storage, or disposal facility operating
under interim status pursuant -to this sub
section who expands the capacity of the Is-
ctllty (except the capacity for storage or
treatment in tanks or containers and en-
closed waste piles) by an amount in excess
of 10 per cantimi of the capacity specified in
the permit application shall be required to
obtain a permit under subsection Cc) prior to
the construction or expansion. The Admin-
Istrator may promulgate regulations under
this subsection which, in the discretion of
the Administrator, contain standards for I a.
cilties which expand such capacity by 10 per
centum or leor such standards may vary
from the standards appUcable to those fad]-
Ries operating pn ii nt to a permit under
this subsection which do not expand such
capacity.
“(3) The standards concerning ground
water monitoring, corrective action, liners
and leachate collection systems which are
applicable under section 3004 to new land.
fills, surface impoundments, and waste-pile
units required to be perudued under subsec-
tion (C) shall also apply to any landfill. sur-
face impoundment or waste-pile unit (In-
cbedlng any new unit, replacement of an ex-
Imng unit or lateral expansion of an exist-
ing unit) operating under interim status
under this subsection which receives has-
erdous waste after the applicable date. In
the case of standards concerning ground
water monitoring and corrective action, the
applicable date is July 28. 1982. In the case
of standards concerning liners and leachate
eol)ection systems, the applicable date Is the
date aix months after the date of enactment
of this paragraph. The Administrator may
macnd the requirements in effect under sec-
tion 3004 and applicable to liners and lea-
chate collection systems required under this
paragraph as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
“(4) In the case of any facility In which a
flner and leachate collection 53-stern has
been installed pursuant to the requirements
of paragraph (3) and in compliance with the
Administrator’s regulationz and guidance
documents governing liners and ieachate
collection systems, no liner or ieachate col-
)ection system which is different from that
whIch was originally Installed pursuant to
paragraph (3) shall be required by the Ad-
ministrator when laming permits under sub-
antion (C) to such facility.”
(hi TIMZ LiwiT oa Priuiirs—Sectlon
3005(c) of such Act Is amended by adding
after the words “complete the modifica
tions” the foUowln “No permit issued
wnder this subseciton may remain in force
iôci
-------
!L2 t 307
H 6758
ess Identification, or applying knowledge of
the charactenstics of the waste based upon
materials or processes used, or generic test.
Ing for an industry where waste streams of
generators within the Industry have the
same or similar characteristics;
“(iii labeling requirement,s prior to waste
shipments may be modified so that such re-
quirements may be satisfied on the basis of
information obtained through testing, or
process identification, or applying knowl-
edge of the characteristics of the waste
based upon matenals or pyeceases used, or
generic testing for an industry where waste
streams of generators within the Industry
have the same or similar chseterlstlca
“(B) in the case of standards under see-
Ibm 3003. provide that transportation re-
quirements for smaller quantities of hazard-
ous wastes may vary from those applicable
to hazardous waste generated in excess of
one thousand kilograms during any calen-
dar month, and
“(C) in the case of standards under section
3004. pro ’lde that storage requirements
shall be modified to allow on-site waste stor-
age for up to 180 days without the require-
ment of a permit.
The variances as specified In subparagrapha
(A). (B), and (C) shall apply to all hazardous
waste generated during any calendar month
In a Quantity of less than one thousand kilo-
grams unless the Administrator demon.
strates that other standards are necessary
to protect human health and the environ-
ment. In addition, the Administrator Is di-
rected to examine the requirements In
effect under section 3003 and, In coopera-
tion with the Secretary of Transportation.
modify regulations In effect on the date of
the enactment of this paragraph to the
extent appropriate to conform auch require-
ments to the scale of the operations in-
volved. The actions of the Administrator
under this paragraph shall be treated as a
nondtscretionary duty for purposes of sec-
tion 7002.
“(3) The Administrator may promulgate
regulations under this subtitle which estab-
lished special standards for, or exempt from
regulation, hazardous wastes which are gen-
erated b any generator in a quantity less
than one hundred kilograms during any cal-
endar month,
“(4) Nothing In this subsection shall be
construed to affect or Impair the validity of
regulations of the Administrator promulgat-
ed prior to the date of the enactment of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Reauthorization Act of 1982 with respect to
hazardous waste generated by generators of
less than one thousand kilograms per
month of hazardous waste, except that after
the date eighteen months after such date of
enactment such prior regulations shall not
apply to hazardous waste generated by gen-
erators which generate more than minimal
quantities (one hundred kilograms or less)
of hasardous waste per month.”.
HAZARDOV5 WA5T! M!Zza WITH Doiasrtc
SPY /AGE
Sxc. 4. The Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency shail not later
than one year after the date of the enact-
ment of this Act, submit a report to the
Congress concerning hazardous wastes Iden-
tified or listed under section 3001 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act which are ex-
cluded from regulation pursuant to subtitle
C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act under
regulations exempting mixtures of domestic
sewage and other wastes that pass through
a sewer system to a publicly owned treat-
ment works for treatment. Such report shall
specify the types and quantities of such bar.-
ardous wastes which are exempted pursuant
to such regulations and shall Include recom-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
mendatlons respecting whether or not exist.
ing law applicable to such mixtures are ade-
quate to protect human health and the en-
vironment from the hazards associated with
such wastes Not later than six months after
the date of the enactment of this section,
the Administrator shall submit to Congress
a notice setting forth the progress made on
the report required under this section.
HAZARDOUS WASTE INJECTION LIQUIDS IN
LANDFILLS
Sw, 5. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is amended by Inserting “(a) IN
OaNsiLai,,—” after “3004.” and by adding the
following at the end thereof:
‘(b) RAzAsooDs WAsra Ixitcizox —U)
E,.tveen months after the enactment of
the Resource Conser at1on and Recovery
Act Reauthorization Act of 1982. the dispos-
al of hazardous waste by injection through
a class IV well into an underground source
of drinking waler is prohibited. Twelve
months after the date of enactment of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Reauthorization Act of 1982, disposal of
hazardous waste by Injection through a
class IV well which is above an underground
source of drinking water Is prohibited until
such practices are regulated by State pro-
grams or by the Administration pursuant to
section 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water
Act. In those States that have not undertak-
en administrative responsibility for the un-
derground Lnjectlon program with regard to
Injection into an underground source of
drinking water by January 1, 1983, the Ad-
ministrator shall assume such responsibility
at that tune. For purposes of this subsec-
tion. the terms ‘underground source of
drinking water’ and ‘class IV well’ shall hate
the same meaning as provided in regulations
of the Administrator under the Safe Drink-
ing Waler Act,
“(2) Nothing In paragraph (1) shall affect
any well which injects fluids:
‘(A) which are brought to the surface in
conneetijon with conventional oil or natural
gas production;
“(B) which are brought to the surface in
connection with the withdrawal of natural
gas from underground storage reservoirs;
“(C) which are brought to the surface in
connection with the production of geopres-
sured methane;
“(D l for enhanced recovery of oil or natu-
r alga
“(El for storage of hydrocarbons which
are liquid or gases at standard temperature
and pressure,
“(3) Nothing In paragraph (1) shall affect
any well which Injects fluids for extraction
of minerals or energy, including, but not
limited to:
“(A) mining of sulfur by the Prssch proc.
ess:
“(B) solution mining of minerals;
“(C) In .sltu combustion of fossil fuel; and
“CD) recoiery of geothermal energy to
produce electric pow-er.
“Cc) LIQUIDS IN Lswiwzu.s.—Not later than
one year after the enactment of the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act
Reauthorization Act of 1982, the Adrnlnls-
trator shall promulgate final regulations
which minimize the disposal of liquid haz-
ardous waste, and free liquids contained In
hazardous waste, In’ landfills Pending pro.
mulgatlon of such regulations, the Adminis-
trator shall maintain the current requIre.
snents In regulations under this section re.
specting the disposal In landfills of liquid
hazardous waste and free liquids contained
In hazardous waste,
“Cd) LAlni Dispossi, Rieoais.—The Admin-
istrator shall, not later than one year after
the date of the enactment of this subsec-
tion, and after notice and opportunity for
September 8, 1982
public comment, publish and submit to the
Congress a report listing those hazardous
wastes for which one or more types of land
dIsposai may not be protective of human
health and the entironment based upon the
toxicity, mobility, persistence, and ability of
the waste to bloaccumulate. The report
shall also Identify hazardous wastes for
which there exists one or more technologl-
callv feasible means of treatment, recovery,
or disposal (including Incineration, neutral-
Ization, fixation, chemical destruction, or
any other means of thermal, chemical.
phlsical. or biological treatment, recovery,
or disposal) other than land dIsposal which
will protect human health and the entiron-
ment, The report shall Include an assess-
ment of the costs of such other means of
treatment, recot ery, or disposal, The report
shall also Include an assessment of other
hazardous wastes which are unsuitable for
other means of waste treatment or disposal.
The report under this subsection shall be
modified and supplemented from time to
time after Its initial publication as new In-
formation becomes available,
“Ce) Rssmzc’rioxs ON Laini Dis,ossa,—Not
later than 9 months after the date on which
the report Is required to be published under
subsection (dl, and from time to tune there-
after, the Administrator shall promulgate
regulations respecting those hazardous
wastes for which land disposal may not be
protective of human health and the envi-
ronment based upon the toxicity, mobility,
persistence, and abilIty of the waste to
bioaccumulate, Such regulations shall con-
tain effective dates that take Into account
the Administrator’s best estimate of the
amount of time necessary to Install nation-
a-ide sufficient capacity of alternative treat-
ment. recovery or disposal methods identi-
fied pursuant t.o section Cd), After any effec-
tive date such prohibition shall not apply
when It can be demonstrated on a case-by-
case basis that capacity for such alternative
means of disposition is not reasonably avail-
able Factors to be considered in determin’
Ing reasonable availability shall include, but
shall not be limited to, geographic proxim.
Ity and the nature of particular wastes, For
purposes of such regulations, the Adminis-
trator shall—
“(1) consider the ability of land disposal
facilities to contain hazardous wastes over
time;
“(2) consIder alternative treatment tiseth-
“(3) examIne the actions taken by State
governments with regard to such controls,
and
“(4) revIew all hkbogenated organic
wastes.”.
Sw, 6. (a) NoTict—Ci) Section 3010 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by in-
serting the following after the first sentence
thereof: “Not later than twelve months
after the date of the enactment of this sen-
tence—
“(I) the owner or operator of any facility
which produces a fuel (A) from any hazard-
ous waste identified or listed under section
3001, (B) from such hazardous waste Identi-
fied or listed under section 3001 and any
other material. (C) from used oil, or CD)
from used oIl arid any other material,
“(2) the ow’ner or operator of any facility
which burns for purposes of energy recov-
ery any fuel produced as provided in para-
graph U) or any fuel which otherwise con-
tains used oil or any hazardous waste Identi-
f led or listed under sectIon 3001: and
“(3) any person w-ho distributes or mar-
kets any fuel which Is produced as provided
in paragraph (1) or any fuel which other-
wise contains used oil or any hazardous
waste IdentUied or listed under section 3001
-------
&ptember 8, 1982
shall file with the Administrator a notiflea .
tion stating the locat on and general de ”
scription of the facility, together with a de ’
acription of the identified or listed hazard-
ous waste involved and, in the ease of a Ia-
duty referred to in paragraph 11) or 121, a
description of the production or energy re-
coiery activity carried out at the facility
and such other information as the Adminis-
trator deems necessary. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, the term ‘hazardous
waste tasted under section 3001’ also In-
cludes any commercial chemical product
which Is listed under section 3001 and
which, In lieu of its original intended use, is
(I) produced for use as cor as a component
of) a fuel, (iii distributed for use as a fuel,
or till) burned as a fuel. Notification shall
not be required under this subsection in the
case of facilities (such as residential boilers)
where the Administrator determines that
such notification is not necessary in order
for the Adminu;rator to obtain sufficient
inlorrnation respecting current practices of
facilities using hanrdcus aaste lot energy
recovery Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to affect or impair the prot isions
of section 300Ub)t3). Nothing In this subsec-
tion shall affect reg,i azory determinations
under section 3012 as amended by the Used
Oil Recycling Act of 1990k”
(2) Section 3010 is amended by striking
out “the preceding sentence” and substitut-
ing ‘the preceding proiislons”.
(bi Snnsaris,—Section 3304 of such Act
is amended by adding the followIng at the
end thereof:
“Ee l Haz soops Wasrz U5t0 *5 Pon,—Not
later than tao years after the date of the
enactment of thIs subsection, and after
notice and opportunity for public hearing,
the Administrator shall promulgate regula-
tions establishIng such—
“(1) standards applicable to the owners
and operators of facilities which produce a
fuel (A from any hazardous waste ident l ’
lied or listed tinder section 3001. or (Ba from
any hazardous v,aste identified or listed
under section 3001 and spy other material:
“(2) standards applirabte to the owners
and operators of facilities which burn lot
purposes of energy recovery any fuel pro-
duced as proilded in paragraph (I) or any
fuel which otherwise contains any hazard .
oiis waste Identified or listed under section
3001, and
“(3) standards applicable to any person
who distributes or market,s any fuel which is
produced as proiided in paragraph (1) or
any fuel which otherwise contains any haze-
ardous waste identified or Listed under sec-
tIon 3001
as may be necessary to protect human
health and the entironment, Such stand.
ards may Include any of the requirements
set forth in paragraphs (1) through (1) of
aubsection (a) as may be appropriate. Noth-
ing in this subsection shall be construed to
affect or impair the provisions of section
300UbK3i. For purposes of this aubsect cn,
the tenn hazardous waste listed under sec-
tion 3001’ includes any commercial chemical
product which is listed under section 3001
arid which, in lieu of its orisinal intended
use. is (A) produced br use as (or as a com-
ponent of) a fuel, (B) distributed for use as
a fuel, or (C) burned as a fuel.
“if) LAantxc.—Notaithstanding any
other prosision of law, It shall be unlawful
for any person who is required to file a noti-
fication in accordsnce with paragraph Ci) or
(3) of section 3010 to distribute or market
any fuel which Is produced from any haz-
ardous waste identified or listed under sec-
tion 300 1, or any fuel which otherwise con-
thins any hazardous waste identified or
listed under section 3001 if the Invoice or
the bill of sale fails—
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
“Cl ) to bear the following statement
“WARNING: THIS FUEL CONTAiNS
HAZARDOUS WASTES”, and
“(2) to list the hazardous wastes contained
therein.
Such statement shall be located In a oon-
spicuous place on every such invoice or bill
of sale and shall appear in conspicuous and
legible type in contrast by typography, lay.
outs, or color with other prInted matter on
the Invoice or bill of sale.”.
ssc’rioie seas pusrn’a
Sac, I (a) Finsi. Pasawr.—Section 3005 of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by
adding the following new subsection at the
end thereof:
“(gl Rr,tnsas.—Any permit (other than a
permit treated as issued pursuant to subsec-
tion I c)) Issued to a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility under sect Ion 3005 (or
under en authorized State hazardous waste
program under section 30061 shalt, in Mdi.
tion to other applicable requirements, ad.
dress any release of hazardous waste from
such fact llty which occurs prior to the date
of issuance of such pernut. Such pennits
shall include schedules and provide finan-
cial assurances for addressing such releases
where the required an ion cannot be com-
pleted prior to permit Issuance. The permit
provisions required under this subsection
shall not apply to any portion of the facility
at which hazardous waste treatment, stor .
age or disposal activIties do not take place.
(b) Exnsstox Dos c’to lirititiM SmTus.—
Section 3005(e) of such Act is amended by
addIng the following at the end thereof:
“The Administrator shall promulgate regu.
latlons under which any oa’ner or operator
of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility
operating under interim status pursuant to
this subsection who expands the capacity of
the facility (except the capacity for storage
or treatment in tanks or containers and en-
closed waste piles) by an amount in excess
of lOper centuna of the capacity specified In
the permit application shall be required to
obtain a permit under the provisions of this
section prior to construction of such expan-
sion, The regulations of the Administrator
under this subsection may, in the discretion
of the Administrator, contain standards for
facilities which expand such capacity by 10
per centurn or less and such standards may
vary from the standards applicable to those
facilities operating pursuant to a permit
under this subsection which do not expand
such capacity,”,
rsaar*az-t roa arnrw or nw rn t
an’ucstio ws -
Sec. 8. Sect Ion 3005(c) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is amended by inserting “Cl)”
after “Paaurt Issuasca.—” and by adding
the following new paragraph at the end
thereof:
“(21(A) Not later than the date four years
after the enactrn at of :he Resource Con-
serjci,tion and Recotery Act Rea,athorization
Act of lPS2. in the case of each application
for a permit fur a land disposal facility
under this section which was submitted
before such date, the Administrator stiati
issue a final permit pursuant to such applI-
catIon or Issue a final denial of such applica’
tion.
“(B) Not later than the date sIx years
after the enactment of the Resource Con-
sen atlon and Recovery Act Reauthorization
Act of 1982. In the case of each application
for a permit for any facility under this sec-
tIon (other than a facility referred to In sub-
paragraph (A ll which was submitted before
such date, the Administrator shall issue a
final permit pursuant to such application or
issue a final denial of such appiicatioit
“ (Cl The time periods specilied in this
paragraph shall not apply In the case of any
11675
State which Is administering an authorize
hazardous waste program under aectio
3006. Interim status under subsection (t
shall terminate for each facility referred I
In subparagraph (A) or (B) on the expira
lion of the four- or slx.year period referrei
to in subparagraph (A) or (B). whichever I.
applicable, unless an application is filed fo ,
a permit under other provisions of this sub
section wIthin such four-year or aix-year
period, as the case may be.”.
w*no&*1, caoweow*rn cOMzflssaOW
Sac. 9. (a) Es’raswsitatue’r.—There Is estab-
lished a commission to be known as the Na-
tional Groundwater Commission (herein-
after in this section referred to as the
“Contmisslon”).
(hi Dinias or Co’usissioic.—The duties of
the Commission are to:
Cl) Assess generally the amount, location,
and quality of the Nation’s groundwater re-
sources.
(2) Identify generally the sources, extent,
and types of groundwater contamination.
t3) Assess the scope and nature of rela-
tIonship between groundwater contamina’
tion and groundwater withdrawal and devel-
op projections of as salable, usable ground-
water In future years on a nationwide basis.
(41 Assess the relationship between sur-
face water poilutlon and groundwater pollu ’
tton.
t5) Assess the need for a policy to protect
groundwater from degradation caused by
contamination,
(6) Assess generally the extent of over-
drafting of groundwater resources and the
adequacy of existing mechsnisms for pre-
venting such overdralttng.
(1) Assess generally the engineering and
technological capability to recharge
aquifers.
(8) Assess the adequacy of the present un-
derstandu-ig of groundwater recharge zones
and sole source aquifers and assess the ade-
quacy of knowledge regarding the interrela.
tionship of designated aquifers and re-
charge zones.
(9) Assess the rote of land-use patterns as
these relate to protecting groundwater from
contamination.
(10) Assess methods for remedial abate-
ment of groundaster contamination as well
as the costs and benefits of cleaning up pol-
luted groundwater and compare cleanup
costs to the costs uf substitute water supply
methods.
(II) Investigate polIcies and actIons taken
by foreign governments to protect ground-
water from contamination.
(12) Assess the use and effectIveness of ex-
isting h’Aerstwte compacts to address
groundwater protectIon from contanima-
tion,
(23) Analyze existing legal rights and rem-
edies regarding cootaznu’iation of ground-
water.
(141 Assess the adequacy of existIng stand.
ards for groundw ater quality under State
and Fndaral law.
ilb Assess monitoring methodologies of
the States and the Federal Government to
achieve the level of protection of the re-
source as required by State and Federal law.
(16) Assess the relationship between
groundwater flow 5)stems (arid associated
recharge areas) and the control of sources
of contamination.
(l’f) Asseas the role of underg und Injec-
tion practices as a means of disposing of
waite fluids while protecting groundwater
from contamination.
(18) Assess methods for abatement and
containment of groundwater contaminatiun
and for aquifer restoration Including the
3 t4
-------
) t RL ( O7 s
22 BURNING AND BLENDING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AS
23 FUEL
24 SEc. 6. (a) N0TIcE.—(1) Section 3010 of such Act is
25 amended by inserting the following after the first sentence
1 thereof: “Not later than nine months after the date of the
2 enactment of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
3 Reauthorization Act of 1982—
4 “(1) the owner or operator of any facility which
5 produces a fuel from any substance identified or listed
6 under section 3001 and any other material;
7 “(2) the owner or operator of any facility which
8 burns, for purposes of energy recovery, any substance
9 identified or listed under section 3001; and
10 “(3) any person who distributes or markets a fuel
11 that (A) contains any substance identified or listed
12 under section 3001 or (B) is produced by any person
13 referred to in paragraph (1) -
14 shall file with the Administrator a notification stating the
15 location and general description of the facility, together with
16 a description of the identified or listed hazardous waste in-
17 volved and, in the case of a facility referred to in paragraph
18 (1) or (2), a description of the production or energy recovery
19 activity carried out at t e facility and such other information
20 as the Administrator deems necessary. Notification shall not
21 be required under paragraph (2) of this subsection in the case
22 of facilities (such as residential boilers) where the Adminis-
23 trator determines that such notification is not necessary in
24 order for the Administrator to obtain sufficient information
25 respecting current practices of facilities using hazardous
-------
10
1 waste for energy recovery. Nothing in this subsection shall be
2 construed to affect or impair the provisions of section
3 3001(b) (3). ‘
4 (2) Section 3010 is amended by striking out “the pre-
5 ceding sentence” and substituting “the preceding provisions ‘
6 (b) STANDARDS.—Section 3004 of such Act is amend-
7 ed by adding the following at the end thereof:
8 “(e) HAzAiwous WASTE USED AS FuEL.—Not later
9 than two years after the date of the enactment of the Resource
10 Conservation and Recovery Act Reauthorization Act of 1982,
11 and after notice and opportunity for public hearing, the Ad-
12 ministrator shall promulgate regulations establishing such—
13 “(1) standards applicable to the owners and oper-
14 ators of facilities which produce a fuel from any sub-
15 stance identified or listed under section 3001 and any
16 other material;
17 “(2) standards applicable to the owners and oper-
18 ators of facilities which burn for purposes of energy re-
19 covery any substance identified or listed under section
20 3001; and
21 “(3) standards applicable to persons who dictrib-
22 ute or market a fuel that (A) contains any substance
23 identifed or listed under section 3001 or (B) is pro-
24 duced by any person referred to in paragraph (1)
HR 6307 RH
-------
11
1 as may be necessary to protect human health and the envi-
2 ronment. Such standards may include any of the require-
3 ments set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection
4 (a) as may be appropriate. Nothing in this section shall be
5 construed to affect or impair the provisions of section
6 3OO(b)(3).”
-------
4 J2 Jo. 17 c7o 1 T7-fC - 24 cs .(j
Section 8
Section 6 of the Committee’s bill amends RCRA to require notifica-
tion to EPA owners or operators of any facility producing a fuel by
blending or otherwise processing hazarcious wastes, by the owner or
operator of any facility burning wastes or waste-derived fuels for pur- 7
poees of energy recovery and by any person who distributes or markets
such a waste-derived fuel. In addition. Section 6 requires EPA, not U
later than two years after enactment of this 1982 Reauthorization Act,
to promulgate regulations as may be necessary to protect human
-------
18
health and the environment governing such waste-derived fuel produc-
tion, burning or distribution and marketing.
In drafting these provisions the Committee has used the phrase
“substance identified or listed under Section 3001”. The Committee has
explained in detail what is meant by this term in this Report and will
consider prior to Floor action whether “substance” or some other term
more appropriately describes the categories of materials intended to
be covered by this provision. Our use of the term is intended in part
to forestall argument that materials being burnt as fuels are not solid
or hazardous wastes under RCRA. We reiterate that RCRA presently
provides the Agency with authority to regulate as hazardous wastes
waste-derived fuels and residual materials burnt as fuels, as well as
authority for the Agency to regulate as hazardous waste treatment fa-
cilities the combustion units in which these materials are burnt
(Production and burning of hazardous waste-derived fuels recovers
energy from hazardous waste, and so conqtitutes hazardous waste
treatment under the statute). We recognize, however, that the Agency’s
existing authonty has been the subject of protracted litigation, and
wish to avoid any repetition of this controversy.
The term “substance” in Sections 6(a) and 6(b) consequently islim-
ited essentially to those hazardous wastes identi6ed or listed under
Section 3001 of RCRA (with one exception noted in (iii) below). This
includes all materials defined as “hazardous wastes” in the Agency’s
pre3ent or future regulations, specifically:
(i) any manufacturing by-product, spent material or sludge
listed pursuant to EPA’s regulations found at 40 CFR Sees. 261.31
and 261.32;
(ii) any manufacturing by-product, spent material or sludge
which exhibits any of the characteristics identified pursuant to 40
CFR Part 261 Sulpart C;
(iii) any commercial chemical product (and related materials)
listed pursuant to 40 CFR S 261.33, which is not used for its orig-
inally mtended p ’irpose but instead is burned or processed as fuel
(under current EPA regulations burning as fuel is not deemed to
be a form of discard and hence listed commercial chemical prod-
ucts, unlike spent materials, by-products or sludges, are not
deemed to be “wastes” when burned as fuel. They are only
“wastes” when actually discarded or intended for discard. Thus,
we are requiring noti1 cation and standards for a class of mate-
rials slightly broader than the regulatory definition of hazardous
waste, another reason we are using the term “substance” rather
than “hazardouswaste”) ; or
(iv) any mixtures containing hazardous wastes or residues
from hazardous waste management which are defined as hazard-
ous wastes in 40 CFR. Sec. 261.3(a) (2) (ii) or 261.3(c) (2). The
Committee also intended that used oil (as defined in Section 1004
(36) of RCRA) be included as a substance. However, not all used
oil is a hazardous waste identified or listed under Section 3001.
It should be clear that the Agency is not to require notification by
facilities burning conventional fuels which are mot waste-derived such
as fuel oil, gasoline and the like that may contain quantities of com-
mercial chemical products such as benzene or toluene that appear on
the commercial chemical product list found at 40 CFR S 261.33. Sim-
-------
19
ilarly, the Agency is not to require notification from facilities burning
fuels which exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste (such as ignit-
ability) unless these fuels also are hazardous wastes.
The Committee recognizes that the grant of authority in these pro-
visions covers a broad range of materials, and intends that the Agency
have discretion in determining the classes of facilities required to no-
tifv, and the types of hazardous wastes for which notification is re-
quired. At the same time, the Committee intends that the Agency ob-
tain through the notification process an accurate profile of the types
of residual materials meeting the definition of hazardous waste winch
once were habitually discarded and are now being burnt as• fuels or
used to produce fuels, as well as the types of combustion units in which
these materials are being burnt.
The Committee desires that the Agency assemble an accurate pm-
ture of the current nature and scope of current hazardous waste fuel
production, distribution and burning. In this regard, the Committee
recommends that the 3010 notices that are required under Section 6 of
these amendments contain the following information:
From Fuel Producers:
—wastes utilized in fuel production, toxic constituents m the waste
and in the waste portion of the fuel, and percentage of the waste
component of the fuel;
—BTU content of the fuel produced;
—where and to whom the fuels are sent;
—quantities of waste-derived fuels produced.
From Marketers/Distributors:
—where they got the fuel from;
—whether they change the content;
—where and to whom they market the fuel;
—quantities of fuel distributed, and frequency of distribution.
From Ultimate Users:
—sources of their waste-derived fuel;
—types of wastes or waste-derived fuel burnt, and quantities burnt;
—description of the combustion unit in which the fuels are burnt
(including such information as boiler design, heat input and out-
put, and temperature of combustion);
—type of primary boiler fuel used and portion of heat input pro-
vided by the waste or the waste-derived fuel;
—BTU content.
Regarding the standards under 3004(e) to be promulgated within
two years of enactment of these amendments for producers, distribu-
tors and users of waste-derived fuels, the Committee believes that
the standards should include the requirements listed in subsection
(a) of section 3004 as appropriate. EPA may make different stand-
ards effective at different times. For example, manifesting and record-
keeping may be immediately required, while other substantive stand-
ards may be imposed at a later time within the two year deadline.
Because EPA already has the authority to regulate the blending
and burning of hazardous wastes for purposes of energy recovery,
the Committee’s objective is to accelerate the Agency’s rulemaking
to close a major gap in the present regulations, and to set an outside
deadline for the re rulation of all burning of hazardous wastes and
blended fuels. The Committee expects that the Agency will presump-
-------
tively apply the same substantive requirements to fuel blenders and
boilers as are now applied to presently regulated treatment facilities.
The Committee understands that facilities now blending hazardous
wastes for fuel, and facilities burning hazardous wastes for the pur-
pose of energy recovery, do not now have EPA hazardous waste treat-
ment facility identification numbers.
Obviously, this impedes the smooth functioning of the manifest
system. The Committee intends the Agency expeditiously implement
a requirement for blenders to notify their customers of the type and
quantity of hazardous wastes in their fuel in order to close t iis gap.
The Committee is concerned that people are unwittingly burning
hazardous wastes in totally uncontrolled circumstances, with obvious
health and environmental risks. The purchaser and the public have
a ri lit to know about the burning of hazardous waste in their
facilities and in their communities.
The Committee therefore is requiring EPA, no later than two years
after enactment, and the Committee expects far earlier, to require
persons who are blending hazardous wastes with other materials to
produce fuels to notify their customers of the type and quantity of
hazardous wastes in the fuel.
The Committee is concerned that this aspect of the 3001(e) require-
ments not be delayed by any lengthy regulatory impact analysis or
paperwork approval.
For purposes of Section 6 of these amendments, the Committee
intends that the following three classes of fuel producers are subject
to the 3010 notification and the 3004(e) regulatory provisions of these
amendments:
- (1) persons producing fuel from hazardous waste alone;
(2) persons producing fuel from hazardous waste in combina-
tion with other materials;
(3) persons producing fuel from used oil, or from used oil in
combination with other materials.
In 1980, Congress amended RCRA to defer regulation under the
statute of certain special classes of waste material listed in Section
3001 (b) (3) (A). For instance, certain high-volume waste generated
primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuel, typical of
the utility industry, is exempted from regulation while the nviron-
mental Protection Agency conducts a study to determine what effect,
these wastes have on human health and the environment. Until such
time as these special waste studies are completed and regulatory deter-
minations issued, these waste materials are not subject to notification
and regulatory provisions of these amendments.
-------
September 8, 1982
leagues. Mr. Ros and Mr. HAMMER-
SCHMIDT for their contribution as well.
I believe that the substitute that will
be before this committee today Is far
superior to our original committee bill.
If it is adopted along with a number of
other meritorious amendments to be
offered today, such as an amendment
to strike section 10. I believe the Mem-
bers of this body will have produced a
well-considered and much needed envi-
ronmental measure.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to
take a moment to highlight what I
consider to be several of the more im-
portant provisions of the amendment
in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
6307 which will be offered shortly.
SectIon 3 of the substitute brings
into the RCRA regulatory system for
the first time a large number of small
generators of hazardous waste. These
small generators previously had been
exempted from RCRA so the EPA
could concentrate on regulating the
larger generators which are producing
the lion’s share of hazardous waste In
this country. Now that EPA has com-
pleted the regulations implementing
RCRA, I am hopeful that the agency
will have sufficient resources to ade-
quately regulate these small gener-
ators. In addition, since compliance
with RCRA will impose additional
costs on these small businesses, I am
pleased to point out that the substi-
tute makes provision for regulatory
variances for those businesses. For In-
stance. section 3 of the substitute
makes it clear that all the complicated
RCRA testing procedures do not have
to be followed by the small gener-
ators—identification of wastes to the
level of process involved will be suffi-
cient to satisfy the RCRA require-
ments. This variance provision will
substantially lessen the financial and
regulatory impacts of RCRA on small
—generators.
Another extremely Important provi-
sion of the substitute Is section 6. That
section calls for a two.step approach
to regulating the burning and blend-
Ing of hazardous wastes as fuel, It is
badly needed because the burning of
hazardous wastes for purposes of
energy recovery Is totally exempt from
RCRA regulation at this time. Even
though energy recovery is a laudable
goal and should be an important na-
tional priority, It should not, in my
opinion, be achieved at the expense of
our national health and environmen-
tal goals. Therefore, section 6 per-
forms an important service in requir-
ing notification to EPA by those who
produce, distribute and burn hazard-
ous waste fuel. EPA Is then required
to regulate those production, distribu-
tion, and burning practices which are
determined to be harmful to public
health and the environment. Once
these practices are regulated, a major
gap in the RCRA regulatory program
will be closed.
“- .Mr. Chairman, I do not want to mo-
nopolize the time the minority has
available on this measure but suffice It
d 4 lA- i.k. o O7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
to say that sections 3 and 6 are only
two of many worthwhile’ RCRA
amendments contained in the substi-
tute to be offered shortly. I believe It
is our obligation as Members of Con-
gress to support legislation which con-
tributes to the long-term envlroriniezi .
tal well-being of our country. Today
we are being given an opportunity to
fulfill that obligation—I believe each
of us should seize this opportunity and
vote in favor of the bipartisan substi-
tute.
0 1400
Mr. ROE. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. ROE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ROE. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to join with our colleagues
today and particularly pay my deepest
respect In regard to our chairman of
the committee, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. FLoazo), the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. Lmrr) and
also the gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. HAMarmscsrMIDr), and strongly
support HR. 6307, to which I know
there will be an amendment In the
nature of a substitute which will incor-
porate the amendthent.s In the nature
of a substitute of the Subcommittee
on Water Resources of the Public
Works Committee to sectIons 4 and 9.
In my judgment, I think It Is an ex-
tremely Important environmental bill.
As background, Mr. Chairman, this
bill, after being reported by the Com-
mittee on Energy and Commerce, was
sequentially referred to the Commit-
tee on Publlc Works and Transporta-
tion for consideration of sectIon 4 and
sectIon 9. These sections direct a study
by EPA of mixtures of sewage and
hazardous wastes and establish a Na-
tional Ground ater Commission to
study and report on our ground water
resources.
I might say at this point, Mr. Chair-
man, that the ground water of our
Nation has been really neglected over
the years In most of our legislation. I
think that this bill Is a monumental
step forward In bringing Into clear
focus the policy developments that the
Congress chooses to make to protect
our ground water drinking water
supply.
Our committee amended each of
these provisions and our amendments
will be Incorporated (a the substitute.
Section 4 dIrects the Administrator
of the Environmental ProtecLon
Agency to submit a report to Congress
on mixtures of sewage and hazardous
wastes. These mixtures are presently
regulated under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. EPA would be
directed to include recommendations
as to whether regulations of these
mixtures would be better accoin-
pUshed under the Solid Waste Dispos-
al Act.
The amendment to sectIon 4 deletes
the reference to the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act and calls, rather, for recom-
H 6747
mendatlons on whether existing law
applicable to such mixtures Is ade-
quate to protect human health and en-
vironment.
The Subcommittee on Water Re-
sources of the Committee on Public
Works now has under review the pre-
treatment requirements under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
which relate directly to this amend-
snent.
Section 9 of HR. 6307 establishes a
National Groundwater Commission
composed of four Members of the
House, four from the Senate, four ap-
pointed by the President from lists
submitted by various groups and the
Director of the Office of Technology
Assessment.
The conar”I- ion Is charged with as-
sessing a number of problems associat-
ed with contamination of ground
water from hazardous wastes, together
with that contamination coming from
possible solid waste disposal, with a
report to be submitted to Congress by
October 30. 1986. The amendment to
sect!on 9 expands the scope of the
study. Mr. Chairman, to include other
aspects of the subject of ground water,
including a general assessment of the
amount, location and quality of the
Nation’s ground water resources; a
general identification of the sources,
extent and types of ground water con-
tamination: an assessment of the rela-
tionship between surfacer water pollu-
tion and ground water pollution; an as-
sessment of the extent of overdraftlng
of ground water resources and the ade-
quacy of existing mechanisms for pre-
venting such overdmfting an assess-
ment of the engineering and techno-
logical capability to recharge aquifers;
an assessment of the methods for
abatement of ground water contami-
nation and a comparison of cleanup
costs to the costs of substitute water
supply methods; an assessment of the
adequacy of existing standards for
ground water quality under State and
Federal law an assessment of Federal
and State monitoring methodology; an
assessment of the adequacy of existing
ground water research: and, finally, an
assessment of the Federal, State, and
local roles in managing ground water
quality and quantity.
The amendment also changes the
membership of the commission, as I
previously mentioned. Of the four
Rcu.se Members, two would be from
the Energy and Commerce, and two
from Public Works and Transporta.
tL n. ivht Members would be ai,
pointed by the President, four from a
list submitted by the National Gover-
nors Association, and four from lists
submitted by other organizations and
groups.
The commission would be dIrected to
utilize on a reimbursable basis person-
nel from the U.S. Geological Survey
and from the Corps of Engineers.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the date for
submission of the report to Cungress
would be changed from October 30,
c ô1
-------
H 6756
sonous wastes. such as cyanide. toxic
metals. PCBs, and chlorinated aol-
vents, are produced by smaller busi-
nesses. In practice, this has not, been a
burden for either the State or for in-
dustry. An Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) exemption can have se-
rious results. Each small generator can
send up to about 50 barrels per year of
waste to the local municipal landfill.
In any good size city you may have 100
smaller generators. That is 5,000 bar-
rels per year of toxic wastes going into
a landfill that was never engineered to
accept hazardous wastes. The results
are injured municipal trash collectors,
combinations of incompatible Wastes
that can form toxic clouds that drift
over residences, and continued con-
Lamination of groundwater.
This situation must be changed and
this bill does that by reducing the
small-generator exemption.
NO EXEiIP ’tiON FOR BURNiNG WASTES IN
BOILESS
EPA now allows generators to burn
their hazardous wastes in their own
boilers without a permit. Just because
the taste is to be burned for the laud-
able goal of energy recovery does not
mean that the hazards of such a prac-
tic-c can be ignored. The flagrant
abuses of this exemption have become
clear over the last year—the mixing of
hazardous wastes with fuel oil. Califor-
nia has no such exemption—a permit
Is required no matter whether treat-
rnent, Incineration, recycling, or land-
filling is planned.
This bill addresses this problem.
BAN ON ThE LAND DISPOSAL OF RIGHLT TOZ1C
WASTES
Despite EPA’s ban on the landfilling
of liquid wastes and new design and
operating standards for disposal I adill-
ties, there is nothing to prevent many
of the worst wastes from continuing to
go to surface Impoundments. iruection
wells, or land farms. EPA L i taking the
bandaid approach, patching the symp-
toms but not addressing the cause of
the Illness.
California has an aggressive new
program that has received national at-
tention. I will Insert a Washington
Post article for the rec’ord for those of
my colleagues who may have missed It
over the recess. The Governor’s Office
of Appropriate Technology has
worked for a couple of years on alter-
natives to land disposal of toxic
wastes. The Governor’s office has
Identified wastestreanis that are not
suitable for land disposal, has set up a
3-year schedule to ban about 500,000
tons of the most toxic wastes from
land disposal, arid aggressively encour-
aged the construction of alternative
management technologies that recy-
cle. treat, or destroy these hazardous
wastes. Technologies to treat. recycle.
or destroy such toxic wastes are
proven and in use in Europe or in
other parts of the world. A future of
safer waste management Is possible
today if we are willing to recognize ft.
I understand that my colleague from
New York (Mr. LAFAZCzJ will offer an
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
amendment that will require EPA to
promulgate regulations indentifying
hazardous waste which would be
banned from land disposal. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
The State of California has shown
that it can be done for the State. Let
us show that we are committed to solv-
ing this problem for the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adopt.ion of
the bill.
At this point I include the followinr
IFrom the W..thlngton Post, Sept, 3, 19821
Csu7oania 3vvrre.s Srascr New Toxic
WasTE RULES
(Si Ward Sinclafr)
The California state government yester-
day announced details of a faz reaehing new
program to ban the land disposal of a vari-
ety of highly toxic chemical wastes Identi-
fied as serious hazards to human health.
The program, which would require that,
toxic wastes be treated at new handling
facUlties, would be the most stringent in the
natIon when Its first portions take effect, as
expected, early next year.
Oov. Edmund 0. (Jerry) Brown Jr., who
unveiled the program at a San Francisco
press conference, said the program, an out-
growth of his executive order last year ban-
rung toxic waste land dumps. “will help pre-
vent Intolerable human suffering . . - and
help end enormous cleanup costs that nei-
ther Industry nor the taxpayer can afford.”
Although the proposed regulations apply
only to California, Brown’s action yesterday
earned a decidedly national slant.
Public concern over toxic waste disposal
has been heightened by the Love CanaX
N.Y., tragedy, involving sickness arid land
contamination, arid disclosures that bun-
dreds of unregulated toxic dumps may
threaten public health across the country.
Brown, the Democratic candidate for the
U.S Senate from California Is a frequent
critic of Reagan administration enrlronrnen-
tal enforcement and a gubernatorial aide
conceded yesterday that the state aCtloo is
Intended to spur the federal Environmental
Protection Agency to take a more militant
enforcement stand.
Brown was joined at his press conference
by Sen Gary Hart W.Colo). who has pro-
posed amendments to the federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
now awaiting congressional reauthorization.
that parallel Calu!ornlsa program.
The Hart proposals are pending before
the Senate En ironn,ent and Public Works
Committee. The House Is expected to
debate its ow-n version of a RCRA extension.
with amendments similar to Hart’s offered
by Reps. James J. Florto (D-N 3.). John J.
Lafr’alcc (D-N.Y. and Norman P. Lent (7’ .
N.Y.).
Brown said yesterday that he was ‘fuUy
supportive” of the Hart proposals.
California officials estimate that their
new regulations, although subject to final
public comment and review before they take
effect next March. would affect at least half
a million tons of highly toxic chemical
wastes now dumped In landfills.
Wastes that would be banned from land.
fIll.dumpthg Include cyanides. toxic metals.
strong acids, PCBs. halogenated organic
compounds such as the pesticides DDT,
DBCP and Kepone. and all other wastes
currently classified by the state as “cx-
tremely hazardous.”
The proposed regulations carry a maid-
mum fine of $25000 per day for each viola-
tion of the iand-duznpuig ban.
Compliance and enforcement, according
to Kent Stoddard of the governor’s Office
September 8, 1982
of Appropriate Technology. will be keyed to
a two-year timetable for construction of
treatment facilities, beginning next March
31.
The facilities will be built by private en-
terprise, with low-Interest sate pollution.
control loans avaIlable. The Brown program
also calls for expedited state processing of
applications for construction permits.
“We have Identified the treatment and re•
cycling technologies that could be used,”
Stoddard said, ‘and we know there are clear
alternatives to land disposal of these wastes.
We ha e worked closely with the chemical,
petroleum and electronics industries lii
laying out these treatment timetables?’
CalifornIa’s plan to phase out landfills as
dumps for highly toxic wastes began last
October when Brown issued an executive
order banning such activity arid increastng
state monitoring arid enforcement at all
hazardous waste disposal sites.
State officials estimate that California,
with perhaps the nation’s fourth largest
volume of toxic wastes, has at least 70 major
dumping sites that need cleanIng up. Lnelud-
tog some In the states most populous coun-
Ues.i
• Mr. HOWARD, Mr. Chairman, I rise
In support of H.R. 6307, a bill to
amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act
and authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 1983 and 1984.
This bill was sequentially referred to
our Committee on Public Works and
Transportation for consideration of
sections 4 and 9 In recognition of our
jurisdiction over water pollution and
water resources management, conser-
vation and development.
Section 4 directs the Environmental
Protection Agency to submit a report
to Congress with recommendations as
to whether regulation of hazardous
wastes mixed with domestic sewage
under the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
necessary to protect human health
and the environment, or whether the
existing provisions of law are ade-
quate, Section 1004(27) of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act provides that the
term ‘solid waste” does not include
solid or dissolved material In domestic
sewage. Therefore, hazardous waste
mixed with domestIc sewage Is curS
rently exempt from regulation under
the provisions of the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act. Instead, the pretreatment
provisions of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act establish a program
for the regulation of toxic pollutants
which Interfere with, pass through, or
contaminate the sludge produced by
municipal sewage treatment plants.
Section 9 establishes a National
Ground Water Commission to Investi-
gate and assess a broad range of mat-
ters relating to ground water contam-
ination by hazardous wastes and exist-
ing or needed mechanisms for the pro-
tection or rehabilitation of ground
water resources. The Commission is dj-
rected to transmit a report along with
recommendations for appropriate leg-
islation and adnhinlsLrative actions to
Congress and the President rio later
than October 30, 1986; $10 million Is
authorized to carry out the study,
Our committee adopted amendments
to these sections, WhIch will be ex-
-------
September 8, 1982
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
Ized to make grants to local government au human health and the environment.
thorities to construct demonstration recy. ThLs latter amendment embodies the
cling Intermediate processing centers. Such approach of the LaFalce amendment,
grant.s may also be used for the acquisition arid is a much needed addition to the
of lands necessary for such centers, notwith.
standing subsection (a)(2$A). bill.
“(2) Grant.s under this subsection may be r Section 8 is amended to require that
made only to a local government unit which I only hazardous wastes listed or identl-
demonstrates a successful past experience in I fled under the regulations will be con.
multimatenal curbside source separation I sidered for controls when burned in
programs at the municipal level. Giants boilers. This section also requires that
under this subsection may be made only to a 12 months postenactment. and the
local goternnient unit ahich has approved, Agency will concurrently publish a no.
and expressed Its Intention to carry out, a
plan for a recycling Intermediate processing tification requirement for those who
center hiCh— burn, blend, or distribute fuels con-
“(A) is part of a county.wide recycling taming hazardous wastes, and that
program that Includes curbside collection of such fuels be labeled so that consum-
recyclable maU ’r al and central processing ers are aware of the hazardous waste
at the intermed ate processing center: content of any fuels they may be
‘(B) projects commencement of operation buying.
of the center not later than October 1983;
and Section 7 is amended to clarify that
“(C) projects the processing at such center permits can be issued prior to the corn-
of an annual total of not less than 21,000 pletion or required actions on the con-
tons of recyclable material aithin 3 years dition that compliance schedules and
after commencement of operation, financial assurances for such actions
“(3) No grant may be made under this are specified in the permit.
subsection to the local goterrinient of any Section 9 incorporates the Public
political subdivision having a population of Works and Energy and Commerce
less than 175.000 or greater than 225,000.
Not more than $9u0.000 of the funds made Committee amendments to the Na-
available under subsection (aX3)(C) may be tional Groundwater Commission.
used to make grants under this subsection. Section 11 requires the Agency to
“(4) Section 8004 shall not apply to any promulgate standards for hazardous
grants made pursuant to this subsection.”. waste recycling practices as necessary
Mr. FLORIO (during the reading). to protect public health and the envi.
Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous con- ronment.
sent that the amendment in the Section 12 emphasIzes that in the
nature of a substitute be considered as solid waste planning process, adequate
read and printed in the REcoRD. provision should be given to both re-
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection source recovery and recycling technol-
to the request of the gentleman from ogies, and that these decisions remain
New Jersey? at the local level. -
There was no objection. OrrERED ST M B. GRAMM TO ThE
(Mr. FLORIO asked and was given AMENDMENT i1 ’ NATURE OF £ suas rv-rs
permission to revise and extend his re- orrzazs .v an. ri.oaio
marks.) Mr. GRAMM. Mr. Speaker. I offer
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, I an amendment to the amendment in
would at the outset publicly express the nature of a substitute.
my appreciation to all aho have been The Clerk read as follows:
involved In fashioning this compro- Amendment offered by Mr. ORAMT to the
mise proposal. amendment in the nature of a substitute of.
The substitute makes several techni- fered by Mr. Fi.oa io: Page 3. stnke out line
Cal and substantive changes to HR. 22 and all that folloas down through line 16
6307:• on page 7 and substitute:
Regarding small generators, the bill The Administrator shall, not later than
explicitly modifies the administrative three years after the date of the enactment
and managerial requirements for these of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
generators prior to the actual disposal Reauthorization Act of 1982. complete a
or treatment of the wastes. However, study and submit a report to the Congress
concerning whether the pm. sions of regu-
when wastes are taken to be treated or lations promulgated under this Act respect.
disposed of, the wastes must go to S Ing hazardous aaste generated by small gen.
proper hazardous waste facility, and erators in ’ uantities of 1.000 kilograms or
not a sanItary landfill or municipal less per calendar month should be rnodilied
dump. For example, the maximum with respect to any class or category of hsz.
storage period for smaller generators ardous waste.
is extended to 180 days from 90. This “(2) The study required under this section
means that rmni er generators would shall include—
“(A) A profile of the generators, hazard-
only be required to dispc e of their oc_s wastes, and aa.ste ma.iagenient practices
aastes taice a year, but that it be done si t.lect to such provisions:
properly. “B an assessment of the hazards associ.
Section 4 of the substitute incorpo- ,ated with s .ic i wastes and practices; and
rates the Public Works Committee “(C) an a.nal s1s of the regulatory alterna.
amendment on the disposal of hazard- tives to the exemption of such wastes from
ous wastes into sewer systems. the standards under this subtitle, including
Section 5 makes a number of techni. an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of such
alternatives,
cal changes to the underground injec- “(3) At intervals of not more than one
tion prohibitions, and incorporates a year. and not more than two years. alter the
requirement to impose restrictions on date of the enactment of the Resource Con-
the land disposal of certain hazardous servation and Rccovery Reauthorization Act
wastes as may be necessary to protect of 1982, the Administrator shall submit an
116761
interim report to the Congress setting forth
a detailed statement of the status of the
study required under this subsection,”.
Mr. GRAMM (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed in the
REcoRD.
The CHAIRMAN, Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Giur .mi
was allowed to proceed for an addi-
tional 5 minutes.)
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. GL MM is recognized
for a total of 10 minutes.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. Chairman, I
would like first to begin by talking
about how RCRA works today, about
the cutoff in terms of the size of the
generator.
I would like to talk about the restric-
tions imposed on the small generator
under existing law and under existing
regulations Issued by the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency.
I would like to talk about the moun-
tain of paperwork that they are cur-
rently exempt from under existing
regulations at EPA.
I would like to talk about the confu-
sion that exists concerning scientific
data and Its evaluation concerning the
small generators, and I would like to
argue for an amendment that sets up a
study to get the facts before we begin
the legislative process.
Currently under RCRA. we impose a
mountain of regulations and rediape,
and I believe rightly so, on those gen-
erators that produce more than 1.000
kilograms of hazardous waste a
month. There are about 75.000 of
those generators and, according to
EPA. they generate about 99 percent
of all the hazardous waste generated
in the country.
Small generators that generate less
than 1,000 kilograms per month are
not burdened with the restrictions ira-
posed under RCRA in terms of full re-
porting. It does not follow, however,
that they do not face restrictions In
the way that they dispose of hazard-
ous wastes.
The existence of small and large
generators, according to EPA. basical-
ly breaks down as follows:
Those that generate more than 1,000
kilograms a month make up about 9
percent of the total generators nation-
wide and they generate about 99 per-
cent of the waste. Those that generate
less than 1.000 kilograms per mcr.th
compose about 91 percent of the gen-
erators and they generate about 1 per-
cent of the waste.
Small generators are not exempt
from regulations. Under existing pro-
cedures at EPA. they must determine
if the waste they generate Is claasif led
as hazardous under RCRA. If the
waste is so classified, they then must
dispose of it either at an authorized
hazardous waste management facility
-------
,,1 S .GJZ .- ’)
DIRECT ACTION
SEC. 205. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended
by adding the following new subsection after subsection (5) thereof:
“(t) FINANcIAL RrsPoNs1sIur - PaovisioNs.—U) Financial respon-
sibility required by subsection (a) of this section may be established
in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Administrator
by any one, or any combination, of the following: insurance, guaran-
tee, surety bond, letter of credit, or qualification as a self-insurer. In
promulgating requirements under this section, the Administrator is
authorized to specify policy or other contractual terms. conditions.
or defenses which are necessary or are unacceptable in establishing
such evidence of financial responsibility in order to effectuate the
purposes of this Act.
“(2) In any case where the owner or operator is in bankruptcy.
reorganization, or arrangement pursuant to the Federal Bankruptcy
Code or where (with reasonable diligence) jurisdiction in any State
court or any Federal Court cannot be obtained over an owner or
operator Likely to be solvent at the time of judgment, any claim
arising from conduct for which evidence of financial responsibility
must be provided under this section may be asserted directly against
the guarantor providing such evidence of’ financial responsibility. In
the case of any action pursuant to this subsection, such guarantor
shall be entitled to invoke all rights and defenses which would have
been available to the owner or operator if any action had been
brought against the owner or operator by the claimant and which
would have been available to the guarantor if an action had been
brought against the guarantor by the owner or operator.
“(3) The total Liability of any guarantor shall be limited to the
aggregate amount which the guarantor has provided as evidence of
financial responsibility to the owner or operator under this Act.
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit any other
State or Federal statutory, contractual or common law liability of a
guarantor to its owner or operator including, but not limited to, the
liability of such guarantor for bad faith either in negotiating or in
failing to negotiate the settlement of any claim. Nothing in this
H. R. 2867— 19
subsection shall be construed to diminish the liability of any person
under section 107 or 111 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 or other
applicable law.
“(4) For the purpose of this subsection, the term ‘guarantor’
means any person, other than the owner or operator, who provides
evidence of financial responsibility for an owner or operator under
this section.”.
-------
Cai ’F I
SECTION 205—DIRECT ACTION
House bilL—No provision.
Senate amendment.—The Senate amendment, which amends the
Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, clarifies certain
aspects of financial responsibility requirements and provides for
direct action against guarantors in appropriate cases.
Specifically, the Senate amendment: (1) provides claimants in ap-
propriate circumstances with the right of direct action against
guarantors (defined as persons who provide evidence of financial
responsibility to an owner or operator, (2) permits a guarantor
when subject to a direct action suit to invoke as a defense the
terms and conditions contained in the guarantor’s policy of insur-
ance with the owner or operator, (3) confirms, without diminishing
any other statutory, contractual or common law liability of a guar-
antor, that the total liability of a guarantor is limited to the aggre-
gate amount that the guarantor has provided as evidence of finan-
cial responsibility to a particular owner or operator, and (4) author-
izes the Administrator to establish appropriate rules and defenses
with respect to such actions.
Conference substitute.—The Conference substitute adopts the
Senate amendment as it applies to the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
but does not adopt the amendment as it applies to CERCLA. There
are appropriate circumstances where a right of direct action should
be available against guarantors, such as when court jurisdiction
over the owner or operator of a hazardous waste facility cannot be
obtained or where the owner or operator has declared bankruptcy.
The Administrator has discretion to specify policy or other contrac-
tual terms, conditions or defenses that are unacceptable or are nec-
essary to protect human health and the environment.
While the Conferees deleted this provision as applied to
CERCLA, it was deleted because all CERCLA amendments to this
bill were deleted.
a2Oc
-------
A
DIRECT ACTION AMENDMENTS
SEC. 41. (a) Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Dispos-
al Act is amended by adding the following new subsection:
“ (rn) FINANcIAL RESPONSIBILITY PRO VISIONS. —
(1) Financial responsibility required by subsection (a) of
this section may be established in accordance with regula-
tions promulgated by the Administrator by any one, or any
combination, of the following: insurance, guarantee, surely
bond, letter of credit, or qualification as a self-insurer. In
promulgating requirements under this section, the Adminis-
trator is authorized to specify policy or other contractual
terms, conditions, or defenses which are necessary or are
unacceptable in establishinji such evidence of financial re-
sponsibility in order to effectuate the purposes of this Act.
“(2) In any case where the owner or operator is in
bankruptcy, reorganization, or arrangement pursuant to the
HR 2867 LAS
-------
99
Federal Bankruptcy Code or where with reasonable dili-
gence jurisdiction in any State court of the Federal Courts
cannot be obtained over an owner or operator likely to be
solvent at the time of judgment, any claim arising from con-
duct for which evidence of financial responsibility must be
provided under this section may be asserted directly against
the guarantor providing such evidence of financial responsi-
bility. In the case of any action pursuant to this subsection,
such guarantor shall be entitled to invoke all rights and de-
fenses which would have been available to the owner or op-
erçzlor if any action had been brought against the owner or
cvperator by the claimant and which would have been avail-
able to the guarantor if an action had been brought against
the guarantor by the owner or operator.
“(3) The total liability of any guarantor shall be limit-
ed to the aggregate amount which the guarantor has provid-
ed as evidence of financial responsibility to the owner or op-
erator under this Act: Provided, That nothing in this sub-
section shall be construed to limit any other State or Feder-
al statutory, contractual or common law liability of a guar-
antor to its owner or operator including, but not limited to,
the liability of such guarantor for bad faith either in negoti-
ating or in failing to negotiate the settlement of any claim;
Provided further, That nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to diminish the liability of any person under sec-
HR 2867 EAS
-------
100
lion 107 or 111 of the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 or other
applicable law.
“(4) For the purpose of this subsection, the term quar-
antor’ means any person, other than the owner or opera1or
who provides evidence of financial responsibility for an
owner or operator under this section. ‘
(b)(1) Section 108 (c) and (d) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980 is amended to read as follows:
“(c) In any case where the owner or operator is in
bankruptcy, reorganization, or arrangement pursuant to the
Federal Bankruptcy Code or where with reasonable dili-
gence jurisdiction in the Federal Courts cannot be obtained
over an owner or operator likely to be solvent at the lime of
judgment, any claim authorized by section 107 or 111 may
be asserted directly against the guarantor providing evidence
of financial responsibility, in the case of any action pursu-
ant to this subsection, such guarantor shall be entitled to
invoke all rights and defenses which would have been avail-
able to the owner or operator if any action had been brought
against the owner or operator by the claimant and which
would have been available to the guarantor if an action had
been brought against the guarantor by the owner or
operator.
HR 2867 LAS
-------
101
“(d) The total liability under this Act of any guarantor
shall be limited to the a ggregate amount which the guaran-
tor has provided as evidence of financial responsibility to
the owner or operator under this Act: Provided, That noth-
ing in this subsection shall be construed to limit any other
State or Federal statutory, contractual or common law li-
ability of a guarantor to its owner or operator including, but
not limited to, the liability of such guarantor for bad faith
either in negotiating or in failing to negotiate the settlement
of any claim: Provided further, That nothing in this subsec-
tion• shall be construed, interpreted or applied to diminish
the liability of any person under section 107 or 111 of this
Act or other applicable law. ‘
(2) Section 108(b) (2) of the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
is amended by adding the following: “Financial responsibil-
ity may be established by any one, or any combination, of
the following: insurance, guarantee, surety bond, letter of
credit, or qualification as a self-insurer. In promulgating
requirements under this section, the President is authorized
to specify policy or other contractual terms, conditions, or
defenses which are necessary or are unacceptable in estab-
lishing such evidence of financial responsibility in order to
effectuate the purposes of this Act. ‘
HR 2867 EAS
-------
S13814
planatory statement of the committee
of conference. (‘The Confeience sub-
stitute Is the same as the Senate
amendmenL”)
Before I yield the floor. Madam
President, I should like to ask my dis-
tinguished colleagues, Senators
CHAFES and RANDOLPH, whether this
explanation of the conference agree-
ment on section 703 of this bill, deal-
ing with uranium mill tailings, is con-
ststent with their understanding of
this provision, and the agreement of
the conferees?
Senator CHAFEE. Yes, Madam
President, the explanation of the Sen-
ator from Wyoming accurately ex-
plains the agreement of the conferees,
Senator RANDOLPH. I, too, agree
ith that explanation, and concur
that it represents the agreement
reached by the conferees.
Senator SIMPSON, I thank my dis-
tinguished colleagues for those assur-
ances, Thank you Madam President.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Madam President,
the conference report on H.R. 2867,
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1934, represents a 3-
year effort to address the serious prob-
lems of hazardous and municipal
waste disposal In this country. This
measure makes major improvements
In existing law, When enacted, greater
protection to public health and the en-
vironment will be provided.
I have said In the past that the 1976
amendment, the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act, was misnamed.
because it did little to.move the Nation
toward materials and energy recovery.
The hazardous waste regulatory pro-
gram under subtitle C, which is the
heart of the 1976 act, was disappoint-
ingly slow in Implementation. This
bill, however, by adding real teeth to
the regulatory program and firmly
moving away from land disposal for
hazardous wastes, could legitimately
be called the Recycling, Incineration,
and Treatment Act of 1984. In making
these changes In the law, the Congress
shows that It is serious about encour-
aging the use of alternative technol-
ogies.
40n July 25 of this year, the Senate
unanimously adopted amendments to
the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The
House approved similar legislation
nearly a year ago. Over the past 2
weeks, the 26 House and Senate con-
ferees met on four Occasions to resolve
differences between the two measures.
The conference report contains
changes from the previously adopted
bili, S. 757. that merit clarification and
discussion. Accurate interpretation
and L’nplementation of several provi-
sions requires that the intent be care-
fully understood. The statement of
managers describes many of these pro-
visions, but I wish to make additional
observations about several of particu-
lar concern to me.
Among those of greatest Interest for
me are amendments revising subtitle
D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Im-
plementation of the existing program
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
has faltered, primarily because of
budget decisions. The subtitle D pro.
gram has not been funded or imple-
mented for several years, prompting
me to Introduce the amendment that
was adopted during earlier Senate con-
sideration of this measure.
That amendment seeks to improve
the management of municipal landfills
and eliminate open dumps. It author-
izes funding to enable States to oper-
ate programs upgrading sanitary land.
fills and closing out existing open
dumps. The lack of Federal assistance
in recent years has brought this effort
to a standstill. Under my amendment
$15 million of the buaget provided the
Environmental Protection Agency in
fiscal year 1985 could be allocated for
this purpose. Our expectation is that a
portion of the congressional increase
in the EPA budget will be used for this
work. The amendment authorizes $20
million for each year through fiscal
year 1988.
The Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency will be re-
quired to revise existing landfill crite-
ria in recognition of the fact that vir-
tually all landfills serve as repositories
for some hazardous waste. Household
waste, small generators, and illegal
dumpers contribute to landfills. It Is
necessary to apply controls and moni-
toring requirements to assure that
these facilities are adequate. The
amendment requires that these stand-
ards be promulgated by March 31.
1988. ThIs will allow consideration of
the Information gathered In the small
quantity generator study.
States will be required to establish
regulatory programs to assure that
solid waste management facilities
comply with subtitle D criteria. This
may include a permitting program or
comparable system subject to the ap-
proval of the Administrator. The
amendment requires that States bring
solid waste facilities into compliance
with existing requirements in 3 years.
They will have an additIonal 18
months to meet the revised criteria
after they are promulgated. In the
event that a State should fail to imple-
ment a solid waste management pro-
gram, the Administrator Is authorized
to prohibit open dumps. States imple-
menting approved solid waste pro-
grams are completely responsible br
enforcement,
The underlying standard for facili-
ties subject to this amendment to sub-
title D remains protection of human
health and the environment, Require-
ments Imposed on facilities may vary
from those for subtitle C facilities,
however, and still meet this standard.
They may be phased in over time, as
the Administrator deems appropriate,
to take account of the practicable ca-
pability of the facilities covered.
New statutory requirements for sub-
title D facilities may hasten the clo-
sure of many solid waste facilities that
have only a few years of remaining Ca-
I)acity. The requirements could also
precipitate the closure of facilities
October 5, 1984
with substantial capacity, but that are
either unable or unwilling to accept
new regulatory costs.
By allowing the administrator to
consider the practicable capability of
solid waste disposal facilities, the Con-
gress has expressed its desire to avert
serious disruptions of the solid waste
disposal industry. The Administrator
could phase In new requirements other
than ground water monitoring and
corrective action over time. Phasing
may be tailored to the characteristics
of broad categories of facilities. Such
phasing might include, for example
imposing requirements first on large
facilities which have the greatest po-
tential for affecting human health
and the environment in the absence of
added regulatory controls. Phasing
also might include imposing some re-
quirements Immediately on existing
units but giving time to meet other re-
quirements so that facilities are not
faced with all major new requirements
at once.
The public is alarmed by the pi’of u-
sion of chemical contamination mci.
dents that threaten homes, neighbor-
hoods and whole communities. Recent-
ly, this concern has been centered
almost exclusively on massive industri-
al chemical dumps and has let to ne-
glect of a foremost threat to health
and the environment,
Vie assume that our trash will be
picked up at home, but seldom ques.
tion where It goes, how it is disposed
of, or whether it is an enviroriLnental
problem. In fact, a substantial amount
of hazardous material finds Its way to
sanitary landfills and open dumps
through household waste, small gener.
ator waste, and illegal dumping. Ne-
glect of open dumps and sanitary land-
fills will continue to produce Super-
fund sites. Fully half of the original
national priority list encompassed
landfills. In most cases ground water
contamination has occurred.
Implementation of the existing sub-
title D program has faltered largely
through misguided budget decisions.
The current administration has failed
to recognize that municipal landfills
and dumps are very much a part of
the hazardous waste disposal problem.
The subtitle D amendments in this bill
will do much to help correct this situa-
tion.
Another area of my concern Is the
exemption for petroleum coke under
the provisions for the control of burn-
ing or blending hazardous waste. The
Agency Is authorized to determine ad-
ministratively which entitles must give
notification, and the administrator has
asked that the notification deadline be
postponed until the regulatory pattern
Is determined. rn this way, notification
can generally be required from those
the agency proposes to regulate, Since
petroleum coke I exempted from reg-
ulation under these provisions, the
Agency would not be requiring notlfi•
cation from purchasers, distributors,
marketers, or users of petroleum coke.
-------
October 5, 1.984
I am a strong supporter of the
“direct action” provisions of the bifi.
dealing with financial responsibility. It
is the intent of tli committee that
this approach to financial responsibil-
ity be applied to each environmental
statute as the opportunity to amend
those statutes - becomes available.-
Thus, while the conferees deleted this
provision as applied to the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response,
Compensaton and Liability Act
CCERCLA). it was deleted only be-
cause all CERCLA amendments to this
bill were deleted. It Is our Intention
that a similar amendment will be
added to CERCLA and title III of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act at
the earliest appropriate time.
Another CERCLA-related matter Is
the Senate-proposed technical amend-
meat cktrifylng that taxes for the
post-closure liability fund will not
expire at the end of this fiscal year.
Wiule we save this as only a technical
and clarifying amendment, in the eyes
of the House Committee on Ways an
Means It constituted an extension of a
tax. Since am. 2367 is not a revenue
measure, there was some question
whether section 28(c) of the Senate
bill could constitutionally be included
In the bill. To avoid this problem, the
Senate receded. This, however, does
not indicate any lessening of our sup-
port for the post-closure liability fund
or of our desire to correct this techni-
cal problem.
In implementing the hazardous
waste regulatory program and the
amendments made by this bill, It Is im-
portant that there ba equity of regula-
tion and enforcement between on-site
and off site disposal. Both can cause
serious problems, and evenhanded
treatment will avoid singling ot t of f-
site disposal for unnecessarily harsh
controls.
The conference report contains the
Senate provision excludIng facilities
within the State of Alabama from the
alternative technology provisions con-
tained In the minimum technological
requirements. By adoption of this
Senate provision, the conferees do not
Imply that any facility within the
State of Alabama ,eould. or could not,
comply with any minimum technologi-
cal variance requirements envisioned
by this provision. This Alabama exclu-
sion does not prejudice or affect con.
sideratlon of pending or future permit
applications by facilities in Alabama to
the extent that such applications may
comply with this or other Federal and
State statutes and regulations.
This provision solely affecting facili-
ties within Alabama extends only to
the alternative technology demonstra-
tion otherwise available regarding
mInimum technology requirements
and does not affect other alternative
operating or design options available
to owners or operators of Alabama
land disposal facilities under this or
other Federal or State statutes or reg-
ulations. For example, If pretreatcd
wastes under other provisions were cx-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
pressly permitted to utilize land dis-
posal facilities of differing technologi-
cal design or operating requirements.
this Alabama exclusion would not
apply to that alternative authority.
Under new section 3004(o). the pro-
vision which bans the placement or
maintenance of a “prohibited” waste
In a treatment Impoundment UflIOSS
treatment residues removed within 1
year of placement does not apply to
those wastes which have been subject
to the pretreatment of detoxification
requirements established by the ad-
ministrator under section 3004(m). Re-
moval of hazardous treatment residues
does not necessarily require complete
drainage of the Impoundment, and In
appropriate cases can be carried out
by vacuum or mechanical devices
which remove concentrated ‘bottom
sludges,
Madam President, many statistics
and studies have been cited during
consideration of amendments to the
Solid Waste Disposal Act. Several
facts gleaned from these studies em-
phasize present and future challenges
to managing waste disposal.
EPA estimates that in 1981. 71 bil-
lion gallons (264 million metric tons)
of wastes were generated that are con-
sidered hazardous under the Solid
Waste Disposal Act. This amount ex-
ceeded previous EPA estimates by 60
percent.
Of this total, 14.70 billion gallons of
wastes v.ere disposed of. The dominant
method of disposal wss through un-
derground Injection wells, accounting
for 8.60 bIllion gallons. Surface im-
poundment disposal accounted for an-
other 5.10 billion gallons. Nearly an-
other billion gallons are disposed of
In landfills.
In 1981, 4,Bla facilities treated,
stored or disposed of hazardous
wastes. Of these, only 326 were com-
mercial facilities. The majority of fa-
cilities were managing wastes associat-
ed with Industrial manufacturing op-
erations.
Over 14,000 generators reported
being subject to hazardous waste regu-
lations in 1981. This figure does not in-
dude the small quantity generators
that will not be regulated by amend-
ments to the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
These figures sen ed to illustrate the
dimensions of the hazardous waste
issue. They also portray the ininiedia-
cy of developing environmentally
sound methods to address the vast
quantities of waste generated annual-
ly. It Is disturbing that EPA had un-
derestimated the amount of wastes
generated by over half, for the first
year for which reliable statistics are
available.
Madam President, the original Solid
Waste Disposal Act was enacted nearly
20 years ago as a short addition to
Clean Air Act amendments. It ad-
dressed concerns about the prolifera-
tion of refuse throughout the country.
These statistics demonstrate that solid
and hazardous waste issues necessitate
S 13315
a comprehensive national manage-
ment program.
Solid waste management has been
the environmental program in which I
have taken the keenest personal inter-
est. In 1970 I authored the Resource
Recovery Act, which established the
first large-scale Federal effort to sup-
port demonstrations of recycling and
energy recovery technology. That act
also called for a study of hazardous
waste disposal. I was again a principal
author of the 1976 amendments to the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, or the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery
Act, as it Is often called. The founda-
tion of our hazardous waste regulatory
program Is subtitle C of that act, and
the comprehensive solid waste man-
agement provisions I discussed earlier
are in subtitle D.
In 1980, at the same time the com-
mittee was developing the Comi rehen--
sive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act, the Con-
gress passed amendments I sponsored
further strengthening the hazardous
waste regulatory program. During this
Congress as ranking minority member
of the committee I have worked with
Senator Cn rss and Senator Sr.tryonn
to bring to fruition the bill we consid-
er today.
Consideration of this conference
report will culminate my 20 years of
involvement with this legislation. I
know from this experience that the
amendments we propose today will re-
quire furthei’ Improvements in the
future.
“Superfund” will continue to be a
household word until the provisions
and objectives of the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act are met to the letter.
I believe that there continue to be
two significant gaps in existing envi-
ronmental legislation that require the
attention of Congress.
Through experience with the Solid
Waste Disposal Act and the remedial
provisions of Superfund, we have come
to realize the fragile nature of ground
water supplies. Existing regulations
and statutes do not adequately protect
this vital resource. Underground
quifers do not follow State and local
jurisdictions. It Is unrealistic to
assume that. uniform protection stand-
ards will be applied In the absence of
national requirements. This matter
should be of utmost priority in the
coining year.
The second issue that Congress
cannot continue to ingore is a Federal
system for providing redress to per-
sons Injured by involuntary exposure
to hazardous contaminants. I strongly
support the demonstration proposal
contained in S. 2892, the pending Su-
perfurid amendments, to provide
victim as lstance on a limited basis.
This program, however, will not sub-
stitute for broader legal and financial
mechanisms I proposed during com-
mittee consideration of this measure.
The importance of victims’ compensa-
tion is not yet well enough understood
-------
S 9176
tenance costs for RCRA facilities. There Is,
however, no requirement for financial re-
.i!y ass r iccs for corrective action.
In instances where corrective action may
be required, cleanup costs could be substan-
tial, especially it groundwater is contaminat-
ed Such costs could far e eeed the costs of
closure or post-closure maintenance. Many
companies faced with large corrective action
costs may choose or be faTted Into bank-
ruptcy. In such cases, It is likely that the
sites aould have to be cleaned up using Su-
perlund monies.
This amendment is designed to avoid that
eventuality. It modifies paragraph (7) of
section 3004 to provtde that in setting finan-
cial respons:bility requirer 1 ients for owners
and c,perators of hazardous waste facilities.
the EPA should, to the ina imnm extent
feasible, Include a requirement that owners
and operators provide evidence of f!nanclal
responsibility for corrective action that may
become necessary at some future time.
FINANCIAl. RE5PONSTBILITY ros coaarenva
ACTION
• Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I
join my distinguished cotleegues, Sen-
ators CHAFax, Sr*rroan. RANDOLPH and
MITCHELL. in offering on amendment
to 8. 757 to require the EPA to include
financial responsibility assuranres for
corrective action in the performance
standards that the agency sets for the
owners ano operators of hazardous
waste facilities. Section 3004 of the
RCRA statute prov;des for the adm n-
istrator to establish performance
standards for the owners and opera-
tors of hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities. The
statutory language includes a require-
ment for “financial responsibtlity as
may be necessary or desirable:’ Cur-
rent 1 PA regulations require financial
responsibility assurances for closure
and post-closure maintenance cnsts for
RCRA facilities. There is, however, no
requirement for financial responsibil-
ity assurances for correcute action,
In instances where corrective action
may be required, cleanup costs could
be substantial especially if ground
water is contaminated. Such costs
could well far exceed the costs of clo-
sure or post-closure maintenance,
Many companies, faced with large cor-
rective action costs, may choose, or be
forced into, bankruptcy, In such cases,
it is likely that the sites would have to
be cleaned up using Superfund
moneys.
This amendment is designed to avoid
that eventuality. It does so by modify-
ing paragraph (7) of section 3004 to
provide that in setting performance
standards for owners and operators of
hazardous waste facilities, the EPA
should include financial assurances for
corrective action, as may be neces-
sari..
AMENDMENT TO CI,ARIFT AND PEI1FEcT THE TI’
NAt .CIAL RESPO?.SIBILITY AND DIRECT ACTION
PROVISiONS CONTAINED IN RCRA *110 CERcLA
‘hIs amendment will clarify and perfect
the financial responsibilty and direct action
provision contained in the Resource Conser-
vation and Recorery Act (“RCRA ) and in
the Comprehensive Environmental Re.
eponse, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 (“CERCLA”), A primary purpose of
the clarification is to make uniform-the pro-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
visions In both RCRA and CERCLA that
deal with financial responsibility and direct
action. The objective of the amendment Is
to achieve the protection of the public that
the financial responsibility provisions are
designel to proviae, while fostering the de-
velopment of a vigorous, competitn e market
for insurance ccrtified as evidence of finan-
cial responsibility.
The uniform financial responsibility
system proposed in this amendment (1) pro-
vides claimants In appropriate circum-
stances with the right of dtrect action
against so-called guarantors (defined in
both RCRA and CERCLA as persons who
provide evidence of financial responsibility
to an owner or operator). (2) permits a guar-
antor v. hen subject to a direct action suit to
Invoke as a defense, among other things, the
terms and condit ons contained in the guar-
antor’s policy of irsurance with the owner
or operator and (3) confirms, aithout dimin-
ishing any other statutory, contractual or
common law liability of a guarantor, that
the total liability of a guarantor is limited
to the aggregate amount that the guarantor
has proided as evidence of financial respon-
sibility to a particular owner or operator.
Direct action
The amendment provides ciamants with a
llmitcd right of direct action against a guar-
antor. (With respect to CERCLA, this is a
modilicc’tion of an existing right of dIrect
action) With direct action, a claimant may
file a lawsuit nam n an insurance company
or other entity serv:ng as guarantor as a de-
fendant in the case. Absent the right of
direct action, an Injured party would file an
action only against the person aho allegedly
had caused the inju y, and It Is that per-
son’s liability ahich is litigated in the
action. The insurers initial obltgation is to
its Insured, with whom the insurer has a
contract. If the insured is found liable, then
the insurer is obligated to make payment to
the insured In accorda,ce uth and sjbject
to the terms of the contract
In some Instances, hoaever, an injured
party, aho is the intended beneficiary of
the finan.’ial responsibility requirements in
RCRA and CERCLA. may not be able to
bring an a iion against the owner or opera.
tar to recover from that owner or operator
or their guarantor There are two specific
circumstances a here this may occur. r rst.
it is possible that a claimant may not be
able to obtain court juiisdiction over the
owner or operator. Second, and perhaps
more likely, the owner or operator either
voluntarily or involuntaril) may be a debtor
in bankruptcy. These two circumstances in-
dude cases ahere an owner or opcrator may
be identified and subject to court Jurisdic-
tion, but clearly un! kely to be solvent (i.e.,
capable of pa)ing the Judgmenu at the time
the litigation is resolved. The amendment
ouId aiford a claimant the nght of direct
action in both instances.
Policy terms and condifwns
In a direct action laasuit, the amendment
permits the guarantor to invoke nol only
the defenses tast sould have been a ailabie
to the owner or operator, I.e., acts of God,
acts of sar, unrelated third party acts in
limited circumstances, but also the terms
and conditions that the Insurer had agreed
upon with the Insured In their policy of in-
surance, By authorizing a guarantor to
invoke these rights and defenses, this
amendment should foster the deieiopment
of a conmpetitiie marketplace for insurance
certified s . evidence of financial responsibil-
ity. A competitive marketplace should lead
to the greater availability of reasonably
priced insurance certified as evidence of fi-
nancial responsibility. This, in turn should
encourage increased compliance with
July 25, 1984
RCRA’s and CERCLA’s financial responsi
bility provisions (and the availability of
direct action) which will ultimately benefit
the claimants by prot Idlng them with great-
er financial protection,
In addition, a major goal of the financial
responsibility requirements is to enlist In-
surers to provide additional policina and In-
centives to monitor the behavior of their in-
sureds. The preservation of an loin-er’s
policy teims and conditions vis-a-vis its in
sured may as.sist in meeting this objecci e. It
Is often policy terms and conditions, as well
as Inspection and rate-makIng. that form
the basis of the Insurer’s ability to influence
the insured to act carefully and responsibly.
At the time of enactment of RCRA and
C’ERCLA. there are some concern that a
guarantor may use its policy terms and con-
ditions to diminish the risk it was undertak-
ing, and therefore the value of the financial
responsibility it had provided, We hope the
cause for this concern will be mtniniized by
several factors. One factor is the intensely
competitive nature of the property.casualty
insurance market. O ners and operators
should have little Incentive to purchase in-
surance certified as evidence of financial re
sponsihility that does not provide meaning-
ful coverage hcn insurance that would pro-
vide val,d protection for their assets is iead-
Ily available. Moreover. insurance compa-
nies are subiect to comprchensi e regula.
tion at the State level so that, if this prob-
lem eter dd arise, there aouId be an a auI-
able procedure to correct it prompti.. Nev-
ertlieless. as a further safeguard the amend.
ment authorizes the Ent ironmental Protec-
tion Agency to specify polic) or other con•
tractual terms, conditions or defenses v.hich
EPA deems to be necessary or to be unac-
ceptable in establishing evidence of fman
cial responsibility.
Liability Limits
The amendment also clarifies and defines
more precisely the ultimate liability of a
guarantor when providing ev!dence of finan-
cial responsibility, As * ritten. preLent sec-
tion 108 (d) of CERCLA could be interpreted
so as to vcpose an insurer to the full
amount of the risk regardless of the insur-
er’s policy limits should an insurer be found
to hate ected not in good faith. Section
108 (d) does not define the term “good faith”
ncr does it specify to whom the guarantor
must act In good faith. To cure this uncer-
tainty, the amendment specifies that a guar-
antor’s policy limits shall be binding, but
that nothing in either RCRA or CERCLA is
Intended to limit any other statutory. con-
tractual or common law liability of a guai-
antor. Including an insurer’s tracticional
common law oblmgation to act in good faith
toward its Insured Moreover, the amend-
me,it also makes explicit that the liability
limit of a guarantor in any specific instance
is to be determined by the aggregate
amount v.hlch the guarantor has pro ided
as evidence of financial responsibility to the
particular oaner or operator invol% ed in time
matter.
E idcnce oJfinancial responsibility
Finally, the amendment makes explicit
and uniform how evidence of financial re-
SpC nsibility Is to be provided. First, .the
amendment requires that evidence of finan.
cia ) responsibility Is to be prosided in ac
cordance itIi regulations promulgated by
the Administrator of EPA Thus, for e\am-
pie, the mere purchase of Incurance by an
owner or operator is not sufficient, in and of
itself, to meet the financial Tesponslbiiity
provisions of RCRA and CERCLA Rallier.
in order to meet the statutes’ requirements,
art owner or operator must obtain from a
guarantor Insurance or some other form of
-------
July 25, 1984
financial guarantee that qualifies as evi-
dence of financial responsibility pursuant to
the EPA ’s regulations. Second. the amend-
nient pros ides that evidence of financial re-
sponsibility may be pro ided by any one, or
any combination, of the toiloaing: Insur-
ance, letter of credit, guarantee, surety bond
or qualification as self.insurer.
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY WHEN COMMON CARRI-
ERS BY RAIL ARE SUBJECT TO CITIZEN SUITS
New section 7002ta)(I)(B). added by S.
757, allows citiZens to sue any persons a ho
are contributing to the transportation or
disposal of hazardous wasta which may
present an imminent and substantial endan-
gernient to health or the environment.
Under this section, transporters performing
mere transportation funchons potentially
may be sued for dangers presented by haz-
ardous aaste at hazardous waste facilities.
Common carrier tiansporters of hazardous
waste trust accept for transport shipments
of hazardous aaste, They cannot choose
ahich shippers or consignees they would
like to serve. However, under section
7002(a)(l)(B), such transporters may be
sued even though they properly transported
the hazardous aaste and had no other role,
This amendment would correct this inequi-
ty.
This amendment would be consistent with
the Comprehensive Entironmental Re-
sponse. Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). CERCLA provides that a trans-
porter may be liable for damages resulting
from the release of hazardous waste from a
facility, ahich the can-icr transported to
that hazardous aaste facility—but only If
the carrier actually selected that facility.
Under new section 7002(a)(l)(B), Iaoa ever, a
citiy.en could bring an action against the
transporter for contributing to the past
transportation of this hazardous a aste even
though it did not select the site. The action
could include a claim that an innocent
transporter should undertake or contribute
to site cleanup. CERCLA recognizes that
such a transporter should not be liable
under those circumstances. With this
amendment section ‘ 1002(a)(l)(B) will also
deal aitli transporters In the same manner.
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THE UNIFORM
MAINFEST REQUIREMENTs
Since the Committee reported S. 757 the
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest regula-
tions have been promulgated, in March of
this year. The Department of Transporta-
tion has indicated that several conforming
changes to the bill would be desirable, par-
ticularly to the small quantity generator
provisions. -
This amendment responds to the concerns
raised by the Department, principally by
striking new section 3002(b)(2). This will
avoid confusion about the applicability of
the Hazardous Materials Regulations as to
containerization of Rastes Also, it aiR
eliminate the suggestion that States can
impose manifesting requirements other
than those consistent aith the Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest regulations,
Under those reguiat.ons, hotte er, there
are a number of regulatory options relating
to manifest requirements that are available
to the States and that are not preempted by
the rules,
Although no other form may be requlrcd
a Stnte to accompany a waste shipment,
the Uniform Manifest form contains soace
to allow the entry of certain optimal State
Information item,c In addition to the federal-
ly-required items. These items include State
manifest numbers: State identification num-
bers for generators, transporters, and treat-
ment. storage, or disposal TSD) factlities:
telephone numbers for the transporter and
TSD (acuity, EPA or State hazardous waste
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
ziwnbers; additional waste descriptions; and
handling codes. SLates may require genera-
tors to complete any of the Informational
items included in the optional State section
of the foim prior to the transport.a;ion of
the hazardous waste, and may require
owners or operators of facilities to complete
any of these Etate information items as a
condition of the acceptance of aaste at TSD
facilities.
States may also require generators or TSD
facilities to send the Uniform Manifest or
other Information related to the shipment
under separate cover (e g - by mail), as long
as this does not interfere with the actual
movement of the waste. BY this means,
Stetes In which hazardous waste disposal fa-
cilities are located may obtain Information
from all generators using those facilities, in-
eluding generators located in other States.
These requirements may be Imposed both
by the State In which the generator Is locat-
ed and the State in ahich the designated fa-
cility is located. States may impose sanc-
tions against generators for failing to pro-
vide required State information,
In addition to shipments that are subject
to the Federal manifest requirements,
States may require the Uniform Manifest to
accompany shipments of waste that are not
subject to the Federal requirements. For ex-
ample, States may require the Uniform
Manifest for shipments of wastes that are
defined as hazardous wastes under State
law, but not under Federal law. Further-
more. States may require the Uniform
Manifest for shipments by generators quali-
fying for the Federal small generator ex-
emption.
In addition to the additional information
which States may require, a State may also
require, with some limitations, generators to
use forms printed by the State. and the
State may print its name, State-assigned
document number, and other information
on the required form, For example, a State
may print on its form a notice to generators
that they are required to submit copies of
the Uniform Manifest to the State.
AMENDMENT TO MAKE A CLARIFYING
AMENDMENT ON THE USE OF ABSORBENTS
The regulations to be promulgated under
new 13004(c), “Liquids In Landfills.” shall
prohibit the disposal of liquids In landfills
that have been absorbed in material that
biodegrades or releases liquids when com-
pressed as might occur In routine landfill
operations. The use of absorbents should be
consistent with the purposes and objectives
of this Act and particularly with the finding
that land disposal In general is the least cle-
sirable form of waste management because
of the problems associated with assuring
long-term containment of hazardous a a.nes.
The bill’s current language regarding
“min,mizatlon of free liquids by other
means than the addition of absorbent mate-
rial. a-here technologically feasible” does
not clearly state the intent of the protision.
In additlon, the lancuage only refcrs to con-
tainerizc’d liquids. This amendment will
clai:fy the intent and make the pro ision
applicabla to cootninprixcil as well as bulk
or rioncontainerized liquid hazardous
aastes.
The goal of minimtzlng liquids is to reduce
the ready migration of liquid wa.ctes ana the
potential for subsidence. To this end, the
preferred liquids aaste management meth-
ods are. (1) reduction in liquid waste genera-
tion by process design changes Ce g - using
less liquid or recirculating rinse water) and
by not miatng hazardous wastes with liq-
uids. (2) rec cIing and recotery (e g., soltent
extraction i, (3) treatment b destruction
(e g., incineration), 4) treatment to render
the aaste or liquid fraction nonhazardous
S9177
(e.g.. coagulation and precipitation). (5)
treatment by remo ing liquids te g., decant-
ing. cuntrifuge, vacuum drum or conveyor.
filter press. distillatlon, re erse osmosis: arid
(6) treatment by mixing a-lsh agents ( g.
cheniicsl reagents and certa.n a cr cft )
that remove “free liquids.”
Chemical rcagents soid fy and stab ll’7i-
liquid wastes by such reactions as encaricti-
lation. Ion exchange, precipitation and
chemical transformations. They also teno to
reduce the leachabliity of chemical conctitu-
ents. Ezaniples of chemical reagents include
cement—or lime-based materials, poazolanic
materia!s, and thermoplastic or or an.c
binders By contrast, absorption is pniiiiaiiiy
a ph sical process goserned mainl) by cap.l-
iary action, surface tension, and filltog toid
spacu Absorption does, ho’seter. also in-
volve chemical and electromaenctie reac-
tions, and includes many chemical re?gents.
Some absorbents are unacceptable for
treating liquids before landfill disposal be-
cause they either biodegrade or fail to pro-
vide structural stability. Absorbents that
biodegrade Ce g., sawdust, municipal ‘s acte
and shredded paper) are unacceptable be.
cause v.hen they biodergrade they collapse
and release free liquids, Absorbents that fail
to probide structural stability (e.g.. saa dust.
shredded paper and certain vermiculitcs)
are also unacceptable because of their
sponge-like behavior; i.e.. they absorb liq-
uids but readily release them under pres-
sures that may occur in landfills. Eaamples
of absorbents that are likely to be found to
be acceptable are the chemical reagents dis-
cussed abose and fand-grained earthen ma-
terials (e.g.. bentonite. montiviorillionite. ka-
ollmte, and Fuller’s earth). Fine-grained ma-
terials have a large-capillary potential ahen
unsaturated, and may be acceptable if they
provide structural stability as well as remo -
al of “free liquids.” The abIlity of absorbent
materials to retain liquids under pressure is
a function of the amount of pressure the
percent of votd space filled v.ith liquids, and
the structural strength of the material (i e.
the percent of void space retained under
pressure).
EPA is expected to develop and formulate
criteria distinguishIng betaeen acceptable
and unacceptable absorbents. A list of unac-
ceptable mixing agents Ce g. biodegradabie
materials and materials that readli) reAease
water) or unacceptable characteristics may
be developed to exclude certain absorbents
altogether from use in hazardous aaste
management practices. Absorbents n. t
listed as unacceptable. e.g.. fuller s earth,
would have to pass specific performance
standards or test criteria to be proven ac-
ceptable. Each material from each sou-ce
projected for use would hate to be subuectcd
to testing to determine that it will perfcrn
adequately during transport and in the
landfill environment. Such criteria migttt
also be ap 1 ,lied to specific hazardous aastLs
and specified absorbents to determine corn-
patihilty on a ca,,e by case ba is under co’-
trolie’i preszure and tempeiaiure test cct’di-
t:ons a mulating the in LIe e:Wiror.mcnt
In addition to performance criteria. EPA
is e’:pccted to detelop opeiaiirg g .ieliics
for uae on a case by ca’e ba,cis to control
manag.ment and disposal ;.iar:ites For cv-
amplc. esen an acceptablc ahsnib r t r av
become unacceptabia if ured in limied
quantities for absorbing a relari;tI lai e
quantily of hazardous waste he Ina’c:ial
could then become saturatici a;th the l;uiiiil
aate and subject to read i. releasing iiti
Use of a larger Quantit of absorbent ar,,id
be needed In this case to prevent the abs irb
ent from yielding free liqiiios Hence, the
quantity of absorbent per unit quaritii of
hazardous waste used in determining Inst
-------
CONTINUING RELEASES AT PERMITTED FACILITIES
SEC. 206. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended
by adding the following new subsection after subsection (t) thereof:
“(U) CONTINUING REI.EA.srs AT PERMITTED FAclLrrws.—Standards
promulgated under this section shall require, and a permit issued
after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 by the Administrator or a State shall require,
corrective action for all releases of hazardous waste or constituents
from any solid waste management unit at a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility seeking a permit under this subtitle, regardless of
the time at which waste was placed in such unit. Permits issued
under section 3005 shall contain schedules of compliance for such
corrective action (where such corrective action cannot be completed
prior to issuance of the permit) and assurances of financial responsi-
bility for completing such corrective action.”.
-------
( Ofi)F. fL .P7,
SECTION 206—CONTINUING RELEASES AT PERMITTED FACILITIES
House bilL—The House bill requires that regulations and per-
mits issued after enactment shall require corrective action for haz-
ardous constituent releases from any solid waste management unit
at a facility, regardless of when the waste was placed in the unit.
Where such corrective action cannot be completed prior to issuance
of the permit, the permit shall contain schedules for corrective
action and assurances of financial responsibility to ensure adequate
cleanup of the releases.
Senate amendment.—The Senate amendment is essentially the
same as the House bill.
92
Conference substitute.—The conference substitute adopts the
Senate amendment. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that
all facilities which seek a permit under section 3005(c) take all ap-
propriate action to control and cleanup all releases of hazardous
constituents from all solid waste management units at the time of
permitting the facility. Current EPA regulations do not address all
releases of hazardous constituents from solid waste management
units at facilities receiving permits under section 3005(c). This
could likely result in a situation of EPA issuing a final permit to a
facility which is causing ground water contamination from inactive
units, without the permit addressing that contamination in any
way. The Conferees believe that all facilities receiving permits
should be required to clean up all releases from all units at the fa-
cility, whether or not such units are currently active.
This provision provides also that, where corrective action cannot
be completed prior to issuance of permit, the cleanup may occur
after the date of final permit issuance only if the conditions, sched-
ules, terms, and financial assurances of such cleanup actions are
specified as a condition of the permit.
To obtain and interpret information may take a considerable
amount of time. Rather than delay the issuance of RCRA permits
until sufficient information is acquired to specify in compliance
schedules the corrective action required and the financial assur-
ances needed to assure its completion, the bill allows permits to be
issued where owners or operators commit in a compliance schedule
to obtain the information necessary to determine the extent and
cost of corrective action. To do otherwise would prolong the period
during which facilities are not subject to the more stringent Part
264 standards.
-------
CONTINUING RELEASES AT PERMITTED FACILITIES
The reported bill adds to section 3004 of the Act a new subsection
intended to assure that appropriate corrective action is taken to
protect human health and the environment from any past, present
or future release of hazardous waste from a permitted hazardous
waste facility.
New subsection 3004(g) requires that corrective action be taken
in response to all releases of hazardous waste (or constituents of
hazardous waste) from any solid waste management unit at a treat-
ment, storage, or disposal facility seeking a permit, regardless of
when the waste was placed in the unit or when the release oc-
curred. This requirement is effective immediately upon the enact-
ment of the bill; the Administrator is directed to promulgate new
standards implementing the requirement, but any permit issued
32
before the promulgation of regulations establishing those standards
must require compliance with the statutory mandate for corrective
action. 1....
Corrective action is required whether or not the unit at which a
release occurred is still in operation. The owner or operator of a
hazardous waste management facility will not be allowed to escape
the responsibility to take corrective action by closing a unit at
which a release has occurred and limiting the permit application
for the facility to other units at the site.
The requirement for corrective action is a continuing one, apply-
ing not just to releases that have occurred prior to permit issuance,
but also to any releases that occur after permit issuance.
To assure corrective action is taken in response to releases of
hazardous wastes or constituents from an inactive unit at a facility
seeking or having received a permit, the Administrator will need to
revise groundwater monitoring requirements to detect possible re-
leases from all inactive units from which a release could occur at a
facility. It will be necessary to determine background groundwater
quality at a point unaffected by any waste management activities
at the facility.
The requirement for corrective action applies not just to releases
of hazardous wastes, but also to releases of hazardous constituents,
including hazardous constituents from solid waste and hazardous
constituents that are reaction by-products.
The corrective action must be completed as expeditiously as prac-
ticable, including, whenever practicable, prior to issuance of the
permit. Completion of the corrective action is the best guarantee
that human health and the environment will be fully protected.
However, if the corrective action cannot be completed prior to issu-
ance of the permit, the Administrator may issue the permit so long
as the permit contains schedules of compliance for completion of
the corrective action as expeditiously as practicable and the permit
applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated both a financial ability
and a commitment to complete the corrective action.
-------
- t ’ v—”
Section 17 Prior Releases
Section 7 amends Section 3004’s treatment, storage, and disposal
facility standards, to require that all treatment, storage and dis-
posal facilities which apply for a final permit and which release
hazardous constituents (as defined in EPA regulations) into the en-
vironment from any of the solid waste management units at the fa-
cility, regardless of when such unit began or stopped accepting
waste, must remedy such releases. Such remedial action must be
accomplished in the manner currently prescribed in the final
standards under 3004 promulgated by EPA for units of the facility
which’received waste after January 26, 1983. Thus, the corrective
action requirements in the Agency’s disposal regulations are appli-
cable to all solid waste management units at a facility requesting a
permit for any one of those units, irrespective of whether waste
was placed in the unit prior to January 26, 1983. The Committee
does not, however, intend EPA to require cleanup from areas
where wastes were not placed in management units except where
releases from these other areas are indistinguishable from releases
from management units.
The purpose of this provision is to ensure that all facifities which
seek a permit under 3005(e) control and cleanup all releases of all
hazardous constituents from all solid waste management units at
the time of permitting the facility. The committee is extremely con-
cerned that current EPA regulations do not address all releases of
hs17s%rdous constituents from solid waste management units at facil-
ities receiving permits under 3005(e). This could likely result in a
situation of EPA issuing a final permit to a facility which is caus-
ing ground water contamination from inactive units, without the
permit addressing that contamination in any way. The Committee
believes that all facilities receiving permits should be required to
clean up all releases from all units at the facility, whether or not
such units are currently active.
The term “unit” is intended to be defined as in the preamble as
to EPA regulations published on July 26, 1982 and as further de-
fined by EPA in the future. Use of the term “solid waste manage-
ment unit” is used to reaffirm the Administrator’s responsibility to
examine all units at the facility from which hazardous constituents
might migrate, irrespective of whether the units were intended for
the management of solid and/or hazardous wastes. This section is
not limited to hazardous wastes listed or identified under Section
3001 of the Act because it may be impossible to determine if haz-
ardous constituents come from hazardous wastes as currently de-
fined by the Administrator. The term “hazardous constituent” as
61
used in this provision is intended to mean those constituents listed
in Appendix WU of the RCRA regulations.
Unless all hazardous constituents releases from solid waste man-
agement units at permitted facilities are addressed and cleaned up
the Committee is deeply concerned that many more sites will be
added to the future burdens of the Superfund program with little I
prospect for control or cleanup. The responsibility to control such
releases lies with the facility owner and operator and should not be!
shifted to the Superfund program, particularly when a final permit
has been requested by the facthty.
The provision also provides that under certain limited circum-
stances the cleanup may occur after the date of final permit issu-
ance only if the conditions, schedules, terms, and financial assur-
ances of such cleanup actions are specified as a condition of the I
permit.
c,2L9
-------
ç- c 4’ ‘
CONTINUING RELEASES AT PERMITTED FACILITIES
SEC. 7. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
is amended by adding the following additional new subsec-
tion:
“(g) CONTINUING RELEASES AT PERMITTED FA-
C1LITJES.—Standard3 promulgated under this section shall
require, and a permit issued after the date of enactment of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984 by the
Administrator or a State shall require, corrective action for
all releases of hazardous waste or constituents from any
solid waste management unit at a treatment, storage, or dis-
posal facility seeking a permit under this subtitle, regardless
of the time at which waste was placed in such unit. Permits
issued under section 3005 shall contain schedules of compli-
ance for such corrective action (where such corrective action
cannot be completed prior to issuance of the permit) and as-
surances of financial responsibility for completing such cor
rective action. ‘
r .2O
-------
4i 7 ) , :1-g
? ‘/ 74 4 ... jou6L
3 PRIOR RELEASES
4 Sec. 22. Section 3004 is amended by adding the- follow-
5 ing new subsection at the end thereof:
6 “(j) PRIoR RELEASES.—Standards issued under this
7 section shall address releases of hazardous constituents at-
8 tributable to the migration of waste from all solid waste man-
9 agement units at the facility, whether waste was placed in
10 such units before or after the date of permit issuance. ‘Where
11 cleanup of such releases cannot be completed prior to permit
12 issuance, the standards issued under this section shall provide
13 for compliance schedules and financial assurances to ensure
14 adequate cleanup of such releases.”.
-------
I - ” - cporL7 b
W-T? E p7 ‘fl’— ? 2r P,ir --r]
20 PRIOR RELEdSES
21 SEc. 17. Section 8004 is amended by adding the fol-
22 lowing new subsection at the end thereof:
23 “(j) PRIOR RELE.-ISEs.—Standards issued under this
24 section shall address releases of hazardous constituents alt rib-
25 utable to the migration of waste from all solid waste manage-
HR 2867 RH
46
1 ment units at the facility, whether waste was placed in such
2 units before or after the date of permit issuance. W7iere
3 cleanup of such releases cannot be completed prior to permit
4 issuance, the standard,s issued under this section shall pro-
5 vide for compliance schedules and financial assurances to
6 ensure adequate cleanup of such releases. ‘
-------
ep’
20 CONTINUiNG RELEASES AT PERMITTED FACILITIES
21 SEC. 7. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
22 is amended by adding the following additional new subsec-
23 lion:
24 “(9) CONTINuiNG RELEASES AT PERMITTED FAcILI-
25 TIES.—Standards promulgated under this section shall re-
S 757 RS
50
1 quire, and a permit issued after the date of enactment of the
2 Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1983 by the Ad-
3 ministrator or a State shall require, corrective action for all
4 releases of hazardous waste or constituents from any solid
5 waste management unit at a treatment, storage, or disposal
6 facility seeking a permit under this subtitle, regardless of the
7 time at which waste was placed in such unit. Permits issued
8 under section 3005 shall contain schedules of compliance for
9 such corrective action (where such corrective action cannot be
10 completed prior to issuance of the permit) and assurances of
11 financial responsibility for completing such corrective
12 action.”
-------
. .lU26 ecS3h7jU0?.,vC.c.J) ?
45
1 PRIOR RELEASES
2 SEc. 18. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
3 is amended by adding the following new subsection at the end
4 thereof:
5 “(i) PRIOR RELEASES.—Standards issued under this
6 section shall address releases of hazardous constituents at-
7 tributable to the migration of waste from all solid waste man-
8 agement units at the facility, whether waste was placed in
9 such units before or after the date of permit issuance. Where
10 cleanup of such releases cannot be completed prior to permit
11 issuance, the standards issued under this section shall provide
12 for compliance schedules and financial assurances to ensure
13 adequate cleanup of such releases.”.
-------
October 5, 1984
consistent with requirements for per-
mitted facilities.
MINIMUM TECHNOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS AND
PERMIT Lilt
Delayed promulgation of final regu-
lations to implement RCRA and pro-
longed use of InterIm status permits
by EPA has allowed some facilities to
operate without assurances that
design and perfonnanee standards will
utilize adequate and available control
technology. The application of avail-
able technology, at a minimum, Is nec-
essary to minimize reteases of hazard-
ou.s wastes into the environment.
Minimum standards of double liners,
groundwater monitoring and leachate
collection are required for landfills
and surface impoundments permitted
alter date of enactment. Modifications
of this requirement are allowed upon a
showing that an alternative design is
at least as effective as the liners and
leachate collection systems.
The conference report contains the
Senate provision excluding facilities
within the State of Alabama from the
alternative technology provisions con-
tained In the minimum technological
requirements. By adoption of this
Senate provision, the conferees do not
imply that any facility within the
State of Alabama could, or could not,
comply with any minimum technologi-
cal variance requirements envisioned
by this provision. This Alabama exclu-
sion does not prejudice or affect con-
sideration of pending or future permit
applications by facilities in Alabama to
the extent that such applications may
comply with this and other Federal
and State statutes and regulations.
This provision solely affecting facili-
ties within Alabama extends only to
the alternative technology demonstra-
tion otherwise available regarding
minimum technology requirements
and does not affect other alternative
operating or design options available
to owners or operators of Alabama
land disposal facilities under this or
other Federal or State statutes or reg-
ulations. For example, If pretreated
wastes under other provisions were cx-
pressly permitted to utilize land dis ’
posal facilities of differing technologi-
cal design or operating requirments.
this Alabama exclusion would not
apply to that alternative authority.
Minimum standards for incinerators
are to require destruction and removal
efficiency consistent with regulations
in effect on the date of enactment.
Equally important is the require-
ment that EPA modify its regulations
to specify criteria for the acceptable
location of new, as well as existing, fa-
cilities. Recent studies show that
proper location Is at least as important
as application of improved technol-
ogies. Too many existing facilities are
located in areas that aren’t well suited
to management of hazardous wastes.
It Is important that these sites be shut
down as quickly as is possible.
Fixed term permits not to exceed 10
years are established for land disposal
faciiities, storage facilities, inciner-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
atom, and other treatment facilities.
Permits for land disposal facilities
shall be reviewed at least every 5
years.
An amendment Is included to make
clear that the Administrator—or the
State In the case of a State with an au-
thorized program—is not to consider
the Incremental cost attributable to
sections 3004 (o) and 3005 (j) in first, is-
suing effluent limitations guidelines,
new source performance standards and
pretreatment standards under the
Clean Water Act in the next 12
months; second, Issuing NPDES per-
mits based on the previously promul-
gated guidelines and standards and
any guidelines and standards promul-
gated under the Clean Water Act with
In the next 12 months; or third, estab-
lishing effluent limitations based on
best professional Judgment (BPJ] on
or before October 1, 1986,
In the past several years, EPA has
promulgated the majority of the efflu-
ent limitations guidelines, pretreat-
ment standards, and new source per-
formance standards required by the
Clean Water Act and the Clean Water
Act Toxics Consent Decree, NRDC v.
Ruckelshaus, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C.
1976), as modified 12 ERC 1833
(D.C.C. 1979), as modified by orders
dated October 26, 1982, August 2, 1983,
January 6, 1984, and July 5, 1984. The
Agency has done substantial work on
the other effluent limitations guide-
lines and standards covered by this
decree. The agency has also made sub-
stantial commitments to issue NPDES
permits implementing these effiuent
limitations guidelines and standards
and NPDES permit establishing efflu
ent limitations based on best profes-
sional Judgment [ BPJ] in cases where
there are no applicable effluent limita-
tions guidelines.
Some of these effluent limitations
guidelines and standards and BPJ
permit limitations rely on surface im-
poundrnents as part of the model
treatment technology; in other cases,
Industry has chosen to use surface im-
poundments to achieve compliance
with nationally applicable effluent
limitations guidelines and standards
despite the fact that such impound-
ments are rot part of EPA’s model
treatment technology. Since EPA
could not have foreseen the require-
ments imposed by sections 3004(o) and
3005(j) of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984. EPA did
not always include as part of the base-
line or incremental cost of those regu-
lations or BPS limitations, the cost of
facilities to meet the requirements of
sections 3004(o) or 3005 (j). The pur-
pose of this amendment is to assure
that there Is no delay in promulgation
of the remaining effluent limitations
guidelines and standards, implementa-
tion of the categorical pretreatment
standards, or EPA’s ability to Issue
NPDES permits either through imple-
mentation of the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards or develop-
ment of BPJ limitations, pending eon-
S 13819
sideration of the cost or nonwater
quaBty en rironmental impacts associ-
ated with surface impoundments in
light of the newly enacted sections
3004(o) and 3005(j).
CONTINUING RELEASES AT PERM InED -
FACILiT iES
Current regulations do not require
facilities receiving permits under
RCRA to address all releases of haz-
ardous wastes from solid waste man-
agement units at the facility. A facility
which is causing, for example, ground-
water contamination from inactive
units could, therefore, seek a permit
under RCRA for active units and re-
ceive the permit without having to
clean up the contamination.
H.R. 2867 wIll require that all treat..
ment, storage, and disposal facilities
which apply for a permit under sub-
title C and which release hazardous
waste or constituents from any solid
waste management unit at the facility
must remedy such releases as a condi-
tion of permit issuance. Where correc-
tive action cannot be completed prior
to issuance of the permit, schedules of
compliance for such corrective’ action
and financial assurances may be re-
quired.
Rather than delay the issuance of
RCRA permits until sufficient infor-
mation Is acquired to specify in com-
pliance schedules the corrective action
required and the financial assurances
needed to assure its completion, per-
rnits may be issued where owners/op-
erators commit in a compliance sched-
ule to obtain the information neces-
sary to determine the extent and cost
of corrective action. To do otherwise
would prolong the period during
which facilities arc not subject to the
more stringent part 264 standards.
I15TINGJDELI5TINO MODIFIcATIoN
The listing process Is a general
screening to determine whether a kind
of waste typically can cause harm to
human health and the environment if
mismanaged. The, delisting process
allows petitioners—usually individual
hazardous waste generators or treat-
ment facilities—the opportunity of
showing that their wastes are signifi-
cantly different—because of treat-
ment, or because they are generated in
a different process—from listed wastes
of the same type. Consequently, their
wastes should be excluded—that Is de-
listed—from the hazardous wastes
lists. Under the Agency’s regulations,
EPA will delist those wastes which do
not, or no longer, meet the criteria for
which the waste was listed.
EPA’s delisting regulations do not
fully address the fact that wastes are
frequently composed of numerous haz-
ardous constituent& In some in-
stances, because listing is a general
screening process, EPA may not have
taken all of the hazardous constitu-
ents In a waste into consideration
when the waste was originally listed.
Although EPA has authority under
RCRA to reject a delisting petition
based on the presence of these addi-
o fl
-------
44, , 43o7 tts
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — IVOUSE
&ptem bet 8, 1982 H 675
shall fIle with the Administrator a noUfica. U) to bear the following statement State which Is administer ing an authorize
tion stating the location and general tie- “WARNING: THIS PUEL CONTAINS hazardous waste program under sectlo
scription of the facility, together with a de. HAZARDOUS WASTES”, and 3006. InterIm status under subsection I i
scription of the identified or listed hazard- “ (2) to list the hazardous wastes contained shall terminate for each facility referred
ous waste involved and, In the case of a fa- therein. In subparagraph (A) or (8) on the expira
cility referred to in paragraph U) or (2), a Such statement shall be located in a con- tion of the four, or aix -year period referre
description of the production or energy re- spicuous place on every such Invoice or bill to In subparagraph 1 A) or (8), whichever I
emery activity carried out at the facility of sale and shall appear in conspicuous and applicable, unless an application is flied (oi
and such other information as the Adminls.J legible type in contrast by typography, lay- a permit under other provisions of this sub
trator deems necessary. For purposes of Ut!! outs, or color with other printed matter on section with In such four-year or six-yeas
preceding sentence, the term iiszardou 1 the invoice or bill of sale.”. - period, as the case may be.”.
waste listed under section 3001’ also lO 4 fSiI. StCflOi* 5005 Pflhttfl asnosiis.oaoowowa lsa cOMMISsIoN
cludes any commercial chemical product 1 Sec. 7 (a) flNat Prs rr.—Seciion 3005 of Ste. 9,1 5) Estasusstsrzsrr.—There is estab.
which is listed under section 3001 and
which. In lieu of its onglnal intended use, is the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by ibhed a commission to be known as the Na ’
(I) produced for use as ror as a component i adding the following new subsection at the tional Groundwater Commission (herein.
of) a fuel. (Iii distributed for use as a fuel,! end thereof: alter in this section referred to as the
or nit) burned as a fuel. Notification shall ‘(g) Rtinsts,—Any permit (other than a
not be required under this subsection in the permit treated as issued pursuant to subsec ’ b Dtntts or Coaastssioie.—The duties of
case of facilities (such as residential boilers) tion (e l i Issued to a treatment, storage, or the Commission are to:
where the Administrator determines that disposal facility under sectton 3005 (or (1) Assess generally the amount, location,
such notification is not necessary In order under an authorized Stair hazardous waste
for the AdrninL,trator to obtain sufficient program under section 3006) shall, in addi. and quality of the Nation’s groundwater re-
information respecting current practices of tion to other applicable requirements, ad- sotirces,
facilities using hazardous waste for energy dress any release of hazardous waste from (2) Identify generally the sources, extent,
recovery Nothing In this subsection shall be such facility which occurs prior to the date and types of groundwater contamination.
construed to affect or impair the pros isions of issuance of such permit. Such permits ‘ (3) Assess the scope and nature of rela.
of sectiun 3002 tb)t 3). Notli ing In this subseo- shalt include schedules and c rovide finan. ticnship between groundwater contamlna ’
clal assurances for addressing such releases tion and groundwater withdrawal and devel .
tion shall aUect regalazory determinations where the required actIon cannot be cornS Op projections of available, usable ground.
under section 3012 (as amended by the Used
Oil Recycling Act of 1980).” pleted prior to permit issuance. Tile permit water in future years on a nationwide basis.
(2) Section aoto Is amended by stn ltng provisions required under this subsection (4) Assess the relationship between sur-
out “the preceding sentence” and substitut- shall not apply to any portion of the facility I face water pollution and groundwater pollu .
big “the preceding prosisions ”. at which hazardous waste treatment, storrn tion .
(bi Srnmaaos.—Section 3004 of such Act age or disposal activities do not take place. 1 S Assess the need for a policy to protect
is amended by adding the following at the (b) Exe axsiox Dusiuc Iin’rat i s srsrvs.nJ groundwater from degradation caused by
end thereof: Section 3005(e ) of such Act is amended by contamination.
“(e) Haasnoos Wests (Isre as Pvu,.—Not adding the following at the end thereof: (6) Assess generally the extent of over-
later than two yean after the date of the “The Administrator shall promulgate regu- drafting of groundwater resources and the
enactment of this subsection, and after lations under which any owner or operator adequacy of existing mechanisms for pre.
notice and opportunity (or public hearing, of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility venting such overdrafting.
the Adnunistrator shall promulgate regifla’ opersiing under interim status pursuant tO (7) Assess generally the engineering and
tions estabiislilng such— this subsection who expands the capactty of tec k nological capability to recharge
‘ f l) standards applicable to the owners the facility (except the capacity for storage aqullers.
snd operators of iaciiities which produce a or treatment in tanks or containers and en (81 Assess the adequacy of the present tin-
fuel (Al from any hazardous waste identi - closed waste pileal by an amount in excess derstandsng of groundwater recharge sonee
fied or listed under sectIon 3001 . or 18) from of lOper centuns of the capacity specified In and sole source aquifers and assess the ade-
any hazardous waste identified or listed the permit application shall be required O quacy of knowledge regarding the interrela-
under section 3001 and any other material; obtain a permit under the provisions of this tiotisnip of designated aquifers and re-
“(2) standards appiirable to the owners section prior to construction of such expan’ charge aones,
and operators of fatuities which burn for aion, The regulations of the Administrator 9 Assess the role of land.uae patterns as
purposes of energy recotery any fuel pro- under this subsection may. in the discretion these relate to protecting groundwater Irom
duced as provided in paragraph (1) or any of the Administrator, contain standards for
fuel which otherwise contains any hazard- facilities which expand such capacity by 1* contaminatIon.
otis waste identified or listed under section per centum or less and such standards may (10) Assess methods for remedial abate-
3001: and vary from the standards applicable to those went of groundwater contamination as welt
“(3) standards applicable to any person facilities operating pursuant to a permit as the costs and benefits of cleaning up poi-
iuted grounda ater and compare cleanup
who distributes or markets any fuel which is under this subsection which do not expand cost a to the costs of substitute water supply
produced as provided in paragraph (1) or such capacity. methods.
any fuel which otherwise contains any has- gtgggaai,g roe asvsew 0 ? A ?flt t ( Ii) Investigate policies and actions taken
ardous waste ldetituled or listed under seeS - . — -. .snuc*noles - by foreign governments to protect ground.
lion 3001 - Sec. 8. Section 3005 (c) of the Solid Waste water from contamination,
as may be necessary to protect human Disposal Act is amended by inserting “(1)” 1123 Assess the use and effectiveness of ex-
health and the emironment. Such stand. after ‘Ptxssi-r Issossct—” and by aiidltig isting interstate conipacts to address
ards may include any of the requirements the following new paragraph at the groundwater protection from contamma-
set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of thereof: t ion ,
subsection ial as may be spproprtate. Noth- “ I 2XA) Not later than the date four yean (13) existing legal rights arid rem-
Ing In this subsection sliali be construed to after the enactment o l the Resource Con. eWes regarding contamination of ground-
affect or impair the provisions of section servatIon and Rccotery Act Reauthorization water,
300l(bR3). E’or purposes of this subsection . Act of 3982, in the case of each application (14) Assess the adequacy of existing stand.
the term ‘hazardous waste listed under see- for a permit fur a land disposal facility
tion 3001’ includes any commercial chemical under this section which ti bmitled ards for groundwater quality under Stale
product whIch is listed under section 3001 before such date, the Administrator sPrat l and Fndcral law.
and which, In lieu of its orielnal intended issue a final permit pursuant to such appU- (15) Assess monitoring methodologies of
use, is (A) produced for use as (or as a corn’ cation or Issue a final denial of such applica. the States and the Federal Goserrunent to
ponent of) a fuel, (B) distributed for use as tion, achieve the level of protection of the r e
a fuel, or IC) burned as a fuel. ‘151 Not later than the date ,alx years source as required by State and Federal law.
“If) Laanssio.—NOtwiihslanthng any after the enactment of the Resource Con- (16) Assess the relationship between
other pros ision of law, it shall be unlawful servauion and Recovery Act Reauthorization groundwater flow systems (and associated
for any person who Is required to file a noti- Act of 1982, in the case of each application recharge areas) and the control of sources
fication lit accordance with paragraph i i) or (or s permit for any faculty under this see- of contamination.
(3) of section 3010 to distnbute or market tion (other than a facility referred to In sub- 11’)) Assess the role of underground injec.
any fuel which is produced from any has’ paragraph (An which ass submitted before lion practices as a means of disposing of
ardous waste identifted or listed under sec• such date, the Administrator shall issue a waste fluids while protecting groundwater
l Ion 3001, or any fuel which otherwise con- final permit pursuant to such application or from contamination,
tains any hazardous waste identified or Issue a final denial of such application. (18) Assess methods for abatement and
listed under section 3001 If the invoice or “(C) The time periods specilied in this containment of groundwater contamination
the bi ll of sale fails— paragraph shall not apply In the case of any and for aquifer restoration Including the
-------
4k.P t / 0 3O7
7 SECTiON 3005 PERMiTS
8 SEc. 7 (a) FINAL PERM 1Ts.—Section 3005 of the
9 Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended bg adding the follow-
10 ing new subsection at the end thereof:
11 “(g) RELEASES.—Any permit (other 1/ian a permit
12 treated as issued pursuant to subsection (e)) issued to a treat- ) I
13 ment, storage, or disposal facility under section 3005 (or
14 under an authorized State hazardou3 waste program under
15 section 3006) shall, in addition to other applicable require-
16 ments, address any release of hazardous waste from such fa-
17 cility which occurs prior to the date of issuance of such
18 permit. ‘
-------
14.R . ( 3o7
Sept ember 8,1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
its to make grants to local government au human health arid the environment.
thonties to construct demonstration recy- This latter amendment embodies the
eling intermediate processing centers. Such approach of the LaFalce amendment,
grants may also be used for the acquisition and Is a much needed addition to the
of lanos necessary for such centers, notwith-
standing subsection (aX2ilA). bill.
“(2) Grants under this subsectIon may tie Section 8 Is amended to require that
made only to a local government unit which only hazardous wastes listed or Identi-
demonstrates a successful past experience In fled under the regulations will be con-
muJtlmaterial curbside source separation sidered for controls when burned In
programs at the municipal level. Grants boilers. This section also requires that
under this subsection may be made only to a 12 months postenactment, and the
local got erenient unit ahich has approved,
and expressed Its Intention to carry out, a Agency will concurrently publish a no-
plan for a rec.cilng Intermediate processing tificatlon requirement for those who
center ahich— - ‘ burn, blend, or distribute fuels con-
‘ IA) is part of a county-wide recycling taming hazardous wastes, and that
program that Includes curbside collection of such fuels be labeled so that consum-
recyclable mslertai and central processing era are aware of the hazardous waste
at the lntermedate processing center, content of any fuels they may be
“40) projects commencement of operation buying. - -
of the center not later than October 1983: r Section 7 Is amended to clarify that
and
‘(C1 projects the processing at such center permit,s can be issued prior to the corn-
of an annual total of not less than 21.000 Ipletion or required actions on the con-
tons of recyclable material within 3 years Idition that compliance schedules and
alter commencement of operatIon, financial assurances for such actions
“(3) No grant may be made under this are specified In the permit.
subsection to the local go ernment of an Section 9 incorporates the Public
political subdivision having a population of Works and Energy and Commerce
less than 115,000 or greater than 225,000.
Not tore than $9u0,000 of the funds made Committee axnendments to the Na-
available under subsection taX3JlC) may be tional Groundwater Comrntssfon,
used to make grants under this subsection. SectIon 11 requires the Agency to
“(4) Section 8004 shall not apply to any promulgate standards for hazardous
grants made pursuant to this subsection?’. wasie recycling practices as necessary
Mr. FLOR IO (during the reading). to protect public health and the envi-
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con- ronment. - - -
sent that the amendment in the Section 12 emphasIzes that in the
nature of a substitute be considered as solid waste planning process, adequate
read and printed In the Racoan. provision should be given to both re-
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection source recovery and recycling technol-
to the request of the gentleman from ogles, and that these decisions remain
New Jersey? at the local level. -
There was no objection. armseg er o m an at an. ca&wu so in
(Mr. FLOR IO asked and was given AStENDMVfl IN TI lE NATURE or £ susstirrrs
permission to revise and extend his cc- onrzo at a rtoazo
marks.) Mr. GRAMM. Mr. Speaker, I offer
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. I an amendment to the ansendmerit in
would at the outset publicly express the nature of a substitute.
my appreciation to all aho have been The Clerk read as follows:
Involved in fashioning this compro- Amendment offered by Mr. GWSM to the
misc proposal. amendment In the nature of a aubst ltute of’
The substitute makes several techrtl’ fered by Mr. Ptotto: Page 3. strike out line
cal and substantive changes to HR. 22 and alt that foLlows down through lIne 16
6301: on page 7 and substitute:
Regarding small generators, the bill The Administrator shill, not later than
explicitly modifies the administrative three years after-the date of the enactment
and managerial requirements for these of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
generators prior to the actual disposal Reauthorization Act of t982, complete a
or treatment of the wastes. However, study and submit a report to the Congress
concerning whether the pre .,s2ons of regu-
when wastes are taken to be treated lations promulgated under this Act respectS
disposed of, the wastes must go to a ing hazardous asae generated by small gen-
proper hazardous waste facility, and erators in quantities of 1,000 kllogran%s or
not a sanitary landfill or municipal less per calendar month should be modified
dump. For example, the maximum with respect to any class or category of han.
storage period for smaller generators ardous waste.
is extended to 180 days from 90. This “(2) The study required under this sectIon
means that smntet generators ould shalt include—
only be required to dispcsc of their “(A) A profile of the generators, hazard-
ocs a sates. and sate management practices
wastes twice a year, but that ft be done ssxiect to such provisions.
properly. ‘ fli art assessment of the hazards associ-
Section 4 of the substttute iricorpo- . sled aith i- 4cb wastes and practices, and
rates the Public Works Committee “C an arial)sis of the regulatory ailerna-
amendment on the disposal of hazard- tives to the exemption of suet wastes from
ous wastes into sewer systems. the standards under this subtitle. including
SectIon 5 makes a number of techni- an analysis of the coat -effectiveness of such
cal changes to the underground Injec- alternativea
“(31 At Intervals of not more than one
tion prohibitions, and incorporates a year. and not more than two years. alter the
requirement to Impose restrictions on date of the enactment of the Resource Con’
the land disposal of certain hazardous servation arid Recovery Reauthorizat ion Act
Wastes as may be necessary to protect of 1982, the Administrator shall submit an
116761
Interim report to the Congress setting forth
a detailed statement of the status of the
study required under this subsection.”.
Mr. ORAMM (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed In the
Racoiw.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There ‘was no objection. -
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Ow na
was allowed to proceed for art addI-
tional 5 minutes.)
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. GRAMM) is recognized
for a total of 10 m Inutes.
Mr. CIRAMM; Mr. Chairman, I
would like first to begin by talking
about how RCRA works today, about
the cutoff In terms of the size of the
generator.
I would like to talk about the restric-
tions Imposed on the small generator
under existing law and under existing
regulations Issued by the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency,
I would like to talk about the moun-
tain of paperwork that they are cur-
rently exempt from under existing
regulations at EPA.
I would lIke to talk about the confu-
sIon that exists concerning scientific
data and Its evaluation concerning the
snrn.ll generators, and I would like to
argue for an amendment that sets up a
study to get the facts before we begin
the legislative process.
Currently under RCRA, we Impose a
mouniain of regulations and redtape,
and I believe rightly so, on those gen-
erators that produce more than 1.000
kilograms of hazardous waste a
month. There are about 75.000 of
those generators and, according to
EPA. they generate about 99 percent
of all the hazardous waste generated
In the country.
Small generators that generate less
than 1,000 k Ilo grams per month are
not burdened with the restrictions im-
posed under RCRA In terms of full re-
porting. It does not follow, however,
that they do not face restrictions in
the way that they dispose of hazard-
o t is wastes.
The existence of small and large
generators, according to EPA, basical-
ly breaks down a -s follows:
Those that generate more than 1,000
kilograms a month make up about 9
percent of the total generators nation-
wide and they generate about 99 per-
cent of the waste, Those that generate
less than 1,000 kilograms per m;r,th
compose about 91 percent of the gen-
erators and they generate about 1 per-
cent of the waste.
Small generators are not exempt
from regulations. Under existing pro-
cedures at EPA, they must determine
IS the waste they generate Is classified
as hazardous under RCRA. if the
waste Is so classified, they then must
dispose of It either at an authorized
hazardous waste management facility
-------
ti’l ‘;j - G
CORRECTIVE ACTION BEYOND FACILITY BOUNDARIES; UNDERGROUND
TANKS
SEC. 207. Section 3004 is amended by adding the following after
subsection (U):
“(v) C0RREc ’rtvE AcTioNs BEYOND FAcIUTY BOUNDARY—AS
promptly as practicable after the date of the enactment of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the Administrator
shall amend the standards under this section regarding corrective
action required at facilities for the treatment, storage. or disposal, of
hazardous waste listed or identified under section 3001 to require
that corrective action be taken beyond the facility boundary where
necessary to protect human health and the environment unless the
owner or operator of the facility concerned demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that, despite the owner or opera-
tor’s best efforts, the owner or operator was unable to obtain the
necessary permission to undertake such action. Such regulations
shall take effect immediately upon promulgation, notwithstanding
section 3010(b), and shall apply to—
“(1) all facilities operating under permits issued under subsec-
tion (c), and
“(2) all landfills, surface impoundmez t.s, and waste pile units
(including any new units, replacements of existing units, or
lateral expansions of existing units) which receive hazardous
waste after July 26. 1982.
Pending promulgation of such regulations, the Administrator shall
issue corrective action orders for facilities referred to in paragraphs
(1) and ( , on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the purposes of
this subsection.
“(w) UNDERGROUND TANXS.—Not later than March 1, 1985, the
Administrator shall promulgate final permitting standards under
H. R. 2867—20
this section for underground tanks that cannot be entered for
inspection. Within forty-eight months after the date of the enact-
ment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, such
standards shall be modified, if necessary, to cover at a minimum all
requirements and standards described in section 9003.”.
-------
rz.p-r, 1 r ’ ’ 2 -
SECTION 207—CORRECTIVE ACTION BEYOND FACILITY BOUNDARIES;
UNDERGROUND TANKS
House bill.—The House bill directs the Administrator to amend
the standards under section 3004 to require that corrective action
be taken beyond the facility boundary where necessary to protect
human health and the environment. Such requirement would not
be applicable where the owner or operator of the facility concerned
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that, despite
the best efforts of the owner or operator, permission to undertake
such actions could not be obtained.
Senate amendment.—The Senate amendment does not contain a
similar provision.
Conference substitute.—The Conference substitute adopts the
House provision. This provision overturns a policy of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency which limited the scope of corrective
action to the property of the polluting facility. Since most forms of
pollution, particularly groundwater contamination, do not observe
territorial or property boundaries, such a restriction has no basis
in logic. The provision therefore requires EPA to amend the appli-
cation regulation to assure that corrective action beyond a facility
boundary will be required where appropriate.
-------
fITi.? ?
igy 1 1-t-E.
18 CORRECTIVE ACTION BEYOND FACILITY BOUNDARIES;
19 UNDERGROUND TANKS
20 SEC. 32. Section 3004 is amended by adding the follow-
21 ing new subsections after subsection (I):
22 “(m) O0RREcTIvE ACTIONS BEYOND FACILITY
23 BOUNDARY.—As promptly as practicable after the date of
24 the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall
25 amend the standards under this section regarding corrective
-------
105
1 action required at facilities for the treatment, storage, or dis-
2 posal, of hazardous waste to require that corrective action be
3 taken beyond the facility boundary where necessary to pro-
4 tect human health and the environment unless the owner or
“5 operator of the facility concerned demonstrates to the satis-
6 faction of the Administrator that, despite the owner or opera-
i tor’s best efforts, the owner or operator was unable to obtain
8 the necessary permission to undertake such action. Such reg-
9 ulations shall take effect immediately upon promulgation,
10 notwithstanding section 3010(b), and shall apply to—
11 “(1) all facilities operating under permits issued
12 under subsection (c), and
13 “(2) all landfills, surface impoundments, and waste
14 pile units (including any new units, replacements of ex-
15 isting units, or lateral expansions of existing units)
16 which receive hazardous waste after July 26, 1982.
17 Pending promulgation of such regulations, the Administratcir
18 shall issue corrective action orders for facilities referred to in
19 paragraphs (1) and (2), on a case-by-case basis, consistent
!O with the purposes of this subsection.
21 “(n) UNDERGRornc TANKS.—Not later than March 1,
22 1985, the Administrator shall promulgate final permitting
23 standards under this section for underground tanks that
24 cannot be entered for inspection.”.
-------
L’3 A 109
18 CORRECTIVE ACTION BEYOND FACILITY BOUNDARIES;
19 UNDERGROUND TANKS
20 SEC. 32. Section 3004 is amended by adding the follow-
21 ing new subsections after subsection (1):
22 “(m) OORREcTIvE ACTIONS BEYOND FACILITY
23 BouNDA.i Y.—As promptly as practicable after the date of
24 the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall
25 amend the standards under this section regarding corrective
HR 2867 RFS
-------
105
1 action required at facilities for the treatment, storage, or dis-
2 posal, of hazardous waste to require that corrective action be
3 taken beyond the facility boundary where necessary to pro-
4 tect human health and the environment unless the owner or
5 operator of the facility concerned demonstrates to the satis-
6 faction of the Administrator that, despite the owner or opera-
7 tor’s best efforts, the owner or operator was unable to obtain
8 the necessary permission to undertake such action. Such reg-
9 ulations shall take effect immediately upon promulgation,
10 notwithstanding section 3010 (b), and shall apply to—
11 “(1) all facilities operating under permits issued
12 under subsection (c), and
13 “(2) all landfills, surface impoundments, and waste
14 pile units (including any new units, replacements of cx-
15 isting units, or lateral expansions of existing units)
16 which receive hazardous waste after July 26, 1982.
17 Pending promulgation of such regulations, the Administrator
18 shall issue corrective action orders for facilities referred to in
19 paragraphs (1) and (2), on a case-by-case basis, consistent
20 with the purposes of this subsection.
21 “(n) UNDERGROUND TANKS.—Not later than March 1,
22 1985, the Administrator shall promulgate final permitting
23 standards under this section for underground tanks that
24 cannot be entered for inspection.”.
HR 2867 RFS
2o7
-------
, %JA’ wU:. SlONAL RECORD— HOUSE Noueniber 8, 19S3
water pollution resulting from tmprop- Mr. Chairman we have studied this forming a comprehensive study o
or disposal of hazardous waste. While matter to death. Its time to take ground water. Including—
we have taken every possible legisla- action. .1 hai,e been given assurs * general assessment of the amount
tive action In this bill to guard against by ‘A Administrator 8W Ruckol- location. and quality of the NaLion s
ground water eontainination. I believe sus that hr omsiders the protcetlon ground water resources. -
ft Is Imperative that we take the fm- of ground waters top priority, has es- A general Identification of th”
thor step o developing $ comprehen- tablished a task force on this Issue, aouroes. extent, and types of grounc
sive national plan to Insure that every- and will report back to our gubeossmit- water cent unAtlon.
thing that can be done will be done. tes later this pear. We should not An assessment of the relationship
and that the Wation’s supply of water ept anything less than a full, on- between surface water pollution and
will be safe and pure. - ordinated program designed to provide ground water pollution.
I would like to remind the Members the SIat”s with the tools they need to assessment of the extent of over-
of the House that aquifers do not eec- prot the jlrinking water supply of draf g of g sd water resources
ognize Slate boundaries, which Is ill over 100 million Americans. and the adequacy of existing mocha-
the more reason for a policy that Is My sonoes’n. Mr. Chairman. Is that nisms for preventing such overdraft-
matlonal In mope. The interstate char- the amendment, If passed, will provide ng, -
aster of ground water onn ” 4 -ion Is EPA with an in t.o tontinue -An assessment of the engineenng
Just one of the many dimensions of drsg Its heels on the establishment of and t nologtcaI capability to to-
this problem that the Commission this needed policy. We i nnnt afford charge aquifers.
wouH address. to let, that happen, so I ask the gentle- An assessment of the methods for
Finally, I would like to , i tJnn the man to assure me that the establish- abatement of ground water contaxni-
hrpc.rtance of ground water to States nient of this Commission Is not. do- nation and a comparison of cleanup
with aquifers which constitute the sole signed to slow down the development to costs of ibsUtute water
source of drinking water for moat of of a coordinated national groundwater supply methods.
Its tizens. New Jersey Is such a State; protection policy, and that It Is the au assessment of the adequacy of
$ mUlion people In 10 countIes Ito SUP- thor’s Intent that EPA move ahead at existing standards for ground water
Plied with drinking water from the lull speed and not wait until the Com- quality under State and Federal law.
New Jersey coastal plain aquifer. nilasion has finished ha worL U I An assessment of Federal and State
There Is no existing alternative to that obtain my colleagues assurances that monitoring methodologies.
source of drinking water. Further- the ComniIs on will only further a icssrnent of the adequacy of
more, this aquifer Is extremely suseep- assist the States and Federal Govern- existing ground water research.
tible to contamination because of the ment once a draft or final policy is An assemment of the Federal. State.
highly permeable nature of New Jet. veloped. I will be happy uppOrt - and local roles In managing ground
UY’B soiL smendment. water quality and quantity.
There ii a critical need to protect So I would hope that this amend- This information developed by the
these and other aquifers and to devel. nient, if accepted, would not give the Commission will enable the Congress
op the best pobcies for providing per. EPA the opportunity or excuse determine what measures are ap-
nianeni protection. That is why we which to delay and would like to is- propriate and necessary to preserve
need a comprehensive, Independent sured that we would stay on schedule and protect the Invaluable ground
evaluation. I am confident that this on that policy water resources of our Nation.
will be accomplished by the Ground Mr. FL.ORIO. Mr. Chairman, will l’lie cu. -t pro t.empore. The
Water CommissiOn. the gentleman yield? question Is on the amendment offered
Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Chairman, I more Mr. SYNAR. I neld to the subcom- by the gentleman from New Jersey
to strike the requisite number of mlttee Chairman. (Mr. FL0IZO).
words. ‘ Mr. FWRIO. I thank the gentleman The amendment wan agreed to.
(Mr. SYNAR asked and was given for yielding. - - __
permission to revise and extend his . , n The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are
marks.) . hi no way adversely affects rmPOfl- there further amendments to section
34r. SYNAR. Mr. Chairman. I riSe to sibility of EPA to come forward wIth 24?
enter into a colloquy with the gentle- that policy statement they are sup- & ‘Dun’? O 5V ni ST M B. OORZ
man from New Jersey (Mr. Fi.oaio). posedly working on. Mr. GORE. Mr. Chairman.! offer an
As he knows, I have been actively In- , SYNAR. I thank the gentleman amendment to section 24(a).
volved in the Subcommittee on Envi- very much. The Cleit read as Iollovw
ronment. Energy. and Natural Re- Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Amendment offered by Mr. Ocsa Page U
sources. which I chair on the Issue 01 the gentleman lrom Ohio (Mr. Xter lIne 14. tirsn1
ground water, .. - Eacsax) for his kind remarks. - onsamyivi aCTiOn SCYOWO FACU,ITT
Mr. Chalrmafl, while I rise hi sup- Mr. Chairman, I yield back the hal- som aassss: macsommyasas
port of the amendment I have some ance of my time. - g , 2& Section 3004 Is amended by
reservations which I think he may be Mi-. ROE. Mr. ChaIrman, I rise in adding the fofloling ceo subsections after
able to clarify. As the Members know, support of the iubsection (1):
the Subcommittee on Environment, This amendment Is meentlally the “Cm) Coasxcr ivt ACTTOIIS Brvo,n 7icU,j.
Energy and Natural Resources, which same as that contained In ILR. 6307 of m’v Bov DMiY.—AS promptly u practimble
I chair, has been working on the sen. the last Congress. That bill was se- after the date of the enactment of ttus sub-
otis problem of gouad water contarni- quentisily referred to the Committee the Administrator shall amend the
standards under this section Tegaxdrn4 on--
nation I or over 3 years now. What we on ‘ubllc Works and Transportation iveUve action required at facilities for the
need, and this is the agreement from for consideration of provisions direct’ o atinemi , starage or disposal, of hamrdous
both the Republicans and Democrats ing a study on mixtures of sewage and waste to require mat corrective action be
on the subcommittee. Is a coordinated hazardous waste and establishing & ke beyond the facility boundary where
ationil ground water protection National Comnai ion on Ground necessary to protect human health and the
policy. The Committee on Govern- Water. These provisions were amend- , ,emlronment unless the owner os operascy
ment Operations, In September of m l by our committee, and R,R. 6307, as ° Ud1 concerned demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the Administrator that.
1980, urged EPA to develop such a It passed the House. contained ver- d ’lte the owner or operator’s best efforts.
policy, but the latest proposal to es- amos of them which were igreed to by the owner or operator was unable to obtain
tablish a ground water policy wan to- our Committee and the Committee on tie necessary pennienon to imdeTtake such
jected by Interior Secretary James Energy and Commerce. — - ulatin shall take effect
Watt at the President’s Council on The amendment act.shlishes a ha- meth j upon peomulgatlon. notsith-
Natural Resources In Febniazy of this tionsi Ground Water Comm isai n 1t nthng eectlon lOlatbi. and shall asoey
year. The C mIceii n charged with pm’- be—
‘
-------
NouemberJ 1983
li) LI tadliUm rsWw r p mHi
I ued under subsection fci. sad
“(2) all Ii.ndfills. surface tapowithocota,
td waste pile uruis (including any aev
Its, replacements of exlstmg units. laS
al expansions of existing units) which ie-
calve hazardous waste after July 26. 1962.
Pending promulgaUco of such rngulatlons
the Administrator shall iwie corrective
etlon orders f htles ref rrr so ta
paragraph (1) and (2), Ca S mse-bg .oe
MalL conaiztmt fth the purposes st this
‘(n) Uzrnnwsovim Ta .—Not kier than
March 1. 1985. the Administrator shall pro-
mulgate final permitting standards iind
this section for underground tanks that
man it be entered for kup ion..
M e the necessary conforming changes
hi the table of content.. -.
Mr. GORE (during the rending). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be esmsidered s
read and printed In the Bacoan.
The CHAIRMAN pro ternpore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman Irv in Tenn 7
There was no objecUon
(Mr. GORE asked and was given per’
mission to revise and extend his re-
Mr. GORE. Mr. Chairman, the
amendment I have brought before you
today has two parts but one purpose,
to make certain that the public health
Is adequately protected. -
First, the amendment makes a single
but very Important change In the c x-
_Jsting law. At present, when an opera-
or owner of a facility Is required to
oorrcctI e ac ’tou. the acLion Is
lted to within the property bound.
rfes of the facility Itself.
My amendment wouJd require that
hi cases Etere the phone xVexids
beyond the property boundaries of the
facility, the corrective action required
of the operator or owner would also
extend beyond the boundaries of the
facility, except In those ca.ses where
the owner or operator was unshlp to
get the necessazy permission.
In limiting the responsibility of the
owner or operator to the area within
the property boundaries In which the
facility is located. EPA linked the
scope of an owner’ or operator .s re
sponsibility to the wope of his controL
EPA made this decision because there
Is no guarantee that the owner co,..ld
obtain the necemary rmissi on to go
beyond the facility boundaries. It was
therefore Inappropriate to impose a
general requirement to do zo. This Is
not a commonsense approsch to * very
serious problem. .
Mr. Chairman, we need a law that
protects the public health. People are
not generally exposed to hazardous
waste on the hazardous waste stte
Itself. Exposure occurs adjacent to the
site in the areas where people live and
work. Therefore It snakes amse to
have a law that provides for as strong
issible effort to be made to extend
ctive action to Include those
3 where the hazard to hmi n
th Is most likely to take place.
in administering the laa has Urn’
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
(ted action to on ea that excludes
these aress. That dses not make sense.
“No guarantee that the owner or op-
erator could obtain such permission ”
is not a r -’ n to conapletely fall to ad.
thess a hazard as serious as contami-
nated ground water. In the specific
cases where It Is not possible to obtain
the neee ry permission It may not be
possible for correctlt’e action to be
taken. But. EPA has made no finding
that e a few ownem or operators of
regulated hazardous waste f a’4Iff4
would have difficulty obtaining per-
mission to enter neighboring property.
In fact Indisury commentera have
ouught the opportunity to clean up
off-site contamination. - -
Furthermore, as written, the t-
Ing regulations actually provide Incen-
tives that may viu .o dn v ge fresa
leaking hazardous waste facilities. Pre-
vious proposals had required waste
management facilities to provide a
buffer zone between the waste man-
agement area and the property line,
Eowever, the final regulations were
written without the buffer zone se-
qulremenL This has created an incen-
tive for the owner or operator t islace
the hazardous waste as close as pocol-
ble to the downgradient property line.
In this way, they could avoid all
cleanup requirements. EPA Itself has
expressed concern about this possibil-
ity in the preamble to the regulations.
Mr. Chairman, clearly such regula-
tory incentives create greater risks,
rather than protection, for human
health and the envtronmenL This
amendment corrects that situation,
while remaining responsive to the con-
cerns EPA In initially not
providing for this type of action. I be-
lieve this is critically important and I
urge Members to support it.
Second, the amendment Instructs
EPA to promulgate final permitting
standards for underground storage
tanks that cannot be entered for In-
spection, by March 1.1985.
Two weeks ago In the Federal Regis-
ter, EPA revised the timetable for set-
ting these standards. They have aelcet-
ed March 1. 1985 as the new date by
which final standards will be promul-
gated. In doing in they tiso state the
followisur
The ge of hazardous waste in under.
ground tanks raises considerable concern re-
gszd.ing potential endangerment of ground-
water and in the case of lgnILzbIes—the pos-
sible migration of the waste the base.
riL of a tlwiie or other where an
explosion hazard may be presente& The
pw’pose of this action Is to debelop a coco-
prehenalve regulatory strategy for the
proper manaSeinent of undeigruond tanks
g tag hwidous - -
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the
second part of my amendment Is to
snake certain there hi no further delay.
In providing protection to the public
from guchahazard. -.
I urge %tPiYIh 1 to aecppnrt the
Mr. PLORIO. Mr afrman, wit_i
U! g n ffr enanyie ld7
119167
Mr. GORE. i am pleased to y lcld
the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yfr.liling ,
Mr. Chairman. I support the amend-
snent offered by my distinguished col-
league from Tennessee. This amend-
ment Is fundamentally a codification
of coTnmonsense. It would require a
company which caused contamination
of adjacent land to clean op and
r ove the hazardous waste. Under
eruTent EPA regulations, the polluter
Is only obligated to take corrective
action up to the boundary of his own
property and no further’. This Itsulta-
titin Is ‘U’uly absurd and is entirely In-
consistent with basic principles of lair-
As the gentleman from Tennessee
aisited out, this amendment amfirnis
a Federal court decision requiring
Hooker Chemical to clean up adjacent
property. This decision, which Is
founded on important common law
principles, should be Incorporated Into
thisact - -
I also support the portion of the
gentleman’s amendment concerning
underground fa ike which store haz-
ardous waste. Underground tanks have
been known to leak. For example, In
San Jose. CalIf.. 43.000 g Iirm e of ml-
vent leaked from underground tanks
into a neighborhood’s water supply.
Health effects above the bactgrotmd
rate have been detected in the area.
Although this Incident involved a
product storage tank. there Is no
reason to belle% e hazardous waste stor-
age tanks are built any better’.
Until EPA Issues permitting stand-
ards, existing undergro md tanks do
not have to be upgraded and can oper-
ate “as Is” indefinitely. In addition,
the regulated ecuximuiuty na-nnnt build
new and better units without EPA
specllicatloris. Thus, It Is extremely
Important that EPA Issue these stand-
ards as soon as practicable.
Therefore. Mr. Chairman, the
amendment is able to be supported by
the mnajozity.
Mr. LEN’!’. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GORE. I am pleased to yield to
the gentleman from New York, the
ranking minority ,vw her of the nib.
committee.
Mr. LENT. ! thenk the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I r in of
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Tennemee.
The fact that EPA’. regulations now
require that a polluter only clean up
ally. pollution be may have caused up
Ip hik property boundary simply does
not make good environmesitaj sense II
eorie has created an env li’omnental
harm which has leached acr Into
another’s property , I believe It Is only
lair that that hamm be cleaned up.
Further, I can i z-L the idea of
statutorily bodyftig EPA’s regula-
tory d adIIne for premulgaung regasla-
-------
H 9168 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE $ouember .1983
- tlons lot underground hazardous “(9) For purposes of subp’agrapt tAt specting hazardous waste from a naP
taste storage •. . tU The term Joba resolutionS mesias *tantiti tclh..tor referred to ti sectio n
- - The gentleman’s ameidmemit t tir faSt eamtuuon of the ngr which 300 1(dI of the &tld Waste D’q’nssj An sod
• and makes good sense In tents of . d e s the 1olJowm after the sesolvi bn’ntlttsd to the Coiwea on is
teeting public health and the entton SAme. That the Congress approves the disr4,prosed. with the bisa being filled
Unal nile promulgated by the AdmInIstrator with the date of submittal of the n i le to the
meat I support the amendment. Agency under Congr
Mr. GORE. Mr. Chairman. I tha nk 00btltta c of the SolId Waste Disposal &tt stfl) Ifs final n i le of the Atinlnator Is
my eoLleague. the genue.man fun s u ,g hazardous nate from a aiD dhepproved under this paragraph, the Ad ’
Wew York. for his support .‘ quantity generator referred to in section satrustrator may promulgate another final
• The CBAIRMAN pro tempore. The 3001(d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Mt sad rule which relates to Lbs same subject a’
question is on the amendment offend tnnnnl?1.d Lot te Cowa en .‘. tiUs the n i le which twa diapproved. Such other
by tht attleman from Tennesaee tt&r. the blank am befr (tiled In appropriate. final rule—
Coils). . .. : - - - •4) be b es S ca— -.
- The amendment was aceS So. . - th) The tam tj fl • oitfl t “fl the rulemaking remed at the disap-
omu1gated by the Administrator er ro final nile; a
• the CHAIRMAN Pt’O 1nP°l’ ttibUtl C of the Solid Waste Disposal Afl “tj j ,UeJ fl hle aking we i s S sad the
there 1w-then amendments tO seCUOfl with respect to hazardous ‘s te bum record established In any aupplenienta.l nile .
- - . • snail ouanl!ty generitor referred to in see. kt ‘
If not, the Clerk will read. - t W a 00U4) of the &il14 Waste Dispoaa.a Set . with aenaon na
The Clerk read as Co lon ., and which baa an annual wana.iC of tdle 5. UnIted States Code. in any case In
a.nscaesaawnows . *100 000.0000? Wet. which the Administrator detennines that it
Sec. 25. Cs. ) Escriow 3007(b).—Sectlofl “ (C xi) Enactment of a Joint resolution is necessary to supplement the esisting rule.
3001b) Is amended by with respect to a final rule of the AdininIs. record, and
fig after the word blonnation” ‘ClnclS. m Ini shall not be construed to ante any li) may contain such changes as the Ad—
big recorde. reports, or In?rtnation , presun,p:i on of valid ity with reajiSt tenth .
Mined by represeniaths of the E ArS flAk Cid SheD tot aflect the Stain of (be __
rule under chapter 7 of tItle 5. United States “CE) The Administrator, after pron-tulgat-
• (b I Sect io n 2006.—Section 2006W Is Code. . . . . - . fig hal rule under subparagraph (DL
amended by stnkmg out “detail” and subeu. “W C 0ns5 nact sha l l submit the fInal rule to gresg in ac
hat ing “detailed”. -. - lion of. a Joint resolution wider this atd*ec- w.-.
• Ic) Sec-n ow 4005(al.—$ection 4005 (a) (Ion disapproving a final nile of the Adntln (b) Erpzc’rtvz Dart—The amendment
amended by Inserting a closing parenthet l- istrator shall not be construed as an eSPies’ snide by subsection (a) shall apply with re
cal mart before the period at the end thn— . Mon of approval of such final rule i nc shall apect to final rules promulgated by the Ad-
of. p - - not be construed to create any p vau ption nihustrator of the Envlronxnent.al Protec ’
Cd) Sm-now -4005 (d)—The second para. • of validity with inpect to such final-nile. _____
caPh C I I in sectloa 4008 (d) is redesignated “(3X.A) Any fInal yule of the Adiilfnistn. ‘ Anna under the Solid Waste Dixr ’
Act after the date of the enactment of this
as paragraph (3). . tot referred to in paragraph Ii) ahach Ia not
Ce) Sex’noi 8004(c).—$ectf on 8004(c) a major rule shall become effective In - -
amended by Inserting ‘ CI)” tminediateljr tordance wish auinectlon (bI unless’-. . • n inc
j gr 5ieas ’ - . —. “C i) before the end of she period of thirty.
M.r. PLORXO (during the Ilve ealendar days of continuous session of Mt. LEVYrAS (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, i aa unanimous con- Congresa after the date such final rule is Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous con-
submitted to the Congrcss. a lent resolu- sent that the amendment be consul-
sent that sect Ion 25 be considered ban dIsapproving auth final nile as Intro- ad and printed in the
read and printed in the ExcoIw. duoS In either Rouse, and R eco in.
The CHA IRMAN pro tempore. Is “u before the end of the penod of nniet The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. is
ten objection to the request 01 the calendar days of eontinuous session alter there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey? - the date such final rule is submitted to the
There was no objection. - ‘ Congress, a joint resolution tapprov ing gentleman from Gown?
The CKAIRZ N pro tetnpa-e Lie a u th luisi tide is _____ That was to objeaza
there amendments nc’aon w “(Ski) W purposes of this paragraph, (Mr. LEVITAS asked and was gt en
Are there further a clients continuity of session is broken only by— perm orz to revise and extend his to-
fl) an adjournment sine die at the end of martn
the bill? - - the second regular session of a Congrea u ,. mAS. Mr. Chairman, this
atntnamn OflDfl sy a LsvsThs an4
“Mr. Lt,virAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer “(U) an sdjow’nment by either Rouse of amendment, I think is one which Ii
an amendment. -. - sreas of more than five days to a date deserving of the attention of the Mets-
The Clerk read as foflosat elan. - - - bets bemuse IL deals with two very its-
‘1111 ‘ - -. - - pprf fl issues that are addreaed by
Amendment offend by Mr. Innitt - “( I) s4Jos ni sine die of the Con- this legislation—protection of the en.
‘Page 59. Insert after lIne 4 the follow- (tess which breaks the continuity of sessIon rironment and protection of the
- ‘ ‘ - - - - (as specified in subparagraph (SKI)) 0(tl*XI health and wellare of this Nation’s
mesa ausnni- rvrs’roui wane awn - slier the Administrator has submitted a gns.ll businesses.
Sue. 26. (a) Cowonzssroieas, ftJnovaL—’ final rule under paragraph U), but before
Section 3010 is amended (1) by striking any action neceary to the Imal ‘ibM bIll. s-s amended by the Shelby-
The” In subsection (bi ans inserting in lien aWe Is completed wider this pngr*ph. ., Lent amendment, and as further
thereof Except as pt’ot’ided in subsection such adjournment nccurs II) before amended by the gentleman from New
(cl. the’, and (2) by adding at the end the the end of the period specified in subpart- Jersey (Mr. Ftmtxo) has now extended
1ol I n ng’ - .. graph tAXI), in a case In which a Joint i to- the level of coverage over s ina I gene-
“ Ic) Sasa qra,rn’r Ganama wan lutmon disapproving rich fipal baa not been atom of hazardous waste below 3,000
Rusts— C I) The Administrator shall. aiter Introduced before such adjournment, or (ill _____ -
promulgating a final nile under this subtitle hefOit the end of the’ pesied specified hi
recline hazardous wote from a rail fli nni h (LXIII, hi a case In ahart, what e have done n i
Quantity enentor referred so in secijim rich a Joint resolutIo n baa been introduced th legislation, ‘whIch 1 strongly sup-
IOOltd). submit such final nile to the S either Rouse before such adjournment, port, Is to Include an entire area of
grew for revIew in amurdanee with this sub. then the Administrator shall resubmit such small businesa and small generators
section Such final rule shall be delivered to fInal rule at the ft%g of the first regu- that bare not been heretofore coverS
each Rouse of the Congress on the n a t hr session of the nert Contra The Peal- tV4his type of reguiatlns ,
iay and to each House of wes while It ads woctfted In subparagraph (A) shall I think we need to account for the
- - - , - - begin on the date of such resubmission. iazardous wastes In this country. I do
“ ( l I lA) A final rule referred to in para- ‘it) For f th’ not t&nk there Is any question about
graph (1) whIch Is a major rule shall be—tens ‘Joint res Olution’ mania Joint resolu-.
ta’rated, for Purposes of section 3001 (d ). as than the matter after the resolving clause of
tot having been promulgated and may not which Is as lolloa-g ‘ThAt the final rwe pro— And It Is true that approxinsately t
‘effect unless a Joint resolution approv- mi litated by the adminIstrator wider subti- pes icut of the total hazardous wastes
Kb nile has be n ie4. - -. tie C So lid wsa DISI an re- produced In thIs country are produced
-------
, A £ 2 b s s ) p 7 -°
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILjTY FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION
SEc. 208. Section 3004(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as
redesignated by section 201 of this Act) is amended by inserting
“(including financial responsibility for corrective action)” immedi-
ately after “and financial responsibility” in paragraph (6).
CoiJ?. rLP1.
93
SECTION 208—FiNANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION
House bill.—No provision.
Senate amendment.—The Senate amendment directs the Admin-
istrator to promulgate regulations requiring owners and operators
of Subtitle C facilities to provide evidence of financial responsibility
for corrective action.
Conference substitute.—The Conference substitute is the same as
the Senate amendment.
-------
FiNANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION
SEC. 40. Section 3004 (a) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act (as redesignated by this Act) is amended by inserting
“(including financial responsibility for corrective action)”
immediately after “and financial responsibility” in para.
graph (6).
-------
July 25, 1284
treatment, storage, or disposal of any such
hazardous waste” immediately alter “any
such hazardous waste”; and
‘3) Striking the period alter “permLt” and
Inserting in lieu thereof the following
Provided, how ever, that no permit shall be
required under this section in order to con-
struct a facility if such facility is construct-
ed pursuant to an approval issued by the
Administrator under section 6(e) of the
Toxic Substances Control Act for the Incin-
eration of polychiorinated biphcnyls and
any person owning or operating such a facil-
ity may. at any time after operation or con-
struction of such facility has begun, file an
application for a permit pursuant to this
section authorizing such facility to inciner-
ate hazardous waste identified or listed
under this subtitle.”.
AtasoMEsT No. 3409
(Purpose: To authorize the Administrator to
issue interim status corrective action orders)
Proposed by Mr CRAflE (for himself and
Senators Swroiso, RAzwoi.PH, MnviinL,
and Movimi*ni,
Amcnd S. 757 by adding the following new
section :
“INTttitid sT ATUS Coaazcrtvx ACTiON ORDERS
Sac. . (a) Section 3008 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is amended by adding the fol-
lowing new subsection:
‘(h I INTERiM Smros Coiiazc’rivz Ac’rioz
Oaoaas.—(1) Whenever on the ba.’is of any
information the Administrator determincs
that there is or has been a release of haz-
ardous waste into the environment from a
facility qualifying for authorization to oper-
ate under Section 3005(e) of this subtitle.
the Administrator may issue an order re-
quiring corrective action or such other re-
spone measure as he deems necessary to
protect human health or the environment
or the Administrator may commence a civil
action in the United States district court in
the district in which the facility is located
for appropriate relief, including a tempo-
rary or permanent Injunction,
‘(2) Any order Issued under this subsec-
(Jon may include a suspension or revocation
of authorization to operate under section
3005(e) of this subtitle, shall state with rea-
sonable specificity the nature of the it-
qulred corrective action or other response
measure, and shall specify a time for com-
pliance. If the person or persons named in
an order fails to comply with the order, the
Administrator may assess and such person
or persons shall be liable to the United
States for a civil penalty in an amount not
to exceed $25,000 for each day of noncom-
pliance with the order?
“(b) Subsection (b) of section 3008 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act Is amended by in-
serting ‘issued under this section’ immedi.
ately after ‘Any order’.”.
AMxiQDMEn No. 3409
(Purpose To clarify the Administrator’s au-
thority to require evidence of financial re-
sponsibility for corrective action)
Proposed by Mr. CHAFEE (for himself
and Senators STAFroiw. Raznioi,ii, M ITcH.
ml., and MoYxtisaN i.
Amend S. 757 by adding the following new
section:
“nrANciAL itzsroxsisii,rrv roa coaazc’rtvg
*ctioa
“Sac. .Section 3004(a) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (as redesignated by this Act) is
amended by inserting ‘(including financial
responsibility for corrective action)’ immedi-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
ately after ‘and financial responsibility’ in
paragraph (8).”.
AFnNDMENT No. 3409
(Purpose: To clarify and perfect the finan-
cial responsibility and direct action provi-
sions contained in RCRA and CERCLA)
Proposed by Mr. CHAflE (for himself
and Senators Snnoiu , RnwoLs’li, and
MiTC NEU J.
Amend S. 757 by adding at the end there-
of the following new section;
Diagc’r ActIoN AMCNOMflflS
Sac. .(a) Section 3004 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is amended by adding the fol-
lowing new subsection:
“(m) Firasreciai, RzsrotisiaxLrrv PRovs-
sioris —(1) Financial responsibility required
by subsection (al of this section may be es-
tablished in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Administrator by any
one, or any combination, of the follow ing’
Insurance, guarantee, surety bond, letter of
credit, or qualIfication as a self-insurer. In
promulgating requirements under this see-
(Jon, the Administrator Is authorized to
specify policy or other contractual terms,
conditions, or defenses which are necessary
or are unacceptable in establishing such evi-
dence ef financial responsibility in order to
effectuate the purposes of this Act.
“(2) In any ease where the owner or oper-
ator is in bankruptcy, reorganization, or ar-
rangement pursuant to the Federai Bank-
ruptcy Code or where with reasonable dili-
gence jurisdiction in any State court of the
Federal Courts cannot be obtained ot er an
owner or operator likely to be solvent at the
time of judgment, any claim arising front
conduct for which evidence of financial re-
sponsibility must be provided under this sec-
tion may be asserted directly against the
guarantor providing such et idence of finan-
cial responsibility. In the case of any action
pursuant to this subsection, such guarantor
shall be entitled to Invoke all rights and de-
fenses which would have been available to
the owner or operator if any action had
been brought against the owner or operator
by the claimant and which would have been
available to the guarantor if an action had
been brought against the guarantor by the
owner or operator.
“(31 The total liability of any guarantor
shall be limited to the aggregate amount
which the guarantor has provided as evi-
dence of financial responsibility to the
ow’ner or operator under this Act Provsded,
That nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to limit any other State or Feder-
al statutory, contractual or common law 11.
ability of a guarantor to its owner or opera-
tor including, but not limited to, the liabil-
ity of such guarantor for bad faith either in
negotiating or in failing to negotiate the setS
tiement of any claim; Provided further,
That nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to diminish the liability of any
person under section 107 or 111 of the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation and Liability Act of 1980 or other
applicable law.
“(41 For the purpose of this subsection,
the term ‘guarantor’ means any person,
other than the owner or operator, who pro-
vides evidence of financial responsibility for
an owner or operator under the sectIon ?’.
(b)(l1 Section 108(c) and (d) of the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation and Liability Act of 1980 is
amended to read as follows:
‘(c) In any case where the owner or opera-
tor is in bankruptcy, reorganization, or ar-
rangement pursuant to the Federal Bank-
ruptcy Code or where with reasonable dili-
gence jurisdiction In the Federal courts
cannot be obtained over an owner or opera-
S917 1
tor likely to be solvent at the time of jiidg-
ment, any claim authorized by section 107
or ill may be asserted directly against the
guarantor providing evidence of financial
responsIbility, In the case of any action pur-
suant to this subsection, such guarantor
shall be entitled to invoke all rights and de
fenses which would have been asaiiable io
the owncr or operator if any action had
been brought against the owner or operator
by the claimant and which would hate been
available to the guarantor if an action had
been brought against the guarantor by the
owner or operator,
“(d l The total liability under this Act of
any guarantor shall be limited to the avgre-
gate amount which the guarantor has pro-
vided as evidence of financial responsibility
to the owner or operator under this Act
Provided, That nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to limit any other State
or Federal statutory, contractual or
common law liability of a guarantor to its
owner or operator including, but not limited
to, the liability of such guarantor for bad
faith either in negotiating or in failing to
negotiate the settlement of any cisim, Pro-
vided further, That nothing in this subsec-
tion shall be construed, interpreted or ap-
plied to diminish the liability of any person
under sections 107 or 111 of this Act or
other applicable law.”.
(2) Section i08(b)(2) of the Comprehen-
sive Eiivironmental Response, Compensa-
tion and Liability Act of 1980 is amended bli
adding the following: “Financial responsibil-
ity may be established by any one. or an
combination, of the followmnr insurance,
guarantee, surety bend, letter of credit, or
qualification as a self-insurer, In promulgat-
ing requirements under this section, the
President is authorized to specify policy or
oiher contractual terms, conditions, or de-
fenses which are necessary or are unaccept-
able in establishing such evidence of finan-
cial responsibility in order to effectuate the
purposes of this Act”.
AMzrwMzrrr No, 3409
(Purpose’ To provide funds for State pro-
grams enforcing solid waste management
facility criteria and to modify the proti-
slons of the bill dealing with such criteria)
Proposed by Mr. CHAflE (for himself
and Mr. RANDoL PH ).
On page 73, after line 16, insert the fol-
lowing: - —
“(dl Section 4008(al(2) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is amended by adding the fol-
lowing new subparagraph:
“‘(Dl There are authorized (il to be made
available $15,000,000 out of funds appropri-
ated for fiscal year 1985 and (Ii) to be appro-
priated 820.000.000 for each of fiscal years
1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989. for grants to
States and, where appropriate, to regional,
local, and interstate agencies to implement
programs requiring compliance by solid
‘waste management facilities with the crite-
ria promulgated under section 4004(a) and
section 1008( 9) 131 and with the provisions of
section 4005. To the extent practicable, such
programs shall require such compliance no
later than thirty’sux months after the date
of enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act Amendments of 1984,’,”
On page 72. strike lines 1 through 14 and
Insert in lieu thereof the following
“(21 Not later than March 31, 1988. the
Administrator shall promulgate re isions 01
the criteria promulgated under paragraph
(1) and section 1008(afl3) for facilities that
may receive hazardous household wastes or
hazardous wastes from smali quantity gen-
erators under section 3002b1, The criteria
shall be those necessary to protect human
-------
Jut) 4 1984
permit. Under ISCA. the process for cbtain’
ing EPA appreval of an incinerator ii. gca r
ally tn construct tl:e facility, seek rgprovr.l
of a trial burn plan. conauct the trirJ burn
anti then nceae a fi.nl TSCA “approsas”
- (the analogue 01 a RCItA ptr’nit). Thus, a
company se h:n. to c3i3?.truet en zncii erator
capable of burnin; PCI’ a an- i other lnard-
ous wastes re uIattd unuer ltCIA us p?acc
in the auoniolaus position of L. .ng forced to
choose betwce either se ktn a. RCRA
permit for tile boility, await.ng conciusion
of the ItCHA permit proccec.irig. then begin.
mng construction and the start of the TSCA
eppro al procc’.s or abandcntr.g its p’ars to
use the faciuty for RCRA wastes, begititung
construction nI the incinerator and seeking
TSCA appret’ai. Where the primary purpose
in buildlng the ir.etnerator is to estabash or
augment PCB d:cposal capability, the com-
pany will cttoo’ie the “fast traS” second al-
ternaute. A de iaioii to forgo plans to iflCifl’
erste HCPA wastes at such a acii.ty would
enable a company to achiete their primary
goisi in a reatly expedited time frame b t
would be at , odds v, ith the costgressi:nai
policy of encouraging the development of
aiternatates to land disposal of hacardous
wastes,
For this reason, the original amendment is
modilird to correct this thcor.sts:ency.
Where an incinerator has been construci.ed
and approved pursuant to TSCA for the
burning of PCBs, the owner or operator
shall not be precluded from appi 1 ng for a
ECRA permit solely because a RCRA
permit was not obtained prior to constue-
tion. The EPA regulation being codified by
this amendment was designed to assure
that, when It has been unable to influence
the location, design and construction chosen
by the applicant, the permitting agency
would not face a choice between approving
an incinerator or “forcing the abandonment
or det aluati n of the prematurc Int eat-
ment.” Here, however. if a company pro.
ceded with construction, obta’ned TWA
approval and then souaht a RCRA permit,
the company would not have to abandon or
suffer a detaluat:on of its Intestment 11 It
was ultimately denied a RCRA permtt for
the incinerator. The company would stilt
have a PCI3 incinerator.
AMENDMi.flt TO AUTiiOaIZE TRE ADisixIsTasTOR
TO i55V! INTER IM 5TATV5 CORRECTIVE
ACTION ORDERs
Section 3005(e) of the SolId Waste Dispos-
al Act authorizes certain facilities that are
required to have a permit to operate, on an
Interim status basis, pending the review and
issuance of a final permit In May of 1960,
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) issued standards and mmimuni re-
quirements for the operation of interim
atatus faciiitics.
As of December 1963 there were approxi-
matels’ 8.000 interim status facIlitIes. ft has
becn estimated that it will take ten years to
make final pertntt determinations on all of
the interim status fa c Ilities.
T!’e EPA estiniatea t: 1 a1 bets een 53’ and
60’? of the interim rtaius land o.,a fa-
cilities hate leaked or are leaking and a:tl
require corrective aCttOfl Etineter there ta
no current rt’Quirement th’it correrute
action be tai.cfl at interim status facilit es,
Instead. a hen the EPA dttermtnes that
there has been or is a leak at an ‘nterim
status facility. tlte ngenc intn’,tniateiy
brings such a facility under us parn t
re%lew proccss and requires correct ne
action as a canlitit ,n of issuing a final
permit. Bo ieter. it now takes thc EPA ate,
a year to go through the process of pcnnit
ret eu ,’ and issuance. As a resLti, there are
lIkely to bc a number of leaks at interim
status facilities that will go uncorrected for
sonic time.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
This amendment is designed to correct
that situat’on. It adds a new subsection (hi
to Sectiun 3035 to prot ide the Admnistra-
tar aith authority to is’ue en adm’nlstra-
ttse order req’ icing correct,te action or
sneh other response measures as he dcerr.s
aopropriate at intertm status f::iliti’s
where tiitre is or has been a rtlea-e of has-
aroous waste. The ,kdmin istor :‘ 5140 su-
thorizel to eontmer.ce a c14,l a s ci i in fejer.
at district court for appropriate rei’ef, In.
eluding a temporary or permanent injunc.
tion. The Admintstrator has s’nigar author’
lt now undcr other subsections of sect ion
3008 to requtre correcttte act:on at perm It-
ted facdities. The arnenduicat directs tnat
an admintstrative order shall specify the
nature oi the corrective *ct cn and a tUne
for eampuanee. Cmi penalties of up to
t25.000 per day may be assessed when there
is nariconriliance with the order. In addi-
tion, any order issued under this new sub-
sectton may Include a suspension or maca-
- lion of the authority to operate as an inter-
im status facility without a final permit.
The procedures set forth in subsection (b)
are made applicable to orders issued under
this new subsection.
This amendment provides the Adrninistra-
tar with a mechanism far protecting human
health and the enviarnmeni at interim
status facilities similar to that which Is pres-
ently atatlable with respect to permitted f a-
e,lities. Since there are some 8.0)0 interim
status facilities, compared to 115 permitted
facilities, it is meat sp ropriate and neces-
sexy to extend the correctite action require-
ment to interim status facilities and to pro-
vide the Administrator with the authority
to impose such requirements quickly.
• Mr. RANDOLPH. The deadline for
required notification under the provi-
sions for the control of burning or
blendIng hazardous wastes has been
modified. The Agency is authorized to
determine atlrninistratively which enti-
ties must give notification, and the Ad-
ministrator has asked that the notifi-
cation deadline be postponed until the
regulatory pattern is determined. In
this way, notification can generally be
required from those the Agency pro-
poses to regulate.
Since petroleum coke is exempted
from regula lon under these provi-
sions, the Agency would not be requir-
ing notification from rurchasers or
consumers of petroleum coke.•
5NTERIM 5T 5T05 cORREcTIVE ACTION ORDERS
• Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. Pres dent, I
join my distinguished colleagues, Sen-
ators CCAFEE, Snrroaa, RAND0ZZH.
and MITcieEw., In offering an amend-
mesit to S. 757 to provide the Adminis-
trator of the Environment Protection
Agency (EPA] with authority to issue
an ednunistrative order, or to ccm-
mencc a cit ii action in the U.S di;trict
court, to require corrrtive action at
lntenrn status f: e :litic where there is
or has bt-en a relca’c of hazardous
nate. Thts amendment adds a new
s.Atsection (h) to section 3008 of the
Resource Conservatlun and itecotery
Act IRCEA). The Adm inIstrator has
the euthortty currently under other
subsections of 3005 to take the same
steps to requtre corrective action at
permitted facilities.
The amendment also provides that
the admlnistrative order shall specify
the nature of the corrective action and
S9175
a time for compliance, as well as [ or
civil penalties of up to $25,030 per day
when there is noncompliance with the
ctder, In athi.tion, any ordrr Laurd
under this ne t cubsectton may ii.Uu e
a suspension or revocation of the ru-
tborit . to opcrate an lnttr’rn sta:ns ía-
cJity.
Section 3035 (c) of 1 .e RCR.. statti”
provides that any facility for tise
trcatmtnL storage, or disposal of haz-
ardous wa$e that is required to hate a
pormit to operate, In accordance ith
section 3005, and has made an applicn-
tUrn for such a permit, shall be
deemed to have a permft to o;cra’e,
on an interim status basis. pendIng the
review and issuance of a final perm t.
As of December 1983 there were
8.000 interim status facilities. In May
of 1960, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA] issued standards and
minimum requirements for the oper-
ation of interim status facilities. As a
result, some 2,000 of the Interim status
facilities are required to perform
ground water monitoring because they
conduct activities capable of polluting
groundwater.
As of February 1984, only 115 final
HCRA permits had been issued by the
EPA. It will take an estImated 10 years
to make final permit determinations
on the remaining interim status facili-
ties,
The EPA estimates that between 50
and 60 percent of the interim status
land disposal facilitics are leaking and
will requtre corrective action. Hov:cv-
er, there is no current requfreincnt
that corrective action be taken at in-
terim status facilities. Instead, when
the EPA determines that there has
been or is a leak at an Interim status
facility the agency Immediately brings
such a facility under its penmt review
process and requires corrective action
as a condition of issuIng a final permit.
However, It now takes the EPA ot er a
year to go through the permit review
and issuance process As a result, there
are likely to be a number of leaks at
interim status facilities that will go
uncorrected for some time.
This amendment simply provides the
Administrator with the same mecha-
nism for protecting human health and
the environment at interim status fa-
cilities as is now provided for permit-
ted facilities. Since there are some
8,000 interim status facilities, com-
pared to 115 permitted faci!:ties. It is
most appropriate and necessary to
extend tlte corrective action require-
ment to interim status facilities
A’,IENDMENT TO CLARiFY THE ADMistSflATof, S
AUTHORSTY TO REQUIRE (UtDtflCr or rni’ii-
ciat. p spousis!LiTT icR cJRrL—riv , *c-:iow
SectIon 3004 c i the Solid Waste D:tpossj
Act diru.cts the Adntiiilatrsior to ectab!ia
performance standards for the owrtera ani
eperators of hiizirdoua waste trest’ni-nt,
storage and dispc’iil fanlitica. Tl’e ststtnan’
Iangu*ge includes a requirem t, far e ’i
dvnee of -‘financial responsibility a. may be
necessary or desIrable.” urrtnt EP A regu-
lations require financial responsib.ltit a-
auraiwes for closure and post-closure main’
2OY
-------
S9176
tenance costa for RCRA facilities. There Is,
however, no requirement for financial re-
a a r iccs for corrective action.
In instances where corrective action may
be required, cleanup costs could be substan-
tial, especially if groundwater Is contaminat-
ed Such costs could far ecc-eed the costs of
closure or post-closure maintenance. Many
companies faced with large corrective action
costs may choose or be forced into bank-
ruptcy. In such cases. It Is likely that the
sites would have to be cleaned up using Su-
perlund monies. -
This amendment Is designed to avoid that
eventuality. It modifies paragraph (7) of
seci ion 3004 to provide that in setting finan-
cial responslbllity requircr 1 ents for owners
and operators of hazardous caste facilities.
the EPA should, to the maximum extent
feasible, include a requirement that owners
and operators prot ide evidence of f!nanclal
responsibility for corrective action that may
become necessary at some future time.
FINANCIAL mtEspoNsIBiLrrv FOR CORRECTIVE
ACTION
o Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President. I
join my distinguished colleagues. Sen.
ators CHAFES, STAFroRD. RANooI ,PH and
MITcHEU, In offering an amendment
to S. ‘157 to require the EPA to include
financial responsibility assurances for
corrective action in the performance
standards that the agency sets for the
owners and operators of hazardous
waste facilities. Section 3004 of the
RCRA statute provides for the adm n-
Istrator to establish performance
standards for the owners and opera-
tors of hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities. The
statutory language Includes a requireS
ment for “financial responsibility as
may be necessary or desirable.” Cur-
rent EPA regulations require financial
responsibility assurances for closure
and i osL-closure maintenance costs for
RCRA facilities. There is, however, no
requirement for financial responsibil.
Ity assurances for correct i’Je action.
In instances where corrective action
may be required, cleanup costs could
be substantial especially if ground
water Is contaminated. Such costs
could well far exceed the costs of clo-
sure or post-closure n aint enance.
Many companies, faced with large cor-
rective action costs. may choose, or be
forced Into, bankruptcy. In such cases,
It is likely that the sites would have to
be cleaned up using Superfurid
moneys.
This amendment is designed to avoid
that eventuality, it does so by modify-
ing paragraph (7) of section 3004 to
provide that In setting performance
standards for owners and operators of
hazardous waste facilities, the EPA
should Include financial assurances for
corrective action, as may be neces-
sa ly..
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY AND PERFECT TiME Fl-
r1Ar cZAi. RESPONSIBiLITY A D DIRECT ACTION
PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN RCRA AND CEaCLA
This amendment will clarify and perfect
the financial responsibll’ty and direct action
provision contained In the Resource Conser-
vat ion and Recovery Act (“RCRA’) and In
the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 (“CERCLA”). A primary purpose of
the clarification is to make unifornrthe pro-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
visions In both RCRA and CEECLA that
deal with financial responsibility and direct
action. The objective of the amendment is
to achieve the protection of the public that
the financial responsibility provisions are
desigiiel to provide, while foster ng the de-
velopment of a vigorous, competitive market
for insurance certified as evidence of finan-
cial responsibility.
The uniform financial responsibility
system proposed In this amendment (1) pro-
vIdes claimants in appropriate circum-
stances with the right of direct action
against so-called guarantors (defined In
both RCRA and CERCLA as persons who
provide evidence of financial respor.sibility
to an owner or operator), (2) pern’its a guar-
antor when subject to a direct action suit to
invoke as a defense, among other thincs. the
terms and conditions contained in the guar-
antor’s policy of insurance with the owner
or operator and (3) confirms. without dimiri.
Ishing any other statutory, contractual or
common law liability of a guarantor, that
the total liability of a guarantor Is lilmted
u.n the segregate amount that the guarantor
has provided as evidence of financial respon-
sibil ty to a particular owner or operator.
Thtecl action
The amendment provides claimants with a
liznitcd right of direct action against a guar-
antor. (With respect to CERCLA, this Is a
modification of an existing right of direct
action) With direct action, a claimant may
file a lawsuit namuig an Insurance company
or other entity serving as guarantor as a de-
fendant in the case. Absent the right of
direct action, an injured party would file an
action only again. t the person who allegedly
had caused the inju-y, and It Is that per-
son’s liability which Is litigated in the
action. The insurer’s Initial obligation is to
its insured. with whom the insurer has a
wntract. If the insured is fou:id liable, then
the insurer is obligated to make payment to
the Insured in accordaice aith and subject
to the terms of the contract
• In some Ij.stanccs, however, an Injured
party. who is the Intended beneficiar) of
the finan ”ial responsibility requirems’nts in
RCRA and CERCLA. may not be able to
bring an a -uon against the owner or opera’
tor to recover from that owner or opirator
or thew guarantor There are two specific
circumstances where this may occur. r,rst.
it is possible that a claimant may not be
able to obtain court Juiisdiction over the
owner or operator. Second. and perhaps
more likely, the owner or operator either
voluntarily or involuntarily ma be a debtor
In bankruptcy. These two circumstances In.
dude cases where an owner or operator may
be identified and subject to court jurisdic-
tion, but clearly unlikely to be solvent (I e..
capable of paying the judgment) at the time
the litigation is resolved. The amendment
would aiford a claimant the right of direct
action In both instances.
Policy terms and conditions
In a direct action lawsuit, the amendment
permits the guarantor to invoke not only
the defenses tiiat would haie been aiailable
to the owner or operator. I.e., aits of God,
acts of car, unrelated third party acts in
limited circumstances, but alsu the terms
and conditions that the insurer had agreed
upon with the insured in their polic) of in-
surance. By authorizing a guarantor to
invoke these rights and defenses, this
amendment should foster the det elopment
of a competitite marketplace for insurance
certified a.s etidence of financial responsibii’
ity. A competitive marketplace should lead
to the greater availability of reasonably
priced insurance certified as evidence of f I.
nancial responsibIlIty. This. In turn should
encourage Increased compliance with
July 25, 1984
RCRA’s and CERCLAs financial responsi-
bility provisions (and the availability of
direct action) which will ultimately benefit
the claimants by pros Iding them with great’
er financial protection.
in addition, a major goal of the financial
responsibility requirement; is tO enlist in-
surers to provide additional policing and in-
centises to monitor the behavior of their in
sureds. The preservation of an InFurers
policy tel ins and conditions s’is-a.s is Its in-
sured may assist in meeting this objeccive. It
Is often policy terms and conditions, as well
as inspection and rate-making, that form
the basis of the innirer’s ability to influence
the Insured to act carefully and responsibly.
At the time of enactment of RCRA and
c!ERCLA, there are some concern that a
guarantor may use its policy terms and con-
ditions to diminmsh the risk it was undertak-
ing, and therefore the value of the financial
responsibility it had provided. We hope the
cause for this concern will be minimized by
several factors. One factor is the intensely
competitive nature of the property-casualty
insurance market. Oc ners and operators
should ha%e little Incentive to purchase in-
surance certified as evidence of financial re-
sponsibility that does not provide meaning-
ful coverage when insurance that would pro-
vide al,d protection for their assets is read-
ily asailisble. Moreover, insurance compa-
nies are sub ect to comprehencue regula-
tion at the State lesel so that. if this prob-
1cm eser d.d arise, there could be an asail-
able procedure to correct it promptly. Nes-
ertlieless. as a further safeguard the amend-
ment authorizes the Ens ironmental Protec-
tion Agenc to specify polic) or other con-
tractual terms, conditions or defenses which
EPA deems to be necessary or to be unac-
ceptable in establishing evidence of finan-
cial responsibility.
Liability Limits
The amendment also clarifies and defines
more precisely the ultimate liability of a
guarantor when providing e dence of (man’
cial rcsponsihility. As written. prescnt sec-
tion 108(d) of CERCLA could be interpreted
so as to e’cpose an insurer to the full
amount of the risk regardless of the insur
ers policy limits should an Insurer be found
to hase acted not in good faith Section
10B’dI does not defmne the term “good faith”
ncr does it specify to whom the guarantor
must act In good faith. To cure this uncer-
tainty, the amendment specifies that a guar.
antor’s policy limits shall be binding, but
that nothing in either RCRA or CERCLA is
Intended to limit any other statutory, con-
tractual or common law liability of a guam -
aritor. including an insurer’s traditional
common law oblgatlon to act In good faith
toward its insured. Moreover, the amend.
ment also makes explicit that the liability
limit of a guarantor In any specific instance
Is to be determined by the aggregate
amount which the guarantor has pros ided
as evidence of fInancial responsibiliiv to the
particular owner or operator involsed in the
matter.
E iifeimce 0/financial responsibility
Finally, the amendment makes explicit
and uniform how evidence of financial re.
sponsibility Is to be provided. First. She
amendment recuires that evidence of finan.
cial responsibility Is to be pros ided in ac-
cordance with regulations promulgated by
the Administrator of EPA Thus, for exam.
pIe, the mere purchase of insurance by an
owner or operator Is not sufficient, in and of
Itself, to meet the fInancial responsibility
pros isions of RCRA and CERCLA Rather.
in order to meet the statutes’ requirements,
an owner or operator must obtain from a
guarantor insurance or some other form of
-------
HI + 2.0
MINING WASTE AND OTHER SPECIAL WASTES
SEc. 209. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended
by adding the following new subsection after subsection (w):
‘(x) If (1) solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation or process.
ing of ores and minerals, including phosphate rock and overburden
from the mining of uranium, 2) fly ash waste, bottom ash waste,
slag waste, and flue gas emission control waste generated primarily
from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels, or (3) cement kiln
dust waste, is subject to regulation under this subtitle, the Adminis-
trator is authorized to modify the requirements of subsections (c),
(d), le), (f), (g), (0), and (U) and section 3005 (j), in the case of landfills
or surface impoundments receiving such solid waste, to take into
account the special characteristics of such wastes, the practical
difficulties associated with implementation of such requirements,
and site-specific characteristics, including but not limited to the
climate, geology, hydrology and soil chemistry at the site, so long as
such modified requIrements assure protection of human health and
the environment. .
-------
ftr -Zr 1 A)
SEcTION 209—MINING AND OTHER SPECIAL WASTES
House bilL—The House bill provides that landfills and surface
impoundments that contain wastes subject to the studies required
under section 8002(f), (n), or (p) that become subject to regulation as
hazardous wastes shall only be required to monitor ground water
and comply with such other standards as are necessary to assure
the protection of human health and the environment. Surface im-
poundments containing such wastes could also be exempted from
the retrofit requirement that is applicable to other surface im-
poundments.
Senate amendment —The Senate amendment provides that if
mining wastes become subject to regulation as hazardous wastes
the Administrator is authorized to modify the requirements relat-
ing to land disposal limitations, minimum technological require-
ments, and corrective action as they apply to landfills and surface
impoundments containing such wastes to take into account various
factors, so long as such modified requirements assure protection of
human health and the environment.
Conference substitute.—The Senate amendment is adopted with
modifications.
The purpose and intended effects of the house bill and Senate
amendment are substantially similar except that the Senate
amendment would not cover materials generated from the combus-
tion of coal and other fossil fuels. The Conference substitute would
encompass all of the so-called “special study wastes” described in
section 8002 (f), (n), (o), and (p) that become subject to regulation
under subtitle C. In promulgating regulations, the Administrator is
authorized to modify the requirements relating to liquids in land-
fills, prohibitions on land disposal, minimum technological require-
ments, deep well injection, corrective action, and interim status
surface impoundments for these wastes as long as such modified re-
quirements protect human health and the environment.
This amendment recognizes that even if some of the special
study wastes are determined to be hazardous it may not be neces-
sary or appropriate, because of their special characteristics and
other factors, to subject such wastes to the same requirements that
are applicable to other hazardous wastes, and that protection of
human health and the environment does not necessarily imply the
uniform application of requirements developed for disposal of other
hazardous wastes.
The authority provided to the Administrator under this section is
both waste-specific and requirement-specific. The Administrator
could also exercise the authority to modify requirements for differ-
ent classes of wastes.
JOT
-------
94
Should these wastes become subject to the requirements of sec-
tion 3005(j), relating to the retrofit of surface impoundments, the
Administrator could modify such requirements so that they are not
identical to the requirements that are applied to new surface im-
poundments containing such wastes. It is expected that before any
of these wastes become subject to regulation under subtitle C the
Administrator will determine whether the requirements of section
3004 (b), (d), (e), (0, (g), (o), and (u), and section 3005(j) should be
modified.
This authority is intended to extend to all of the wastes required
to be studied by EPA pursuant to section 8002 (fl, (n), (a), and (p),
and does not in any way alter the existing scope of section
3001(b)(3)(A).
pwy
-------
‘fli- 2 ’’ ’
Mining wastes I ‘l’
Also included in this amendment is a provision which authorizes
the Administrator to promulgate an exception to the double liner-
leachate collection system requirement for certain wastes generat-
ed by the mining industry. The 1980 amendments to the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ji)) deferred from coverage
under subtitle C, solid wastes from the extraction, beneficiation
and processing of ores and minerals including phosphate rock, and
overburden from uranium mining, pending completion of the stud-
ies mandated under section 8002 (0 and (p). Those EPA studies
have not been completed. When the studies are completed, the
EPA is required to determine which of those wastes should be regu-
lated under subtitle C.
Solid wastes from mining and mineral beneficiation and process-
ing are primarily waste rock from the extraction process and
crushed rock, commonly called tailings, produced from concentrat-
ing steps such as grinding, crushing, sorting, sizing, classification,
washing, dewatering, amalgamation, gravity treatment, flotation,
agglomeration and cyanidation. The 1980 amendments covered
wastes from the initia1 stages of mineral processing, where concen-
trations of minerals of value are greatly increased through physical
means, before applying secondary processes such as pyrometalurgi-
cal or electrolitic methods. Smelter slag might also be included.
Massive volumes of this waste ore are produced annually at mining
and mineral processing facilities—roughly estimated by the Ameri-
can Mining Congress (AMC) to be approximately 1.75 billion tons
in a typical year, which is clearly significantly greater in volume
than the solid waste generated by all other industries combined.
These wastes were considered “special wastes” under the 1978 pro-
posed regulations as being of large volume and relatively low
hazard.
On an individual mine basis, past AMC estimates for a typical
lead/zinc underground mine producing 50,000 tons of metal per
year requires removal of as much as 5,000—6,000 tons per day of
-------
29
rock. That tonnage breaks down as follows: roughly 1,000 tons per
day of development rock, which is the rock that has to be removed
to reach the ore, and 4,000 to 5,000 tons of mineral bearing ore. Of
that 4,000—5,000 tons of ore, 150 to 200 tons of mineral concentrate
are produced. Because of such large volumes of waste and rock tail-
ings, mine surface impoundments and landfills typically cover
large areas close to the mine. These land disposal facilities, unlike
those of other industries, often cannot be dredged, bulldozed or dug
out of the earth, and cover very large areas where the correspond-
ing natural features, such as boulders, trees, stumps, depressions,
and elevations, cannot always be reasonably cleared or excavated
in connection with disposal. Maintaining the integrity of a liner
with the massive weight of typical mining waste would be extreme-
ly difficult. Consequently, lining such areas may be impractical in
many cases.
If landfills and surface impoundments containing mining and
mineral processing wastes are determined by the Administrator to
be appropriate for regulation under subtitle C after conclusion of
the studies mandated under section 8002 (0 and (p) of the Act, new
section 3004(f) requires groundwater monitoring at the site and
whatever other requirements are necessary for the landfill or im-
poundment to assure the protection of human health and the envi-
ronment. The Administrator must determine, however, whether to
modify the statutory double liner-leachate collection system re-
quirement for such mining wastes, and if he determines that re-
quirement is not necessary to protect human health and the envi-
ronment, he may promulgate substitute requirements. The amend-
ment, therefore, preserves the performance standards of subtitle C
but provides the Agency with the flexibility it needs to determine
the most appropriate approach to manage the particular hazardous
waste at the site. The amendment does not preclude EPA from re-
quiring double lining of landfills or surface impoundments for
mining and mineral processing wastes in those cases where it is ap-
propriate to do so.
In making a determination on whether or not an exception to
the double liner requirement for mining waste is appropriate, EPA
is to conside whether the modified requirements assure protection
of human health and the environment. Practical or economic con-
siderations can only be used to select among alternative require-
ments which assure protection of human health and the environ-
ment.
The mining waste modification authority of this amendment does
not cover wastes specifically listed as hazardous wastes prior to the
1980 legislation because of their hazardous nature.
2 9
-------
MINING WASTE
SEC. 43. Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new subsection:
“( ) If solid waste from the extraction, beneficia-
tion or processing of ores and minerals, including
phosphate rock and overburden from the mining of ura-
nium ore, is subject to regulation under this subtitle,
the Administrator is authorized to modify the require-
ments of subsections (b), (f)(1) (other than the require.
men! for ground water monitoring), and (g), in the
case of landfills or surface impoundments receiving
such solid waste, to take into account the special char-
acteristics of such wastes, the practical difficulties as-
soc7.ated with implementation of such requirements, and
site-specific characteristics, including but not limited to
the climate, geology, hydrology and soil chemistry at
the site, so long as such modified requirements assure
protection of human health and the environment. “
HR 2867 EAS
-------
S 13812
Ing supplier programs) are amended by
striking out “January 1. 1985.” each place it
appears and inserting in lieu thereof ‘Janu-
ary 1, 1986.”.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the motion is agreed to.
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
AMENDMENTS
Mr. BAKER. Madam President. I
submit a report of the committee of
conference on H.R. 2867 and ask for
Its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
report will be stated.
The Assistant Legislative clerk read
as follows:
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes or the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2867) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal
Act to authorize appropriations for the
fiscal years l 85 through 1988. and for
other purposes, having met, after full and
free conference, have agreed to recommend
and do recommend to their respective
Houses this report, signed by all of the con-
ferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER With.
out objection, the Senate will proceed
to the consideration of the conference
report.
(The conference report will be print-
ed In the House proceedings.)
Mr. SYMMS. Madam President, I
rise in somewhat reluctant support of
the conference report on the “Hazard-
ous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984.”
About the most that I can say in
favor of this bill is that it is not as bad
as It could have been in several key re-
spects, and that a few provisions may
make a positive contribution to the
proper management of hazardous
waste, -
The fundamental problem with this
bill Is that it attempts to write detaIled
regulations into the law. It Is instruc-
tive to compare the original 28 page
version of S. 757 as Introduced with
the voluminous, extraordinarily com-
plex bill that we have before us today.
Can any Member of this body explain
why it Is necessary to’require EPA to
list halogenated dibenzofurans as haz-
ardous wastes within the next 15
months? Or why the lower liner of a
hazardous waste disposal facility
should Lave a permeability of 1 x 1O
- centimeter per second? Or why sec-
ondary waste-water treatment ponds
employing biological treatment should
be retrofitted if they have a retention
time In excess of 5 days? Or why steel
underground tanks can no longer be
used In soils with a resistivity of 12,000
Ohms? I submit that making these
kinds of technical judgements Is the
function of EPA, not the Congress.
These particular regulations may be
workable, even appropriate, but writ-
ing regulations Is not our job.
Nevertheless, I am pleased that
some necessary modifications In the
House and Senate bills were made
with regard to small quantity genera-
tors. EPA deadlines, and surface im-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
poundments, In particular, I endorse
the compromise on mining wastes
worked out by the conferees. The stat-
utory language and the statement of
managers make it very clear that the
conferees do not intend for this
amendment to in any way diminish
the scope of the so-called “Bevill
Amendment” that was adopted in
1980. ThIs language clearly reflects
the intention of the House and Senate
conferees with regard to this provi-
sion, and leaves no room for ambigui-
ty,
The Senate conferees, and this Sena-
tor in particular, have made consider-
able concessions to get a bilL Although
I am dissatisfied with many provisions
of this bill, I believe that it is the best
we are going to get and so I will sup-
port Its passage.
Mr.. DENTON. Madam President,
the disposal of hazardous waste is a se-
rious national issue. I feel that we as
legislators have a responsibility to pro-
vide all Americans the maximum envi-
ronmental protection allowed by in-
sisting that environmental laws are en-
forced. Clarification of our laws will
help companies, who deal with hazard-
ous waste, comply with the letter of
the law,
I wish to commend the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on En-
vironmental Pollution for his efforts
to fashion a reasonable compromise In
the RCRA Conference Committee
report. I was particularly pleased to
see that, in section 215(j) dealing with
existing surface impoundments, the
conferees kept the Senate exemption
for impoundments that are part of a
secondary or tertiary wastewater
treatment system. This measure
strengthens existing laws to ensure in-
creased protection for both public
health and the environment.
Further, I wis’h to make a point of
clarification for the record. In my dis-
cussions with the subcommittee chair-
man and the staff of the Committee
on Environment and Public Works, I
have been assured that the exemption
in section 215(j)(4) to the requirement
In section 215(j)(1) has a foundation In
existing regulations. The exemption in
paragraph (4) allows the EPA Admin-
istrator to modify the requirements of
paragraph (1) If the owner demon-
strates that, a:
- Surface impoundment Is located, designed,
and operated so as to assure that there will
be no migration of any hazardous constitu-
ent Into ground or surface water at any
future time.
The phrase “any future time” Is not
intended to present a legal bar to the
consideration of petitions for exemp-
tion from the requirements of para-
graph (I) For example, an equaliza-
tion basin that. collects wastewater
prior to biological treatment could rea-
sonably be considered for an exemp-
tion under paragraph (4) if It were
built in natural clay with a compacted
clay liner that would prevent migra-
tion of hazardous constituents for 150
years, A period of 150 years clearly
October 5, 1984
falls within the definition of “any
future time” in a legal Interpretation.
However, given the engineering and
technological considerations in the
design and construction of any surface
impoundment. 150 years may not nec-
essarily be considered within “any
future time.” Indeed, 150 years Is
longer than the design life of synthet-
ic liners used for.
No engineer will certify that a sur-
face impoundment, regardless of how
it is constructed and with what materi-
al it Is constructed, wilJ not leak for
any future time if “any future time” Ls
given a strict legal definition,
Mi-. DURENBERGER, Madam
President, I wonder if I might direct
the attention of the distinguished
manager of the conference report to a
particular portion of the manager’s
language on Underground storage
tanks. I refer specifically to the follow-
ing sentence which describes the
second modification to the Senate bill
made by the conferees:
In this regard, the conferees believe that
while sophisticated methods of inventory
control may be adequate to determine
whether a tank Is leaking, exclusive reliance
on a ‘dipstick” method of Inventory control
(even with periodic tank testing) will not be
sufficient to detect slow leaks,
Does the Senator from Rhode Island
find that reference.
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, the Senator from
Minnesota correctly states the lan-
guage of the conference report.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Would the
Senator from Rhode Island assure this
senator that the specific sentence
which I have read does not imply that
an automatic gauging system or other
electronic detection system is a mini-
mum requirement under the statutory
language reported by the conference.
Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from
Minnesota states the intent of the
conference correctly. Ve do not intend
this sentence to be Interpreted as a re-
quirement for automatic gauging. The
discussion of the conferees focused on
the way that data collected by me-
chanical devices Is analyzed and not
solely on the characteristics of the me-
chanical devices,
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I
do support the conferenc” report on
the “Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984,” and I richly
commend the conference chairman,
my fine friend Senator Jonn CHAFas,
who served with patience and real
skill.
By that act I do not pretend to be
wholly satisfied with the work of the
conference committee. Yet, In order to
forge a comproinlse-’—the essential act
of legislating—with the House It was
necessary to drop certain provisions
from the Senate bill that I feel very
strongly about and that I indeed still
hope and expect to see enacted In the
future. We also accepted certain provi-
sions of the House bill about which I
have reservations. In general the bill
lurches ponderously in the direction of
-------
October 5 1984
writing regulations into law and that
Is a manifestation of the tendency of
this body to often act as elected bu-
reaucrats rather than as lawmakers.
In the main, however, this bill repre-
sents a series of fair and workable
compromises.
Let me briefly elaborate on the reso-
lution of a few Issues in which I have
taken particular interest.
The House agreed to the decision of
the Senate that those facilities subject
to the minimum technological require-
ments, that Is, the double-liner re .
quirement, will have the option of
using alternative technology if they
can show that a different containment
system is equally effective for their
particular facility. I think that It Is
vital, given the detailed technical re-
quiretnents we are ImposIng, that
some flexibility and ability to accom-
modate unusual circumstances and
new technology be retained, as this
amendment surely would do.
The conference substitute amend-
ment on mining wastes Is based upon
an amendment to the Senate bill
which I sponsored. The statement of
managers makes It clear that this pro-
vision, which has been expanded to in-
clude other special study wastes,
covers all of the mining wastes under
the so-called Bevili amendment and
does not In any way narrow the uni-
verse of wastes covered by the Bcvill
amendment.
The Senate mining waste amend-
ment I authored covered only landfills
and surface impoundments, and the
conference substitute includes the
same limitation. Consequently it does
not directly apply to the pro ision of
the House bill regarding salt domes,
salt beds, mines, and caves that is In-
cluded, in modified form, in the com-
promise bill. However, mine wastes
which are solids or which assume a so-
lidified form alter they are placed In a
mine or cave would only be subject to
the permitting requirement and not to
the requirements that apply to bulk
liquids.
Finally, the conferees agreed to an
amendment which I offered to clarify
the relationship between the ECRA
regulations and the uranium mill tail-
ings regulatory program lit order to
avoid any possible confusion or delay
that might otherwise result. The Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission now
have an extensive regulatory program
underway, and this amendment will
ensure that this program will be able
to proceed on Its current course—
under existing law—without any un-
necessary disruption.
Finally, I note with satisfaction the
decision of the conference committee
to reject the House amenJment enti-
tled “Preservation of Other Rights.”
This innocuous sounding amendment
was intended to cont cy the message to
the Fedrntl judiciary that there Is a
“Federal common law” applicable to
hazardous wasle,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
As a result of the decisions In the
City of Milwaukee and National Sea-
clammers cases It Is clear beyond dis-
pute that there cannot be any “Feder-
al common law” In an area covered by
a comprehensive Federal statute such
as the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
Adoption of the House amendment
would at the very least have created
enormous confusion in the Federal
courts and could easily have disrupted
EPA ’s regulatory program. It could
have resulted in the Imposition of an
additional overlay of requirements
heaped on top of the comprehensive
Federal and State laws that currently
exist, depending heavily upon the Indi-
vidual predilections of each Federal
district court judge. Given this open-
ended mandate, It could well take
years for the courts to determine the
scope of “Federal common law”, or
even whether It Is constitutional.
The Ironic thing is that there is
hardly any area m which the ad hoe
creation of remedies by Individual
judges is less necessary. Under current
law any person can bring suit against
anyone io1atlng the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act in Federal court or bring suit
in State court on the basis of State
statutory or common law. This bill will
further allow citizens to bring “linmi-
nent and substantial endangerment”
suits, which are very similar to
common law nuisance actions, In the
Federal courts.
For these and other reasons the
House amendment was dropped from
the conference substitute. The state-
ment of managers does provide that
rejection of the House amendment is
not Intended to preclude the use of
common law principles by the courts
in interpreting the provisions of
RCRA, This, of course, is simply a re-
statement of existing law, Obviously It
Is common practice for the Federal
courts to call upon established
common law principles in construing
statutory language, and yet that prac-
tice Is In a completely different catego-
ry from any “Federal Common Law.”
Madam President, 1 should like to
clarify just a couple of matters about
section 703 of this bill,
Both the House and Senate bilis in-
eluded a number of provisions which,
if adopted In their present form, wIll
have significant impact on the regula-
tory program established by the Con-
gress fok’ uranium mill tailings. That
program is now underway pursuant to
the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act (UMTRCA I—the statute
that establishes the basic framework
and the underlying legal authority for
uranium mill taiiings regulation.
Although the biil agreed to by the
conferees does not directly amend
UMTRCA, It does change in a number
of respects, the Solid Waste Disposal
Act. And because UMTRCA requires
that certain standards promulgated
pursuant to UMTRCA:
Shall provide for the protection of human
health and the environment consistent with
the standards required under subtitle C of
S13 813
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
which are applicable to such hazards.
It does, In fact, appear that the po-
tential exists for construing this bill as
somehow requiring changes in the ura-
nium mill tailings regulatory program,
In order to ensure continuing consist-
ency with the standards of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended, when
In fact that Is not the case.
Indeed, representatives of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency advised
the conferees that, In the absence of
further clarification, the uranium mill
tailings regulatory program would, In
fact, have to be modified In a number
of significant respects,
This Is not the conferees’ intent, and
this provision Is Intended to clarify
that nothing in this bill is Intended to
affect, modify, or amend UMTR.CA.
Similarly, the conferees do not Intend
to alter, amend, repeal, ratify, or sus-
pend any of the regulations or stand-
ards of the Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission or the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, if they were lawfully pro-
mulgated in accordance with the re-
quirements of UMTRCA.
This bill is not Intended, and should
not be construed, to require changes in
the regulatory program for mill tail-
ings that is now underway. To the
extent that this bill adds to, or modi-
fies the provisions of, the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended, this provI-
sIon Is Intended to clarify that the ura-
nium null tailings regulatory program
need not now be changed to meet
these new or modified requirements
for the purpose of satisfying the statu-
tory requirements of IJMTRCA that
certain standards promulgated pursu-
ant to UMTRCA shall be consistent
with the standards of the Solid Waste
DIsposal Act, as amended.
This provision would not limit or
otherwise affect In any way the Ad-
ministrator’s authority or flexibility to
treat uranium mill taiiings wastes in a
fashion similar to the approach taken
or all other mining wastes that are
subject to regulation under RCRA.
Indeed, If the AdmninLstrator should
decide to exercise his authority to
tailor the requirements of RCR,A to
address the special characteristics of
mining wastes, In general—an author-
ity which, In a separate provision, we
have confirmed that the current law
provides—then the Administrator
shall, if he deems It appropriate,
pursue a similar approach for uranium
mill tailings wastes.
Finally, Madam President, I should
like to point out that it was after en-
tensive discussion of these Issues
among the conferees and with repre-
sentatives of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency—see transcript of Sep-
tember 28, 1984 meeting of the confer-
ees—that the conferees agreed to
recede to the Senate position to ad.
dress these concerns. I am grateful,
Mr. President, that the conferees have
agreed to the Senate position, and
have confirmed this In the joint ex-
-------
S 13814
planatory statement of the committee
of conference. ( “The Confercnc’e sub-
stitute Is the same as the Senate
amendment.”)
Before I yield the floor. Madam
President, I should like to ask my dis-
tinguished colleagues, Senators
CHAFES and RANDoLPH. whether this
explanation of the conference agree-
ment on section 703 of this bill, deal-
ing with uranium mill tailings, Is con-
sLstent with their understanding of
this provision. and the agreement of
the conferees?
Senator CHAFEE. Yes, Madam
President. the explanation of the Sen-
ator from Wyoming accurately ex-
plains the agreement of the conferees.
Senator RANDOLPH. I, too, agree
s ith that explanation, and concur
that It represents the agreement
reached by the conferees.
Senator SIMPSON. I thank my dis-
tinguished colleagues for those assur-
ances. Thank you Madam President.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Madam President.
the conference report on HR. 2867,
the Hazardous and Solid Vaste
Amendments of 1984, represents a 3-
year effort to address the serious prob-
lems of hazardous and municipal
waste dispo a1 In this country. This
measure makes major improvements
in exii .ting law. When enacted, greater
protection to public health and the en-
vlronxnent will be provided.
I have said in the past that the 1976
amendment, the Resource Conserva-
(ion and Recovery Act, was misnamed,
because It did little Lo.move the Nation
toward materials and energy recovery.
The hazardous waste regulatory pro-
gram under subtitle C, which is the
heart of the 1976 act, was disappoint-
ingly slow In Implementation. This
bill, however, by adding real teeth to
the regulatory program and firmly
moving away -from land disposal for
hazardous wastes, could legitimately
be called the Recycling, Incineration,
and Treatment Act of 1984. In making
these changes in the law, the Congress
shows that it Is serious about encour-
aging the use of alternative technol-
ogies,
‘On July 25 of this year, the Senate
unanimously adopted amendments to
the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The
House approved similar legislation
nearly a year ago. Over the past 2
weeks, the 26 House and Senate Con-
ferees met on four occasions to resolve
differences between the two measures.
The conference report contains
changes from the previously adopted
bill. S. 757, that merit clarification and
discussion. Accurate Interpretation
and implementation of several provi-
sions requires that the Intent be care-
fully understood. The statement of
managers describes many of these pro-
visions, but I wish to make additional
observations about several of particu-
lar coacern to me.
Among those of greatest Interest for
inc are amendments revising subtitle
D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Im-
plementation of the existing program
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
has faltered, primarily because of
budget decisions. The subtitle D pro-
gram has not been funded or imple-
mented for several years, prompting
me to introduce the amendment that
was adopted during earlier Senate con-
sideration of this measure.
That amendment seeks to improve
the management of municipal landfills
and eiiminate open dumps. It author-
izes funding to enable States to oper-
ate programs upgrading sanitary land-
fills and closing out existing open
dumps. The lack of Federal assistance
in recent years has brought. this effort
to a standstill. Under my amendment
$15 million of the bu get provided the
Environmental Protection Agency in
fiscal year 1985 could be allocated for
this purpose. Our expectation is that a
portion of the congressional increase
in the EPA budget will be used for this
work. The amendment authorizes S20
million for each year through fiscal
year 1988.
The Administrator of the Environ-
mental Proti ction Agency will be re-
quired to revIse existing landfill crite-
ria in recognition of the fact that vir-
tually all landfills serve as repositories
for some hazardous waste. Household
waste, small generators, and illegal
dumpers contribute to landfills. It Is
necessary to apply controls and mom-
toring requirements to assure that
these facilities are adequate. The
amendment requires that these stand-
ards -be promulgated by March 31,
1988. ThIs will allow consideration of
the Information gathered In the small
quantity generator study.
States will be required to establish
regulatory programs to assure that
solid waste management facilities
comply with subtitle D criteria. This
may include a permitting program or
comparable system subject to the ap-
proval of the Administrator. The
amendment requires that States bring
solid waste facilities Into compliance
with existing requirements in 3 years.
They will have an additional 18
months to meet the revised criteria
after they are promulgated. In the
event that a State should fall to imple-
ment a solid waste management pro-
gram, the Administrator is authorized
to prohibit open dumps. States Imple-
menting approved solid waste pro-
grams are completely responsible for
enforcement.
The underlying standard for facili-
ties subject to this amendment to sub-
title D remains protection of human
health and the environment. Require-
ments imposed on facilities may vary
from those br subtitle C facilities,
however, and still meet this standard,
They may be phased in over time, as
the Administrator deems appropriate,
to take account of the practicable ca-
pability of the facilities covered. -
New statutory requirements for sub-
title D facilities may hasten the clo-
sure of many solid waste facilities that
have only a few years of remaining ca-
pacity. The requirements could also
precipitate the closure of facilities
October 5, 7984
with substantial capacity, but that are
either unable or unwilling to accept
new regulatory cost&
By allowing the administrator to
consider the practicable capability of
solid waste disposal facilities, the Con-
gress has expressed its desire to avert
serious disruptions of the solid waste
disposal Industry. The Administrator
could phase in new requirements other
than ground water monitoring and
corrective action over time. Phasing
may be tailored to the characteristics
of broad categories of facilities. Such
phasing might include, for example
Imposing requirements first on large
facilities which have the greatest po-
tential for affecting human health
and the environment in the absence of
added regulatory controls. Phasing
also might include imposing some re-
quirements immediately on existing
units but giving time to meet other re-
quirements so that facilities are not
faced with all major new requirements
at once.
The public is alarmed by -the profu-
sion of chemical contamination inci-
dents that threaten homes, neighbor-
hoods and whole communities. Recent-
ly, this concern has been centered
almost exclusively on massive industri-
al chemical dumps and has let to ne-
glect of a foremost threat to health
and the environment.
Vie assume that our trash will be
picked up at home, but seldom ques-
tion whore it goes, how it is disposed
of. or whether it is an environineutal
problem. In fact, a substantial amount
of hazardous material finds its way to
sanitary landfills and open dumps
through household waste, small gener-
ator waste, and illegal dumping. Ne-
glect of open dumps and sanitary land-
fills will continue to produce Super-
fund sites. Fully half of the original
national priority list encompassed
landfills. In most cases ground water
contamination has occurred.
Implementation of the existing sub-
title D program has faltered largely
through misguided budget decisions.
The current administration has failed
to recognize that municipal landfills
and dumps are very much a part of
the hazardous waste disposal problem.
The subtitle D amendments in this bill
will do much to help correct this situa-
tion.
Another area of my concern Is the
exemption for petroleum coke under
the provisions for the control of burn-
ing or blending hazardous waste. The
Agency Is authorized to determine ad-
ministratively which entities must give
notification, and the administrator has
asked that the notification deadline be
postponed until the regulatory pattern
Is determined. In this way, notification
can generally be required from those
the agency proposes to regulate. Since
petroleum coke Is exempted from reg-
ulation under these provisions, the
Agency would not be requiring notifi-
cation from purchasers, distributors,
marketers, or users of petroleum coke.
-------
October /0, 1.984
En Chad. relief officials believe 1,000
people have died as a result of starvation or
malnutntion since July. The situation, they
said is almost certain to deteriorate further
when what is normally referred to as the
dry season begins in the next few weeks.
For Chad. this current drought is worse
than the great drought of the 1970’s,” said
Jamle Wickcns, the representative in Ndja-
mena of the Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion. “The food needs will certainly be
greater.”
TEENo SEEN BY EXPERTS
No one really knows what Is causing the
drought or how long it will last, Many scien-
tists fear, however, that a long-term climatic
change may be under way, aggravated to
some degree by man-made ecological
damage such as over-grazing and extensive
cutting of torests
The drought of the early 1970’s and the
current drought, a growing number of cx-
perth have come to suspect, may be not sep-
ante events but rather symptoms of the
same trend or of a single phase in the cli-
matic cycle,
Adapting to such changes may have been
simpler In the past. Some anthropologists
point out that about 100 years ago there
were virtually no nations as such in Africa
south of the Sahara, so severe changes In
the weather would have merely caused
people to pie up and move on to greener
areas that were sparsely inhabited or poorly
defended.
Now, however, such migrations can no
longer occur without causing political and
social turmoil,
Relief officials say they believe it will be
more diffIcult to help Chad than most of
the other drought-stricken countries of
Afnca, Tile country is landlocked and the
best port in the region is at t aos , Nigeria.
But Nigeria has closed its borders with its
neighbors, saying it has economic problems
of its own.
Even if adequate supplies of food do
arrive, distribution Is likely to be a logistical
nightmare, the relief officials said. The
north of Chad has been under the control
of Libyan-backed rebels for more than a
year, and Insurgent activity has been flaring
sporadically in the south as welL
HO RAILROADS Oil HIGHWAYS
The country, which is as large as Texas,
Oklahoma and California combined, has no
railroads or highways, although there are
dirt tracks that are passable at certain times
of tne year.
En the past special camps have been set up,
where displaced people could be housed and
fed. Relief officials said, however, that they
would prefer another approach if possible,
“Conditions in the camps often become
terrible, squalid, a breeding ground for dis-
ease.” said Mr. Wickens. “That’s a lesson we
le.srned from the last drought.”
But the other option, the absorption of
displaced people into existing population
centers, could lead to additicnal pressures
on Chad’s poorly developed urban areas, “It
could be staggering,” Mr. Wickcns said.
For now, at least, Mr. Makaz and those
who came with him are living among rela-
tives in the city, The chief exp aincd that
the relatives shared what littie food they
had and the villagers slept on straw mats In
the courtyards of the adobe compounds,
“There is little for them to do during the
long, hot days,” he said. “We’re looking for
work, but so far there Is nothing.”
Someday, he said, he would like to lead
his people back to the village, to regather
the families and clans there. But he said he
was not hopeful,
“We’re looking at at least nine months of
severe hardship,” said Mr. Wickefla. “El we
can set through that, lhen maybe people
can begin to hope agaln.”•
CONflRENCE REPORT ON N.E.
2867, HAZARDOUS AND SOLED
WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
sP H OF
HON. JOHN B. BREAUX
OP t.OOt5tANA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPREsENTaTIvES
Wednesday, October 3, 1fl4
I Mr. BREAIJX. Mr, Speaker, I rise in
strong support of H.R. 2967, provIding
amendments and Improvements to the
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1916. 1 be-
lieve that this legislation heralds In a
new era for the responsible disposal of
this Nation’s hazardous waste. By this
legislation, the Congress Is sending a
clear signal to the American people
that the long standing out-of-sight,
otttof’mind attitude which has char’
aeterized our traditional hazardous
waste disposal practices must come to
an end. This legislation should also
prove to be an enormous stimulant to
the development of alternative treat-
ment and destruction technologies so
that we might once and for all atop
the practices that have led to the poi-
soning of oUr land, water, air, and
human resources.
I would not normally find It neces-
sary to comment on specific provisions
of the conference report and state-
ment of managers, however, remarks
made In the other body during its con-
sideration of the conference report
prompt me to make three points.
The first pertains to the exemption
provided In section 215(11 (4) enabling
certain existing surface impoundments
to avoid the general rule of secti On
215(JXI) requiring such impound-
ments to meet the new minimum tech-
nological requirements withIn 4 years
of enactment, This exemption pro-
vides that if an owner or operator of
such a faculty demonstrates that E
“Surface impoundment Is located, de-
signed, and operated so as to assure
that there wilt be no migration of any
hazardous constituent into ground or
surface water at any future time”,
then the Administrator is authorized
to modify the 215(jX(1) requirement.
Statements on the floor of the other
body interpret the phrase “any future
time” as being 150 years. This was not,
in fact, the intent of the conferees and
as the original author of this provi-
sion, 1 reject this Interpretation. The
phrase “any future time” means exact-
ly what Is says. No arbitrary outside
time was assumed as being sufficient
to meet this test.
The second pertains to statements
made in the other body indicating that
mining wastes—or for that matter any
other wastes—that, “assume a soiidi
f led form after they are placed In a
mine or cave” are not subject to the
statutory prohibition on bulk or non-
containerized liquid waste placemenL
In salt dome formations, salt bed for-
E-1- 155
mations, underground mines and
eaves, until the Administrator deter-
mines after hearings on the record In
affected areas that such placement Is
protective of human health and the
environment.
Again, I must take strong Issue with
this statement. The conferees, includ-
ing this conferee, were directly con-
fronted with the option of placing this
interpretation In the statement - of
managers—and rejected It. Any waste
that does not pass the EPA regulatory
definition distinguishing between
liquid and solid waste are subject to
the prohibition noted above and the
disposal of such waste is prohibited
until the necessary hearings and de-
terminations have been made.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me again
reiterate my support for this impor-
tant. indeed vital, piece of legislation. I
would be remiss 11 1 did not thank the
distinguished chairman of the House
committee, Mr. DnecxLL, the chairman
of the subcommittee, Mr. Ftoazo, the
subcommittee ranking member, Mr.
L r and their able staffs, particularly
John dough, Chris Harris, and Claire
Whitney for the many courtesies and
assistance they gave to me and my
staff In the diffleult process of forging
this legislation.. -
‘btlàuTE TO CHICK KAZEN
‘spneHop”-
HON. NICK JOE RAThtLL I I
-‘ or wssr visoncta
IN THE HOUSE OF RZPI1E5ENTAT5VE5
- Thursday, October 4, 1984
• Mr. RAHALL Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to add my
voice to those of my eolleagues in
saying that we are going to miss our
friend from lens, Csncx Kazsw. It
has been my pleasure’ to serve with
Caicic-on the Interior and Insular Af-
fairs Onnmlttee, where I have been
able to obaerve firsthand the dedica-
tion with which he served-the people
of the 23d District tn-the great State-
of Texas. Re always made sure that
the views of his constituency were well
represented In any debate.
• He hs been a true public servant,
using his position in this institution to
meet the needs of those he has served
so faithfully; Cinc H and I have also
Joined forces on issues of interest to us
with regard to our ethnic heritage
which we both proudly share. Just re
cently, largely through the efforts of
Ciuc Kazzte, legislation was passed
which will authorize land In the Dis-
trict of Columbia to memorialize the
greaç Lebanese Amer ican post-philoso-
pher-artist, Kahlli Gibran. Cutest was
also lnst’runicntal tp helping me secure
passage oL:a resblutlon 1 sponsored
awarding a gold medal tO -Danny
Thomas in recognition of his outstaszd
Ing humanitarian work with St JIkde
Children’s Research HospitaL “., ‘c!-’
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Externions of Remarks
-------
July 25, 1984
I Inquire of them especially of the
chairman of the Committee on Envi-
ronment and Public Works, if there Is
a likelihood that he could finish this
bill today, say, by the normal recess
- hour of 6 o’clock, or if it Is likely that
we will have to go until tomorrow to
do that.
Mr. STAFFORD. If the Senate
could suffer a temporary case of lock-
jaw. we could do it in the next hour. I
am very optimistic that we can com-
plete it by 6 oclock, from reports on
both sides of the aisle.
Mr. BAKER, I thank the Senator.
In view of that, I announce that we
will try to finish; and if it is necessary
to stay a little past 6 o’clock. the lead-
ership on this side Is prepared to ask
the Senate to do that.
Mr, RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. BAKER, I yield the floor, and I
hope the Chair ill then recognize the
distinguished Senator from West Vir-
ginia,
Mr, RANDOLPH. I thank the Sena-
tor.
Mr, President. I have just come Into
the Chamber, and I did not hear all
that was said, except that I under-
stand there will be an effort to pass
this bill in approximately 1 hour. Is
that correct?
Mr, BAKER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH, I yield.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I have
not been privy to the conversations be.
tween the two managers, but the ques-
tion I put as whether or not the
manager en this side thought it possi-
ble that we could finish the bill this
afternoon, by 6 or thereabout, and the
answer as in the affirmati e.
The leadership on this side is pre-
pared to devote whatever reasonable
time Is required in order to complete
this measure.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I say to the major-
ity leader and the chairman of our
committee that Senator MITcHEU..
who will handle the measure on behalf
of the minority, will be most coopera.
live In doing what the majority leader
desires, as will others. However, it Is
my understanding that If we cannot
complete it by 6 o’clock. it is to go
over. Is that so?
Mr, BAKER. Yes. I announced that
I would be willing to ask the Senate to
stay a little past 6 in order to finish.
Otherwise, It Is the Intention to go
over until tomorrow.
Mr. RANDOLPH, All of us on the
minority will work closely with the
able chairman of our committee,
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President. the Sen.
ator from West Virginia always does
that, and I am always grateful,
He was once chairman of the Envi-
ronment and Public Works Commit-
tee. I have often said that my first ex-
posure to Senate procedure and the es-
sence and substance of Senate delib-
erations as while he as chairman I
learned a great deal from him, and I
continue to do so. I ne er tire of ex-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
pressing my appreciation to him for
his good service to the Senate.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. RANDOLPH, The majority
leader is very kind,
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President. I
should like to echo that the majority
leader has said.
During the early years I served on
the Committee on Environment and
Public Works, the Senator from West
Vlrg nla (Mr. RANDOLPH] was an ex-
ceptionally able chairman; and what-
ever I have learned of committee work
I learned at his side. So I am also
grateful for all the guidance he has
given to our committee and to me over
the years in the work of the commit-
tee.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, vlll
the Senator yield?
Mr. STAFFORD. I yield.
Mr. RANDOLPH, I could speak at
greater length to the majority leader
and to my friend the present excellent
chairman, but I will say only this;
Thanks very much.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, the
manager on our side for this bill will
be Senator CHAFES. If the Senator will
indulge me for a moment, I will turn
over that task to him. Senator CHAFES
is the chairman of our Subcommittee
on Pollution. hich has handled this
measure, and it is appropriate that he
-be the manager for this side of the
aisle, just as Senator MxrcHEi.r.. the
ranking minority member, will be the
manager on the minority side. Senator
RAND0Uu and I will be here for what-
ever backup we can offer.
Mr. President, the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act Amendments of 1984 have
been a long time In the making.
The Committee on En ironrnent and
Public Works began oik on these
amendments in the 97th Congress. We
reported S. ‘757, the pending bill, On
October 28. 1983. Refinements and ad
justments have continued to be made
since then and v .ill be part of the com-
mittee’s proposals today.
The bill reflects Intensive delibera
tion by the committee, extensive con-
sultations with current officials at the
Environmental Protection Agency.
with the whole spectrum of outside In-
terests. and with Members of the
Senate who are not on the Environ-
ment and Public Works Committee.
The product of this exhaustive proc-
ess is a balanced bill that will enhance
protection of public health and the en-
vironment against harm from the
toxic tastes so pervasive in our socie-
ty.
By clarifying existing law In several
respects, the bill closes some major
gaps in the Nation’s hazardous waste
disposal program—gaps created, in
some instances, by overly lenient regu-
latory interpretations.
It sets realistic—and I emphasize the
word “realistic”—schedUleS according
to which both regulators and those
who generate or handle hazardous
waste must take specific, protective ac-
tions.
S9117
The distinguished chairman of the
En ’ironmental Pollution Subcommit-
tee, Mr. C}MFEE, has outlinLd what we
know at this time to be the dimensions
of the hazardous taste problem in this
country, I would likt simply to note
that the more we learn, the bigger e
find the problcm to be.
In this bill we are putting into place
measures to reduce the likelihood of
future tragedies such as those at Love
Canal. Times Beach, and Woburn. MA.
Investments made as a result of this
legislation will, I believe, not only
reduce future human suffering but
also the tremendous costs of respond-
ing to releases of toxic substances Into
the environment after they have oc-
curred.
The statement by the distinguished
subcommittee chairman has also pro-
vided a clear and comprehensive de-
scription of the bill before us. There is
only one section of the bill I would
like specifically to discuss.
Section 26, the waste minimization
pro ision, amends the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act In several ways. First, it sets
out as national policy that hazardous
astes are to be reduced or eliminated
as expeditiously as possible and that
wastes that are nonetheless generated
are to be disposed of in the most envi-
ronmentally sound manner.
Second, it requires generators of
hazardous waste to certify that they
are reducing the auant lty or toxicity
of their wastes to the maximum
extent they determine is economically
practicable. Generators must also cer-
tify that they are employing those
practicable methods of disposal that
ir 1 !niinize threats to health and the en-
vironment and must report every 2
years on their production and manage-
ment of hazardous wastes,
Finally, the bill requires the Adrnirt-
istrator to submit to Congress a report
on methods in addition to those in cur-
rent law to reduce the quantity and
toxicity of wastes generated in this
country and to assure that the wastes
that are generated are managed so as
to minimize their threats to human
beings and the environment.
Mr. President, I believe we are
making some headway in protecting
this Nation from the iarm caused by
hazardous wastes. But the fact re
mains that neither existing law nor S.
757 guarantees anything like truly
safe disposal of the vast quantities of
hazardous waste generated in this
Nation.
We need to find ways to greatly
reduce the amount of harmful wastes.
At the Federal level we must look for
ays to encourage the development of
alternative production processes, the
substitution of less hazardous materi-
als for more toxic ones, and other
means to reduce both the quantity
and toxicity of wastes.
We must also provide incenti%es for
development of treatment and disposal
practices that minimize threats from
-------
S9148.
those hazardous wastes that continue
to be produced.
The wa.ste minimization provisions
in S. 757 are a step in that direction.
They represent a starting point, not
the last word.
It Is my hope that the certification
required of hazardous waste genera-
tots ‘ull elicit from them serious and
successful reduction efforts.
It is my expectation that the report
required from EPA. together with in-
formation from the biennial reports
submitted by generators, will provide
the basis for sound future changes in
the direction and emphasis of a na-
tional hazardous v,aste program.
Those changes il1, I believe, empha-
size waste reduction, with the goal of
eliminating disposal of hazardous
wastes here they might in any way
harm public health or the environ•
ment.
Mr. President. as I said at the start
of my remarks, action on S. 757 is
needed now. The bill is a good and bal.
anced one. I urge my colleagues to
pass it quickly so that conference with
the House can proceed and a bill can
be sent to the President before sum-
mer’s end.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous conS
sent that the following staff members
be granted floor pri ileges:
Ste e Shimberg. Bob Hurley, Curtis
Moore. Vic Maerkl, Phil Cummings.
Charlene Sturbitts, Jimmie Powell.
Bill Fay, Boyd Holling5worth, Brent
Erickson. Jim Curtiss. and Jon Jewett.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
SPECTER). Without objection. it is so
ordered.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Presfdent. I
yield the floor to the manager on this
side. Mr. CHAPtE.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am
pleased to present an amendment to S.
757. the Solid Waste Disposal Amend-
ments of 1984.
The Committee on Envirbnment and
Public Works has been working on leg-
islation to amend the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act and as part of that law the
so-called RCRA. the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act, we have
been attempting to do this for the past
4 years. We have held numerous hear-
ings. meetings, and markups in an
effort to perfect this Important meas-
ure, and I can now confidently and
wholeheartedly recommend it to my
colleagues.
On July 28. which was nearly a year
ago, the Committee on En iromnent.
and Public Works reported this meas-
ure favorably and recommended by a
vote of 14 to 1 that the ftll Senate
pass this bill.
Mr. President. let me begin by
noting that the title of this bill and
the law that is the primary focus of
these amendments to RCRA are to
some degree misleading.
Yes, there are provisions dealing
ith solid waste. and, yes, there are
pros isioris dealing with resource con-
servation and recovery. But that is not
the focus of this bill.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
What we are really talking about
today Is the control of hazardous
wastes.
In 1976 RCRA was enacted as an
amendment to the Solid Waste Dispos-
al Act.
Subt tle C of RCRA established this
Nation’s basic hazardous waste manS
agement system.
That law and the amendments we
are considering today are designed to
assure the people of this Nation that
the generation, handling, storage,
treatment, transportation, and dispos-
al of hazardous wastes in this country
is regulated and controlled in a
manner that protects both the human
health and the en ironment.
We are getting down to a pretty fun
damental matter here. We are dealing
with hazardous wastes in e ery aspect
of them, not only the generation but.
as I said, the handling, the storage,
the treatment, the transportation, and
disposal of them.
Obviously the public of this Nation
believes in this. The importance of
this law and the need for such assur-
ances can only be fully accomplished
after we examine just how much haz-
ardous waste Is being generated each
year In the United States. The num-
bers are staggering.
When the EPA developed its regula-
tory program and when e first began
working on this legislation, It was esti’
mated that 11 billion gallons, that Is
400 million metric tons of hazardous
waste are produced in the United
States each year,
In August 1983. a year ago. EPA
upped this estimate to roughly 40 bil’
lion gallons. 1.500 million metric tor.s.
almost four times the previous esti’
mate.
On April 20. of this year. the EPA
released the results of the national
survey of hazardous waste generators
and treatment. storaze, and disposal
facilities regulated under RCRA In
1981. ThIs will be referred to as the
national survey.
It is now estimated that there are
not 11 billion gallons nor 40 billion
gallons: it is now estimated that more
than 71 billion gallons of hazardous
waste are generated in the United
States every year. That is 264 million
metric tons. It just staggers the imagi-
nation.
According to news reports, that is
enough to flood the District of Colum-
bia to the depth of 5 feet.
Mind you, this is annual, annual dis-
posal, enough to supply every man.
v.oman. and child in the Nation with
six 55-gallon drums of hazardous
waste every year.
Sadly, the actual number we believe
even exceeds the 71 billion gallon esti-
mate.
EPA’s national survey that I Just re
ferred to did not Include mining
wastes, some of which is clearly haz-
ardous. It did not include household
hazardous wastes such as discarded
pesticides, paint thinners, and clean.
big solvents. It did not Include hazard-
July 25, 1984
ous waste generated by individual
businessmen that produce less than
1,000 kilograms of waste a month.
A thousand kilograms, by the way, is
no tiny amount. That is 2.200 pounds.
over a ton of such a.ste a month, and
that is what e call small quantity
generators. It did not include hazard-
ous waste that is discharged through
sewers into publicly owned wastewater
treatment iorks. It did not include
hazardous waste that is illegally gener-
ated or managed. And it did not In-
clude those hazardous wastes destined
for cycling.
The survey and estImate only includ-
ed those wastes and activities that are
regulated under the existing RCRA
program.
There is no question, Mr. President.
that we have given the EPA an enor-
mous responsibility. In 1981 EPA re-
ceived nearly 60,000 notices from gen-
erators of hazardous waste. The
agency has roughly 8,500 applications
on file for permits for treatment, stor-
age, and disposal facilities.
This just gives you some Idea of the
tremendous job that EPA has under
this program.
The permit applications and sources
of hazardous ‘ aste come from a wide
variety of industries. Each one of
these industries poses a separate prob-
lem.
Add to the problem of household
waste and waste from the truly small
quantity generator. All of that you put
together and we can conclude that
EPA’s task is indeed a difficult one. It
is almo t absolutely essential that it be
done right and that it be done soon.
Th s program is closely related to
the much talked about Superfund pro-
gram. What this program is meant to
do is assure the public that although
we may be discover ng some new Su-
perfund sites on a da ly basis, at the
least ‘. e are taking steps to prevent
the creation of new Superfund sites.
In other words, as you know, there
are some 6.C00 Superfund sites, some
sites that are needing of the Super.
fund cleanup in the Nation, and there
they are. We are working on those
through the Superfund. But the whole
purpose of this bill we are considering
today is to prevent the creation of new
such sites.
Hazardous waste can and must be
handled In a manner that Is safer than
it was in the past. That is what RCRA
is supposed to be about.
Now. we often hLar the refrain from
those who mere re pcnzibile for disas-
ters like Lo c Canal. the Stringiellow
acid pits in California. and in my home
State tne Wc- tern Sand & Gravel, and
the so-called Potello dump, that we
should no: hold them responsible be-
cause what they did was legal at the
time.
Weil. using the word “legal” to mean
not specifically prohibited by RCRA
or by regulatIons under RCRA, let us
see what they mean, let us look at
-------
July 25, 1984
gated under paragraph (1) of this subsec-
tion. •
As eor.tzirr No. 3409
(Purpose. To clarify application of reqWre-
ment to conduct ground water monitor-
ingi
Proposed by Mr C! MtE (for hlmseif
and Senators EcxTst , Si r,or.o, R I!rsoLpa,
and ?.IITcHELL).
On page 86, line 13, strike the qu ’tatlon
marks and final r’euo .1, and after l;ne 18
Insert the follotitnr
“This sub ection shall not be construed to
affect ot’ier exemptions or waivers from
such standards provided In regulat’ons In
effect on the date of enactm nL of the Solid
Waste DLpo al Act Amendments of 1994 or
as may be pro ided in reti.,ions to those r.’q-
ulations. to the e .tent cons:stent with this
subsection. The Admirl trator is authorized
on a ca e by.ca.ce basis to exempt from
ground sater monitoring reqn:rements
under this section (in”luv r1g sub erion U 1)
any engineered structure anuc.h the Admin-
istrator finds does riot receite or contain
liquid waste (nor aaste containing free liq-
uids), is desutned arid operated to exclude
liquid from precipitation or other runoff.
utilizes multiple leak detection systems
aithin Ui. oilIer layer of containment, and
prOvIdes for cor,tnuine operation and main-
tenance of these leak detection systems
during the operating period, closure, and
the period required for post-closure mon.
wring and for which the Administrator con-
cludes on the basis of such finthncs that
there Is a reasonable certainty hazardous
constituent s v .dl not mtgrate beyond the
outer la)er of contaln.’nent prior to tIle end
of the period required for post-closure moni-
toring.”
Autxosc irr No. 3409
(Purpose: To clarify scope of nea section
3001(e) ban on certain aclist
Proposed by Mr. CRAFE Uor himsell
and Senators SrArroiw , Rvcooij-ai and
MITccrW.
RkINJECTSON 0? TREATED GPOUNI) Wat’ca
On page 44, line 23. after “a ter.” Insert
Lhe following: “This subsect on shall not
apply to the injection of contarr’-’ated
ground water into the aquifer from a hith It
was wittidiawn, LI such lnj.c’tion is a re-
sponse action taken under sectIon 104 or 108
of the Comprehensive Envlronmentaj Re-
sponse. Compensatlon and Liability Act of
1930 or part of correctuse action required
under this title intended to clean up such
contamination and such contaminated
ground water Is treated to substnntlaily
reduce hazardous constituents pr’or to such
injection.”.
AMENDM !T No. 3409
(Purpo4e: To clarify authority of A’in’inis.
trator to modify application of cctt fn re-
quirements to some mining a astea)
Proposed by Mr. CHAStE (for hinu,elf
and Senators SxMPsoe and Raxcot.ei )
MThIt4G W STt AME%’DSICNT
On page 48. bpginn i g on line 18 thro’jKh
line 2 on ptge 49. strike the aentence follow.
ing ‘the entironrnrnt.”.
At the end of S. 757. add the fol:oaing
new aectlon:
Section 30u4 of Ih Solid V’aste
Dispn cl c’t is a.’reodrd Lv auid ,ng at the
end tI ’rreof tJi folioe’ng ne suc..?”.io’i:
‘I I If ouid waste fo’n the e raruon,
benL’fi ’ation or pro cssing of o.es a:w nina.
eral , including phosphate rock and over-
bu:iien from the rur. ng of uran uni ore, is
subiect to regulation under this subtitle, the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
Administrator Is authorIzed to modify the
requirements of subsections (b) (f)(1)
(other Vian the requirement for ground
water monitoring), arid (g), in the case of
landfills or surface imppun(trnents receiving
suih soiicl waste, to take into acCount the
speciol cnaracteristles of such wastes, the
practi’nl Jif icultues associated a:th imole.
meuna:.o i of such requirements, Lid site’
spec-f ic characteristics, incluoing but not
lnsltea to the cII’nate. geology. h )’drology
and soil chemistry at the s:te. ro long as
such mod:f:ed re ulremnents assure protec-
tion of h’imais health and the entirori-
ment.’.”
Asczwnarza’r No. 3409
(Purpose: To assure that the Solid Waste
Dtiposal Act Amendments of 1 84 do not
affect, modify, or amend the Uranium
Mill Ta&Iings Rcdiatiori Control A. t of
l9 8, as amended)
Proposed by Mr. C! AFEE (for hhuself
arid Senator SIMpsox.
Amend S. 757 by addluig the following new
section:
“URANIUM MtLX, TAILINGS
“Sac. . Nothing in the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act Amendments of 1984 shall be conS
strued to affect, modify, or a.-ner ,d the TJra-
niui M.ll Tailinas Radiation Control Act of
1978. as amended.”,
Aasasmuzay No. 3409
Purpose: To establish minimum technologi.
cal requtremerit.q for existing surface im-
poundsuients)
Proposed by Mr. C-IAFEE (for himself
and Senators Batcra ,. Smrroan, Rae Oi,rx,
and Mires,).
On paar 49. alter line 19. insert the fol.
lowing:
(c)(l) SL’tion 3005(e) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act Is amended by Inserting “(1)’
after “Interun Status. “, by rede 3 ignatmg
paragraphs (1). (2), arid (3) as subpara’
graphs (A), (B), end (C), and by adding the
followinj new paragraph:
“(2tA) Except as pro ided In subpara’
graph (C). each surface lnipoupd rient in cx-
ist nce on the date of enactment of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of
1934 and quialif)usg ( r the authorization to
operate uiiocr paragraph (1) of this subsec-
tion, ahich—
‘(i) dies not have at least one liner, for
which there Is no evidence that such liner Is
leaicing, or
“( Ii) Is located In an area of vuL’ierable hy-
drogeology as defined In subparagraph (0)
or as dctei nined by cnteria or guidance for
the accept ble location of faci1It es issued in
accordance with section 3004.f),
shall not receive, srore, or treat harardous
waste after tile dr.te four years after such
thte of na:iment uniess such surface un’
pounciniens, is in compiiance a’th the re
quirenients of $eciton 3004(f) v,nich would
soply to aw’hi Imr und ent if it were new.
For rhe p Irposea of clause (I) of this subnar-
ag:agh, the term “liner” means a liner
nieel ’i trte uegui:empnts of regulations for
n w surfai’e lirpoundui : ,ts In effect as of
such date of enactment, and that the sur-
face impounarnerit is in compliance with
generally alipilcable ground water monitor-
lri requiretuieti for lacilitles with permits
uli.,er subsection cc) of thus section.
“(B) The Ai!rrtitiisurator (or the State, in
the case o a St,tte wIth art authorized pro-
granil. after notice and opportunity for
comment. mar moc;f3 the requirements of
subparagraph (A) br any surface Impound.
ment if. not lattr than 24 n or.ths after tIe
date of enactment of tue Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act Mieuudments of 1984, the owner
S9173
or operator demonstrates that such surface
impoundments Is located, desirned arid op.
crated so as to assure that there will be no
migration of any hazardous constulu nt Into
ground acter or surface water at an time
durtng the period hacardous wicte ru’ma,’uz
In such surface Impoundment. ‘Aluhin 12
months after the reee’pt of ec ide!lce submit-
ted under this subparagra ah and nor later
than 36 mon ’l.3 after such daic of er et-
ment. the Ad’nlnistrator (or, Ii p .propria e,
I’ie Stat.-l ehail advise riitch owner or op ,’ra.
tor as to -s’hether and, if so, boc the re-
quirements of subpara raph (A) shall be
modified and applied to such surface Im.
poundznent.
“(C) Subparagraph (A) of this paj-sgraph
shall not apply to any surface impour.orncnt
w’hirh (I) eonta us treated waste v.atcr
during the sc ondary or tertiary phase of an
aggrescure biological treatment Ir,’ uii ,y sub-
ject to a permit issued under section 402 of
the Clcan Water Act (or which licids such
trcated a’nste water after treatt ;en anJ
prior to discharge), (II) Is In compuuice a
generally applicable ground water mo :Lor-
trig requirements for faculiUes wIth permIts
under subsection ccl of this section, and uui)
Is part of a facility in compliance with sec-
tion 3A1(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act. or, In
the erie of a facility for which no edluent.
guidelines required under section 304’ o t2)
of the Clean Water Act are in effect and no-
permit under section 4O2taRl) o such Act
Implementing section 3Olcb)(2) of such Act
has been las-red. Li. part of a [ acuity Lncom-
pliance with a p rmiL under section 402 of
the Clean Water Act which Is achiecing sig-
m!icant degradation of Loslc pollutants and
hazardous cor,,tituents contained in the un-
treated aa,te stream and which ha’, Idontl-
fled those toxic pollutants and h.i.ardo.is
constituents in the untreated waste st 1 eans
to the appropriate perm:tttpg authonty.
The Administrator shall s’uds’ a ,.d report to
the Congress on the number, range 01 size,
construction, likelihood of hs$arious con-
slutuents migrating into ground water, arid
potential threat to human health arid the
environment of existing surface Impound.
ments excluded by this subparagraph from
the requirements of subparagraph (A). S . ch
report ahail address the need, feactt ility.
and estimated costs of subjecting su.th eaust..
Ing surface unpoundrnents to the require.
ment,s of subparagraph (A). In the case of
any e ist!ng susface impoundment or class
of surface impoundments from which the
Administrator (or the State, In the ca4e of a
State with an autfiortzed program) oeter-
mines hazardous cunstn ,uents are lirely to
migrate into ground water, the Adininistra.
tar (or. LI appropriaLe the State) Is author.
ized to Impose such requirements as may be
necessary to protect human health ano the
entironment. including the requirements of
section 300411) which would apply to such
impoundments 11 they were new,
“ CD) ‘I he owner or operator of any surfare
impoundnicnt potentially subject to stub.
paragraph (Al of this paragra h who has
reason to b !ieve that on the basts of sub-
paragraph (Ai(i) or (ii) or siit’parag ’ai,n (C)
such surface impoundment Is not required
to comply w’th the requirements of sub.
paragraph (At siia.ll apply to the Adm’iu’s.
trator (or the State, in the case of a State
with an auth .ruzed prcgran,) not later than
24 months after the date of enactnieuit of
the SoI d Wacie Disposal Act Amen, ni n•s
of 1984 fur a det rmina:iun of the apn’i a-
bulity of subparagraph (A, to st-en s.:r - ‘e
Impoundment. Such oener or operSI,F ..‘!
prot ide ecidence pertuieni to su”s e i- ,i•v ,
including eviden”e as tO cO!iL,’. ,Ir,Se ‘a. h
ground water monitoring requurt-mti and
all reasonably ascertainable etidene. on
-------
July 25, 1984
a precondition to land disposal. For wastes
with a high organic content, Incineration
should be required in lieu of land disposal.
Slid iucinerator residues with small amounts
of inorganic hazardous wastes may be land
disposed aithout further treatment.
Determinations for treatment require-
ments prior to land disposal do not have to
be on a aaste.by.waste basis The Adminis-
trator is not required to Lalt for the sched-
ule established under paragraphs (4), (5),
and (61 of new section 3004(b) to make de-
terminations for wastes aith similar con-
stituents. The Administrator may make “ge-
neric” determinations of appropriate levels
or methods of treatment for similar aastes.
CERTAIN LAND DISPOSAL PRACTICES
• Mr. JOHNSTON. My question con-
cerns the scope of paragraph (7) of the
land-disposal provisions as modified by
amendment 2798. For example, the
drycleaning industry has developed
new treatment technology and tech-
niques which reduce the perchloroeth-
ylene content of Its wastes belo 2.8
percent. Preliminary testing indicates
that leachate from such wastes con-
tains very little perc. Would paragraph
(7) be applicable to this type of treat-
ment?
• Mr. CHAFEE. Yes; one objective of
amended paragraph (7) is to give EPA
the discretion to authorize the la.nd
disposal of wastes which have been
treated. The focus of the amended lan-
guage is the protection of health and
the environment by diminishing toxic-
ity of wastes or reducing migration of
hazardous constituents In wastes,
Thus, if wastes treated as you describe
are of low toxicity or if leachate from
them contains safe levels of hazardous
constituents, EPA may, in its discre-
tion, promulgate regulations specify-
ing the cirumstances In which land
disposal is authorized. In considering
such questions, EPA bill almost as-
suredly take into account whether vast
quantities or only small amounts of
such wastes are generated. I would an-
ticipate that EPA will promptly deter-
mine, whether such wastes meet the
criteria In paragraph (7) and then pro-
mulgate the necessary regulations
within the specified time. In making
this determination, EPA will certainly
use the best Information available to it
at the tlme.•
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY APPLICATION 0? RE-
QUIREMENT TO CONDYCT CROUND WATER MON-
ITORING
This amendment will provide an incentive
for the de elopment of safer and more pro-
t.ective land disposal methods for hazardous
waste. ft would do so b) gi ing the Adminis-
trator of EPA the authority, under certain
limited circumstances, to e’cempt facilities
from the groundwater monitoring require-
nient now included in S. 757.
The requirement for groundwater moni-
toring at conventional landfills, surface im-
poundments, and other treatment, storage
or disposal facilites as set forth in the Bill,
is retain. This amendment would authorize
waiver of these requirements only when
EPA can find that they are unnecessary. In
order to make this finding, the Administra-
tor aould ha e to conclude that the facility
would, in essence, be designed to incorpo-
rate the functional equivalent of ground-
water monitoring within its self-contained
CONGRESSIONALRECORD — SENATE
structure. EPA could not make such a find-
ing for a conventional land disposal facility.
A facility which could qualify for the ex-
emption under this amendment must first
of all be an engineered structure ahich re-
cei es only aaste that is in solid form, such
as contaminated soil or debris, or has been
solidified. A facility accepting liquid waste.
or aaste containing free liquids, aould be
disqualified from further consideration for
the exemption A qualifying structure a ould
also have to be engineered to have inner
and outer layers of containment enclosing
the aaste
The facility would also have to meet an
additional series of stringent protective
standards. It must be designed and operated
to keep out water from precipitation or run-
of I. This means that the intrinsic engineer-
ing of the structure must keep aater away
from the waste. A conventional clay or syn-
thetic cap would not be good enough. The
facility would also have to incorporate inter-
nal leak detection and leachate collection
systems, These systems, which would be
built into the structure at each internal con-
tainment layer aould provide the functional
equivalent of grounds ater monitoring. In
the unlikely event that any leachate did
form, the detection systems would signal
the operator before any leachate reached
the outer layer of containment.
An example of such a structure could be
an above grade concrete bunker or vault
within ahich waste would be placed, totally
surrounded by multiple liners, and ahich
would include internal leak detection sys-
tems above, between, and below the internal
liners. An above grade bunker can be de-
signed so that rainfall sould run off the
structure asay from the aa.ste. This would
be in contrast to traditional below grade
landfills ahere the rainwater can penetrate
through the surface above the waste and
move down through the waste, carrying
leachate to groundwater.
Finally, the Administrator could not
exempt any structure unless he was reason-
ably certain that no hazardous constituents
from the facility sould get out of the struc-
ture and reach ground, groundwater, or sur-
face water. In other words, he aould have to
be sure, under reasonably foreseeable cir-
cumstances, that the structure would safely
contain the waste and its constituents.
Thus, the amendment does not give the
EPA Administrator unbridled discretion to
ignore the basic intent of the Bill It does
give him the authonty to exempt ground-
water monitoring when he finds that such
monitoring would be unnecessary or redun-
dant. It also gives the hazardous waste dis-
posal Industry an incentive to design facili-
ties which are inherently safer and more
protective.
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY SCOPE OF NEW SECTION
2004 E l DAN ON CERTAIN WELLS
New Section 3004(e) as added by S. 757
would preclude the injection of ground
water contaminated with hazardous waste
into or above formations containing under-
ground sources of drinking water e en
a here 5UCh injection is part of a clean-up
action under the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response. Compensation and Liabil-
ity Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or RCRA. This
amendment will clarify the intent of that
provision and give EPA the discretion to
allow the use of Class IV s-ells in certain
limited circumstances to conduct clean.up
operations
The injection of hazardous waste into or
above drinking water sources is an inherent-
ly dangerous disposal practice that poses an
unacceptable risk to human health and the
environment. This amendment does not
alter the intent that such injection facilities
S9179
be properly closed in short order and that
new facilities not be allowed in the future.
While a-e seek to establish a complete pro.
hibition on such Injection as a disposal tech-
niquc. we recognize the potential value of
such injection practices as an integral part
of some clcan-up actions at hazardous waste
sites. The pumping, treatment and re-in j c-
tion of already contaminated water may be
the preferred removal or remedial tech.
nique to assure adequate clean-up in a cost
effective manner. We do not intend to bar
such injections when they are environmen-
tally beneficial and conducted solely as a
means of clean-up, rather than as a form of
initial disposal. The prohibition, therefore.
is not intended to extend to those situations
where injection into or above drinking
water sources is used as a method to clean-
up contaminated aqulliers at hazardous
waste sites and the clean’up plan has been
appro ed under the procedures estabi shed
under this Act or under the Comprehensi e
En ironmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act.
AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY AUThORITY OF ADMIN-
ISTRATOR TO MODIFY APPLICATION 0? CER-
TAIN REQUIREMENTS TO SOME MINING
WASTEs
This amendment would modify and
expand a prmision of Section 6(a) of S. 757,
as reported, concerning the authority of the
Administrator of EPA to modify certain re-
quirements that might become applicable to
some mining wastes under Subtitle C of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act.
The amendment provides that. if certain
mining wastes become subject to regulation
as hazardous wastes, the Administrator of
EPA ha.s the authority to modify the re-
quirement.s of new subsections (b). (f)(1).
and (g) of section 3004 regarding land dis-
posal limitations, minimum technological
requirements for new landfills and surface
impoundments (other than the groundwater
monitoring requirement), and correcti e
action for releases of hazardous a aste. as
they apply to landfills and surface impound-
ments recei ing such mining wastes, to take
into account the special characteristics Ce g.
high-volume, low-toxicity) of the mining
wastes, the practical difficulties associated
with the implementation of such require’
ments. and various site-specific factors. The
modified requirements would continue to be
subject to and must satisfy the laws under-
lying requirement and ultimate standard
that RCRA regulations assure protection of
human health and the environment. Practi-
cal or economic considerations can only be
used to select among alternative require.
ments which assure protection of human
health and the environment.
The l,uirpose of this amendment is simply
to assure that if the Administrator of EPA
decides to regulate mining wastes under
Subtitle C. he is not limited to the regula-
tory framework or standards that are de el-
oped under section 3004(b), (f)(l). and (g)
for hazardous chemical wastes. The Com-
mittee Report (at p. 28-29) includes a de.
scription of some mining wastes and some of
the reasons it may be inappropriate to sub-
ject them to the same requirements which
apply to other types of waste.
Retention of the requirement that protec-
tion of human health and the en ironment
be assured is not intended to invoke a spe-
cific technical standard of containment.
such as a “no migration” standard Such an
interpretation would in fact completely
frustrate the purpose of the amendment. In
this context the phrase Is used in a broad,
over-arching, nontechnical sense, a hich can
only be translated into technical standards
-------
S9180
MiRiNG W&STE AMENDMENt
• Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I
wish to comment briefly on the mining
waste amendment which is included in
the package of committee amend-
ments. -
After S. 757 was reported it came to
my attention that some high-volume,
low-toxicity mining wastes might
become subject to regulation under
RCRA. This would not necessarily be
Inappropriate, but what did concern
me was the possibility that such
wastes might became subject to stand-
ards and regulations developed in an
entirely different context solely for
the purpose of containing highly toxic
chernic’al wastes.
This amendment was designed to
ensure that the law will not rcqu:re
that mining wastes simply be lumped
together with hazardous chemical
wastes.
The amendment provides that if cer-
thin mining wastes become subject to
regulation as hazardous wastcs the Ad-
ministrator of EPA will have the au-
thority to modify the reqiurements of
the act regarding land disposal liinita-
tions, minimum technological require-
ments for new landfills and surface
impoundments—other than the
ground water monitoring require-
ment—and corrective action for re-
leases of hazardous waste, as they
apply to such mining wastes, to take
Into account the special characteristics
of the mining wastes, the practical dif-
ficulties associated with the manage-
ment of such wastes, and various site-
specific factors. The modified require-
ments wouLd continue to be subject to
the underlying requirement that they
always assure protection of human
health and the environment, which is,
of course, the goal of all of the major
environmental Laws.
I think that It is important to point
out tint protect ion of public health
and the environment Is a broad, over-
arching goal, which is only ghen pre-
cise meaning within the context of a
specific regulatory decision. Conse-
quently, the Ac’minlstrator would not
be bound by a decision made in a dif-
ferent factual context in determining
the appropriate manner in which to
regulate mining wastes.
I wish to extend my gratitude to the
‘loot manager of S. ‘157. Senator
:ssArEE, for recognizing this problem
Lrtd working closely with me to resolve
with this amendment, -
laiN REQUIREMENTS TO SOME MINING
W ast Es.
• Mr. RANDOLPH. I am pleased to
join as a sponsor of this amendment,
and I agree with the description of the
intent and need for this amendment
given by the distinguished floor manS
ager (Mr. Cn;rzsl.
This amendment Is a clarification of
the Administrator’s existing authority.
As we have made clear In the report
and with other amendments, the Ad-
ministrator is able to choose from a
range of regulatory options that will
satisfy the mandate that protection of
human health and the environment be
assured. When faced with a specific
problem, the Administrator can often
identify several options, each of which
would protect human health and the
envzronmenL The Administrator is not
required to select the option that
would satisfy the statutory mandate in
the most simple or most cost-effective
manner. He has a responsibility to
protect human health and the envi-
ronment and, as such, may choose
among several approaches. The selec-
tion of a particular approach is con-
sistent with the law if it satisfies the
statutory mandate and is not an arbi-
trary or capricious decision. Distinc-
tions often can be and are made on the
basis of w-aste characteristics, waste
management practices and locational
criteria. This amendment will simply
clarify the Administrator’s existing au-
thority to make such distinctions in
the specified instances. A letter from
Administrator Ruckelshaits to Senator
Sisirsort dated April 26. 1984, sets
forth the Administrator’s interpreta-
tion of EPA’s existing authority to
make such distinctions, and I ask to
hate it included In the Rccono at this
point.
The letter follows:
ENvutosMEstat. PROTECIION Mcscv.
%t’cshtnplon, D C. April 26. 1984.
Hon. Aijy , K. SIMPSON.
(1.5. Senate. WcsPttngfon. DC.
Draa Az..tx: This responds to your letter of
April 11. 1984. reqiiest!ng clarafication of
EPA’s authority to modify the Subtitle C ,
standards for mining wastes stibject, to regit
lation under ECRA. As you know, mining
wastes are tempoitri ly excluded from regu-
tatton under Subtitir C of 1ICRA bs Section
3001(bi(3XA). pending completion of a
siudy mandated by Sections 8002(1 ) and (p 1
of the Act. Our current plan is 10 submit
this report to Congress in the summer of
1985. Section 3001(b t3XC) of RCRA re
quires EPA within six months of subinicting
the altAr to determine (after notice and
comment I ahetner to promut,ratt’ regula-
tions for these wastes. If regL!auons are
deemed warranted, the rulemaking process
will be initiated. This process generali )
takes tao years to complete.
EPA’s mandate under Subtitle C I s to
wr:te reguiations for hazardous waste ihat
protect human health and the entironment.
This does not preclude the Agency from
taktng into account the special ctiaracterts-
tics of the waste a hcn writing regulations.
Thus. if a design standard is technically In-
feasiole. or there are other methods to
achieve the same protection at a loser cost.
the Agency is allowed to modify the Subtitle
July 23. 1984
C standards for t he particular waste. CPA is
not authorized, however. to talior the stand’
ards if the sole reason for doing so is the
high cost of the prescnbed technology. -
Thc Senate bill provides detailed direction
on how to modif) the exist,ng hazardous
waste rules, but does not pretent the
Agency from designing special standards for
mining saste aithin the framework of this
directite. Two protislons in the bill appear
to be generating particular concern. The
first rectiires a double liner and leachate
collectton under new or e’ctensions of existS
tog disposal units. The bill allows the use of
alternatite deagn and Operatina practaces
that pros ide equivalent protection of
roundwater and surface water. This vari-
ance could be applied, for example. where
in,tall,ng such a liner and leachate collec ’
tion system is Infeasible or ineffective. The
second pro; Ision of concern Is the prohibI-
tIon on land disposal of hazardous wastes
that contain significant concentrations of
highly toxic, highly mobile and htgi iP
b,oaccuntuiative constituents. EPA has not
det eloped the criteria for determining
which wastes to ban, or completed the
mining waste study discussed above, we
hate difficulty, therefore, predicting the
effect of the provis on on the mining indus-
try. We would note. however. that, even if
some mining wastes were banned, a pending
amtndnient to the bitt autho;izes EPA to
prescribe pretreatment standards that allow
d.sposal of such wastes where the mobility
or toxicity of the constituents can be sub-
stanttaily minimized.
The deitrability of Increasing EPK5 flesh
btity when wntirtg standards for mining
wastes can be better assessed after the Sac-
tton 8002 mining waste study is completed.
and the public has been given an opportuni-
t to comment on it. As noted aboie. mining
wastes will likely not become subject to reg-
ulation until at least 1988. It may be better
to allow EPA to gather additional Informa-
tion on these wastes before amending the
statute to pro; ide EPA further discretion
Sincerely,
WnsiaM D. Rucicn.sisuis
• Mr. RANDOLPH. Of course. we rec-
ognize that under the ongoing reexam-
lnat!on of v-hat wastes the mining
waste suspension should apply to.
some wastes nncludng previously
listed wastes) may be regulated earlier
than 1988 or even earlier than the con-
clusion of the study.
in adopting this clarIfying amend.
mesa, we strike from the bill the
mining waste waiver provisions of sec-
tion 3Ou4tflil) as no longer needed.
The description of those provtsions in
the committee report, however, are a
good dcscriptton of our understanding
and intent for the amendment we are
adopting, and I ask that the Appropri-
ate portion of the report on S. 7b7 be
included in the RECORD at thit point
The material foflows.
M INiNG Wasms
Also lncludcd in this amendment is a pro.
;isicii w E lch ai,thorizes the Adinir.,stra’.,r
to promulgate an excep on to the doucle
llnt’r- leachair coilertion system rect,,;e-
ment for certain wastes geneaated b the
mm mc iiidttstrv. The 1980 amendmeii; . to
the 5o.d Waste Dispocal Act tsect,on
300 Li b s 3i 1 A iii:)) d,t-ferrcd fro m cot err ;e
under subtitle C, send wastes from tIme ex-
traction. beneficiation and processing of
ores and minerals Including phosphate rock.
and oterburden from uranium maning.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
after careful consIderation of all of the fac- AMENDMENT TO CLARiFY atrriioititt OF ADMiN ’
tots enumerated In the amendment. . ss’raaroa To MoDIFY arFt.tcATtoN or cut-
This amendment Is a clarification of the
Admlntstratror’s existing authority. -As with
chemical and other hazardous wastes, the
Administrator is able to choose from a
range of regulatory options that will satisfy
the mandate that protection of human
health and the environment be assured.
When faced with a specific problem, the Ad-
ministrator can often identify several op-
tions, each of which would protect human
health and the en; ironment,
-------
July. . ‘5, 1984
pending completion of the studies mandated
under section 8002 if) and (Pt. Those EPA
ctu&es hare not been completed. When the
iii rc comp! ted. the EPA is required
to de’rrrnine which of thc e wastes sl’ou ld
be regt:lated under subtitle C.
Solid wastes from.mining and mineral
benehelation and processing are primar.iy
weste rock from the extraction process and
crushed rock, commonly cnll o ¶.ai1in s. pro-
duced from concentra:lng stras such as
grinding, crushing, sortu g, sizing, classif ca.
tion. V.ashLng, dewatering, axncjgamajon,
gravity treatment, flotation. agq’onieration
and cyanide ion. The 19i0 amendments coy-
eird esstes from the initial zta es of miner-
al processing, ahere eox,:entrations of mm-
ei-.ils of value are grectly jr reased through
pln cal means, before aopl nig secondary
prccesses sji:i a” p ron&ct&mirgcal or elec-
troiitie methods Smelter slag might also be
included. Massi e vc!umes of this aaste ore
are produced nnuaIl at mining and miner-
al pro”c’s:ng fawlities—roughly est mated
by she A. erican M.’ur’g Congress (AMC) to
be aDprcximately L75 billion tons in a typi-
cal year, whh h Is clearly significantly great-
er in volume than the sOlid waste generated
by all outer in4ustrmes combined. These
wastes aei-e considered “special v.astes”
under the 1978 proposed regulations as
being of large volume ana reIati ely low
hazard.
On an Individual mine bas’s. past AMC es-
tuna’ i s for a typical lead, zinc underground
th:c rcdLemg 5000u tons of metal per
year requires reino al of as much as 5.000—
6.000 tons per day of rock. Thai tom,age
breaks dovn as folloas. roughly 1,000 tons
per day of development rock, which is the
rock that has to be removed to reach the
ore, and 4.000 to 5.000 tons of mineral bear-
ing ore. 01 that 4,000-5,000 tons of ore. 150
to 200 tons of mineral concentrate are pro-
duu’d. Because of such large volumes of
waste and rock tailings, mine surface im-
poundments and landfills typically cover
large areas close to the mine. Th se land
dl po l facilities, unlike those of other in-
dustri.’s. of t ”n cannot be dredged, bulldozed
or dug Out of the earth, and co er very large
areas a here the corresponding natural fea-
tures, such as boulders, trees, stumps, de-
pre sions. and elesatlons, cannot always be
reasona ll, cleared or excavated in connec-
tion a ith disposal Maintaining the integrity
of a liner with the massive weight of typical
mining waste would be extrpmely difficult,
Consequently, lining such areas may be im-
practical in many cases.
If landfills and surface impoundments
containing mining arid mmntral pro’ essing
a sates are determined by toe Administrator
to be appropriate for regulation widei- sub-
title C after conclusion of the studies man-
dated under setion 8002 (1) and (p) of the
Act, new sr:tfon 3004(f) req nies groundwat.
er monitoring at the site and , hatever
other requirements are necessary for the
landfill or Impoundment to azzitre time pro-
t.ecuon of human health and the er-iron-
ment. The Administrator m’i t dete’min ,
however, whether to modif’. the ataLt ,ry
double liner-leachate cOllectIon system re-
qufrernenl for such mining wastes, and if he
determines that requirement is not neces-
sary to protect human health and Lhe enti-
ronment, he may promulgate substitute re-
quirements, The amendment. thLreiore,
prcser’.cs the performance standard .t of sub-
title C but prosides the Agency aith the
flexibility It needs to deterr. lne the most
approp!!ate approach to manage the par-
tlculsr hp ardous aaste at the site The
amendment does not preclude FPA from re-
quiring double lining of landlills or surface
inipotandmenta for mining and mineral proc.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
es’Ing wastes in those eases where it is ap-
propriate to do so,
In making a determinatIon on whether or
not an exceot.on to the double liner require-
ment for mining baste Is appropriate, EP.
is to coimsider ahether the mo uied reqoire-
ments assure protection of human health
and the entironment, l’i-actical or economic
consideral loims can only be used to select
smong alternative requirements ah,ch
assure protection of human health and the
environment.
The mining aaste modifIcation autt’ormty
of this amendment does not cover aastes
specifically listed as hazardous aastes prior
to the 1980 legislation because of their has-
ardous natures
A!5ENDMEX T TO ASSURE THAT ‘IRE SOLID V. 5tZ
DISPosAL ACT ASICNDMZNm or 1954 DO NOT
AFFECT, MODIFY, OR AMr,YD ThE URANIUM
MILL TAILINGS RADIA rION cori’rRoL sc-s or
1975, AS AMEND
This .an endment Is designed to assure
that the Solid Waste Di’ipusal Act Amend-
ments of 1984 do not affect, mo2ify, or
amend the Uranium Tailings Radiation
Control Act of 1978. as amended
S. 757, as it was reported from Committee,
includes a number of pro mslortc shich, if
adopted In their present form, tracy have a
significant impact on the re u ai.iry pro-
giam established by the Congr (,ir uiaztm-
urn mill tailings. Tnat program Is now Un-
deraay pursuant to (lie Uraniuiim Mill Tell-
ngs Radiation Control Act of 1978, as
amended (UMTrfCAI_1.he statute that es-
tablishes the basic tramework and the un-
derlying legal authority for uranium mill
tailings regulation,
A question was raised during the Commit.
tee’s consideration of this b’ll as to whether
the restrictions on land dIsposal contained
in section 5 are intended to apply to urani-
um or thorium t.ailing i. subject to regulation
under UMTRCA. As stated in the Commit-
tee Report at page 21, section 5 Is not in-
tended to affect the statutory program that
has been established by Congress in
UMTRCA.
In addition to section 5 of the bill, it ap-
pears that there are other provisions of S.
757 ahicn may. In the absence of further
clarification, also have an impact on the
regulatory program for uranium mill tail-
ings, Although 8. 757 does not directly
amend UMIRCA. It does change, in a
number of respects, the Solid Waste Dispos-
al Act. And because UMTRCA requires that
certain standai ds promulgated pursuant to
UM’TRCA “shall provide for the protection
of huuman health and the environment con-
sistent a’Lh the standards required under
subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended, which are applicable to such
hazards’, it does, in fact, appear that the
potential eaists for construing 8. 757 as re-
caring cha’iges In the uranium mill tailings
regulatory program. In order to ensure con-
tlnu:niz “coimsistcncy” a ith the standards of
the Solid Vv as ’,e Disposal Act, as amended.
This is not the Committee’s Intent, and
this amendment is Intended to clarify that
nothing in 8, 757 is irnendid to affect.
modify. er amend IJMTRCA —the basic stat-
utory aulho it3 for the regulation of mill
tailings. Sim’larly, the Committee did not
intend to alter amend, repeal, ratify, or sims-
pem.d a’iy of the regulations or standards of
the Nuclear Reguliitory Commission or the
Environmental Protectton Agency, If they
were lawfully promulgated to accordance
with the requtremneists of UMTRCA,
S. 757 is not in’ended, alid ahould riot he
construed, to require changes in the rcgula-
tory program for mill tailines that Is now
underway in order to satis1 the statutory
requirement of (iM’i’l CA that certain
S9J81
atandard,s promulgatcd under that Act for
the regulation of uranium mill tailings
ho;iId be “consistent” with the standards
of the Sold Waste Disposal Act, as smend-
ed. To the extent that S, 757 adds to. or
rno.iiflc the pros mr’ons of. the Solid ‘.Va;te
0’ ,i,o al Act. as amrnded, this anieniniefli
aoti’d Clarify that the iirrrium mill ta.hngz
regulatory program ni-ed not be charged to
meet theae nev or modi!mei reruu:r,rn mta
for the purp se of s tisfying the stat utory
requirrrn nts of UMrRCA titat certain
standards promulgated pursuant to
Ut 1TRCA shall be consIstent with the
standards of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
as amendt d.
The regulatory program promulgated pur-
suant to UMTRCA Is a controversial pro-
gram that Is being challenged in the courts
b ’ both ens Ironmental groups and industry
Both the standards promulgated by EPA
and the regulations p 1 ’omulgated by NRC
are Li question. By adopting this amend-
ment. Congress is neither endorsing nor
criticizing the existing regulator) program.
I should like to emphasize that this
amcndnient would not limit or utamern’ise
aflcct In any way the Administrators au-
titority or flexibility to treat uranium mill
talings wastes in a fashion similar to the
approach taken for all other mining aostes
that are sL,b)ect to regulation undur ItCR 5..
Indeed, if the Administrator should decide
to e.cercise his authority to tailor the ic-
qulrements of RCRA to address the special
charaeter’si ics of mining wastes, in gener-
al—an aiidi3rity whIch, in a separate
amendment, we have confirmed the current
laer pioi’mdvs.—then the Administrator shall.
if he dce:n, it appropriate, pursue a similar
approach for uranium mill tailing aastes.
I would also note that, in several in-
stanee . this bIll either endorses or repeals
existing port inns of EPA’s RCRA regulatory
program. By doing so. and by being silent on
other portions of that program, we do not
intend to tacitly endorse portiuns of the
RCRA reg-jiations. The volume end corn-
pleaty of these reguls’ions mal i ’ such an
assumpt on unreasonable.
WIMIIUiC MILL TAILISC5 AMERDM5t 1
• Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am
most grateful for the efforts of the
Senator from Rhode Island and of his
staff to assist us In the resolution of
this complex Issue, and I am p1casm d to
Join him as a cosponsor of this amend-
ment, I trust that this provision will
serve to clarify much of the confusion
that might otherwise hai’e arisen over
the applicability of the various new or
amended prosrisions included in 5. ‘:57,
and therc’ y we can enDble the Ulalli-
urn r I:Ii Tailmgs Reg’ alato y Program
to move fora aid. In addition, I am
pleased to have the Important assur-
ances of the Senator from Rhode
Island that the Adrn nistraor of A
has the broad Iat!tude to trt’at uranl.
urn mill tallings wastes In a f hlon
similar to (lie aporo ch thi-.t hc takes
for all other mining wastes co ered by
RCRA, and that he is arreenhle to
confirming this broad dis,retionary
author 1y- in a separate arner da: enL
agreed to by the Senate on Li :s bt I
Indeed, since uranIum mill tn:lln;s
wastes are similar In natuz-c to t’i: ;
m.ning wastes bei: u,e of their hi li
volume. low-tox!:lty nature, sta’t i,n
apprcach makes a great de’i1 of :‘t.e
and It c.’ould satisfy the reqiiirt’ment
-------
W
Subtitle B—Amendments Primarily to Section 3005
AUTHORITY FOR PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT.
STORAGE. OR DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SEC. 211. Section 3005ca1 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
amended by—
(1) striking “a” immediately after “owning or operating” in
the first sentence and inserting in Lieu thereof “an existing
facility or planning to Construct a new”;
(2) inserting in the second sentence “and the construction of
any new facility for the treatment, storage, or disposal of any
such hazardous waste” immediately after “any such hazardous
waste”; and
(3) adding the following at the end thereof: “No permit shall
be required under this section in order-to construct a facility if
such facility is constructed pursuant to an approval issued by
the Administrator under section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act for the incineration of polycholorinated biphenyls
and any person owning or operating such a facility may, at any
time after operation or construction of such facility has begun,
file an application for a permit pursuant to this section author-
izing such facility to incinerate hazardous waste identified or
Listed under this subtitle.”.
Cc -’f, !1r T, ’i’f
SECTION 21 1—AUTHORITy TO CONSTRUCT HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL FACILITIES
House bilL—No provision.
Senate amendment.—The Senate amendment clarifies EPA’s au-
thority to require a permit to construct a Subtitle C facility and re-
moves an inconsistency between the Toxic Substances Control Act
and RCRA regulations regarding the construction of an incinerator
for the destruction of PCBs.
Conference substitute.—The Conference substitute is the same as
the Senate amendment.
-------
S9 “ 1 J J)
96
AUTHORiTY FOR PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT HAZARDOUS
WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL FACiLITY
SEC. 38. Section 3005(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act is amended by—
(1) striking “a” immediately after “owning or op-
erating” in the first sentence and inserting in lieu
the reof “an existing facility or planning to construct a
new’
(2) inserting in the second sentence “and the con-
struct ion of any new facility for the treatment, storage,
or disposal of any such hazardous waste” immediately
after “any such hazardous waste ‘ and
(3) striking the period after ‘ perinit” and insert-
ing in lieu thereof the following: “ Provided, however,
That no permit shall be required under this section in
order to construct a facility if such facility is con-
structed pursuant to an approval issued by the Admin-
istrator under section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act for the incineration of polycholorinated bi-
phenyls and any person owning or operating such a fa-
cility may, at any time after operation or construction
of such facility has begun, file an application for a
permit pursuant to this section authorizing such facili-
ty to incinerate hazardous waste identified or listed
under this subtitle. ‘
HR 2fi67 LAS
-------
S9174
whether such surface impoundment is leak-
ing. As part of such evidence an owner or
operator relying on subparagraph (A)(i) or
( Ii) shall provide a certification by a regis-
tered professional engineer with academic
training and e zper1ence In ground water hy-
drology that (o such surface Impoundment
is riot located in an area of vulnerable hy-
drogeology, (ii) the liner of such surface un-
poundnienl is de.cinged, constructed and op-
erated In accordance aith the requirements
of regulations, and (iii) based on a ret iew of
ground aater monitoring information and
other available information, there is no evi-
dence such liner is lealcing, As part of such
evidence an owner or operator relying on
subparagraph (C) shall provine a certifica-
tion bY a registered professional engineer
with academic training and experrence in
ground a ater hydrololgy that such surface
impoundment satisfies the conditions set
forth in clauses i, u, and (ilu of subpara-
graph (C). based on analysis of those toxic
polluntants and hazardous constituents that
are likely to be present in the untreated
waste stream, and that hazardous constitu-
ents are not likely to migrate from the im-
poundment Into ground aater. Within
twelve months after the receipt of such evi-
dence and not later than 36 months after
such date of enactment, and after notice
and opportunity for comment, the Adminis-
trator (or. if appropriate, the State) shall
athise such owner or operator on the appli-
esbility of subparagraph (A) to such surface
Impoundment.
‘lE) In any case in whIch a surface tin-
poundment Is initially determined to be ex-
cluded from the requirements of subpara-
graph (A) but due to a change In condition
subsequently becomes subject to subpara-
graph (A). the period for compliance in sub-
paragraph (A) shall be two years after the
date of discovery of such change of condi-
tion. In any case in which a surface Un-
poundment becomes subject to subpara-
graph (A) after the date of enactment of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments
of 1984 due to the promulgation of addition-
al listings or characteristics for the identifi-
cation of hazardous wastes under section
3001. the period for compliance in subpara-
graph (A) shall be four years after the date
of such promulgation, the period for demon.
stations under subparagraph (B) and for
submission of evidence under subparagraph
(D) shall be not later than 24 months after
the date of such promulgation, and the
period for the Administrator (or, I I appro-
priate, the State) to advise such owners or
operators under subparag?aphs (B) and (D
shall be not later than 36 months after the
date of promulgation.
“(F) In the case of any surface impound-
ment is which the liners and leak detection
system have been installed pursuant to the
requirements of this Paragraph and in good
laitl% compliance with section 3004(f) and
the Administrator’s regulations and guid-
ance documents governing liners and leak
detection systems, no liner or leaf detection
syalem ahich is different from that which
was no installed pursuant to tha paragr_ph
s?tall be required for such unit by the Ad-
min!strator when issuing the first permit
under this section to such facility, Nothing
in this subparagraph shall preclude the Ad-
ministrator from requiring instalation of a
nea liner then the Adrnin.strator has
reason to believe that any liner installed
pursuant to the requirements of this para-
graph Is leaking.
(U) For the purposes of subparagraph
(A’iu), a surface impoundment I located in
an area of vulnerabte hydrogeology if the
impoiinament is over or h drologrcally con-
nected to—
“(U a sole source aquifer, or
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
9iU a formation which contains an under-
ground source of drinking water if such for-
mation or the unsaturated soils hydrologi-
cally connected to such formation are char-
acterized by high hydraulic conductivity of
permeability (including karat formations,
and medium.to-course-grairied materials or
fractured rock) or are geologically unstable,
and there Is no intert’enmg natural barrier
formamtion that would significantly restrict
migration of waste constituents.”.
On page 4L line 2, before the quotation
msrits insert the foflowinr
“The Adminstrator shall promulgate regu-
lations or issule guidance documents imple-
menting the requirements of paragraph (1)
within two years after such date of enact-
ment. Until the effective date of such regu-
lations or guidance documents, the require-
ment for the Installation of tao or more
liners may be satisfied by the Installation of
a top liner designed, operated, and con-
structed of materials to prevent the migra-
tion of any constituent into such liner
during the period such facility remains In
operation (including any post-closure moni-
toring period), arid a lower liner designed,
operated and constructed to pretent the mi-
gration of any constituent through such
liner durinit such period. For the purpose of
the preceding sentence, a lower liner shall
be deemed to satisfy such requirement if It
Is constructed of at least a three-foot thick
layer of recompacteti clay or other natural
material with a permeability of no more
than Lx 10- ‘centimeter per second.”,
On page 43, line 7, strike “section” and
insert In lieu thereof “subsection”,
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Is
there further debate on the amend-
ment? If not, the question Is on agree-
ing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3409) was
agreed to.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send
to the desk a series of explanations of
the amendments which have just been
agreed to. These explanations are in
the same sequence as the arnendnients
sent to the delk and considered en
bloc and can be identified by the title
at the top. I hsk that they be printed
in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the mate-
rial was ordered to be prir ted in the
REcoiw, as fol1ow
AMLNDMENT TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN VDJUOUS
SEC’rIO?f S OF T BILL.,
8. 757 contains numerous statutory dead.
lines for various actions and decisions by
EPA. Since reporting the bill, we have met
on set eral occasions a ith repreaentattvcs of
EPA to assure that the deadli ’es are reason-
able and attainabie, EPA requested several
deadline extensions and assured us that
they could meet the new deadlines we have
agreed to. This an endnient wiU make those
changes,
As modified by this amendment, new sec-
tion 300.tibi6)A) req dres EPA to publish.
not later than t 4 months after enactment, a
schedule for deciding ahether or not to re-
strict the land disposal of wastes listed
under Section 3001. ThIs schedule must pro.
vide for review and decision on at least one•
third of the listed wastes withIn 48 months
after enactment, for at. least two thirds 01
the listed wastes within 60 months alter en-
actment. and all listed wastes not later than
the date ‘12 months after enactment. These
fractions refer to the number of vastcs
listtd. and riot the tolurne of aastes listed.
The schedule mandated by subsection
(b)(6XA) must be based on environmental
considerations and objectives. It Is not cx-
July 25, 1984
pected that EPA will know which wastes it
intends to propose to ban prior to publica-
tion of the schedule, therefore We do not
expect EPA to place in the first third aa.stes
which will be restricted and in the last third
wastes which will not be restricted. Hoaev-
er, In establishing the schedule. EPA must
consider factors such as the Intrinsic hazard
of a waste. In evaluating the intrinsic
hazard of a waste. EPA should consider a
wastas toxicity and may consider other fac-
tors such as mob.l’t)’. persistence and pro-
pensity to bioaccumulate. In addition. LPA
must consider the volume of a waste gener-
ated or managed in land disposal. Accord.
Ingly, large volume wastes with a high in-
trinsic hazard shall be placed in the first
third and so on, with low hazard, low
volume wastes in the last third. Because of
the relatively short time frame for publics’
tion of the schedule, we expect EPA to rely
on existing data for determining taste t’ol-
untes.
As introduced on March 15. 1984. amend’
ment number 2804 aould have simply ex
tended the deadlines in section 5 on land
disposal limitations. Concern was expressed
that, without the imposition of a statutory
standard, pressure would be placed on EPA
to establish a schedule that would place
high-volume wastes and wastes with high
Lntr nsic hazard In the last third and that
decisions whether to prohibit the land dis-
posal of such wastes would not occur for 72
months. Such a result would be unaccept-
able. Therefore, the amendment ass modi’
fled to include a mandatory. JudIcially en-
forceable, statutory standard for the ached-
We.
AME (DMENT TO CLARITY ADMINISTRATOR’S AD’
THORITY TO RCQVIRE A PCRMIT TO conS
5TRL ’CT A HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMEST.
STORROL OR DISPOSAL FACILITY
On May 19, 1980. EPA promulgated regu-
lations establishing procedures for permit-
ting hazardous waste management facilities,
Among other things, these regulations pro-
hibit the construction of new facilities
before the Issuance of a RCRA permit. See
40 C.FR. 1270.10C1)(i). This amendment
will clarify the Administrator’s authority to
require a RCRA permit to construct a haz-
ardous aaste treatment, storage, or disposal
fadllity and codify that portion of the May
19, 1980 regulations.
One purpose of this provision is to provide
the Agency with an opportunity to review
the choice of location for such facilities
before there has been a significant commit-
ment of resources. Recent studies have con-
cluded that locational characteristics and
requirements are at least as Important to
protection of human health and the envi-
ronment as are minimum technological
characteristics and requirements. For exam-
ple, although double liners and leak detee.
tion systems are an iznprot ement ot er the
current most aidely used technology, the
fact that double liners are known to e’ entu-
ally leak means that eten Such double-lIned
faci ties may nOt be Protective of human
health and the ent’itonment ii the are lo-
cateci in areas of vulnerable hydrogeology,
The need for EPA to establish and enforce
locational criteria is as essential to protec-
tion of human health and the environment
as is the need for periodic ret ision of tech.
nological standards.
As tntrodiced on March 15. 1084. this
amendcipnt ret’caled an inconlistenr-v be-
(seen the EPA regulations ui d r the Toxic
S ’ih tances Control A t (T&’A) an the rc’g-
ulations under RCRA affecting the con-
struction and operat.on 02 land bases incin•
erarors. Under RCRA, no construction tray
begin prior to receipt of a final RCRA
p2/i
-------
Ju ly 25, 7984
permit. Under T WA. the process for cbtan-
trig EPA apprc;ai of an :rcinerator Is cu cr-
ally to construct tI’e facility, seek rplim;&l
of a trial burn i3fl. conouct the Inn burn
and tht’n r?ce.;’e a fia l TSCA approt ai
(the analogue of a itC)ZA pirnit). Titus. a
company s :n to COiitiruCt en tncii.erator
capable of burrtin; P(’k s and other Inrard’
ous asset r’ ulcttd uitucr is piaced
in the aLiontolous positiean of 1,. .ng lotted to
choose betsti- ettMr seekr. a RCRA
permit for the futility, finit.r c wnriusion
of the ItCRA permit proccecing, then brain.
ning construction and the start cf the TSCA
approt al procrs or aharidcnung its p ar,s to
use the Iactily for RCRA wastes, bagitining
construction of the incinerator and seel.ing
TSCA approval. Where the primary purpose
In build Ing the Incinerator is to estabnsh or
augment PCB d:’posal capabiIit . the corn-
pariy sill choose the “fast trait” second al-
ternaute. A drisson to forgo plans to innin-
crate RCPA nstes at such a facil 1 ty would
enable a company to achieve their primary
goal In a greatly expedited time frame but
would be at odds with the congressi:ris.l
policy of cn:ouragm the development of
aIternati es to land disposal of hazardous
wastes.
For this reason, the original amendment is
modified to correct thus Inconsistency.
Ii.rhere an incinerator has been construcwd
and approved pursuant to TWA for the
burning of PCBs, the owner or operator
shall not be precluded from sppl%’ng for a
ItCRA permit solely because a RCRA
permit was not obtained prior to conflue-
tlon. The EPA regulation being codified by
this amendment was des gnad to assure
that, alien It has bccn unable to influence
the location, design and construction chosen
by the applicant, the permitting agency
would not face a choice between approving
an incInerator or “forcing the abandonment
or dot aluation of toe prematurt In icat .
nient.” Here, however, If a company pro-
ended with construction, ob:a’ned TWA
approt al and then sou&ht a RCRA permit,
the company would not have to abandon or
surfer a detaluatuon of Its intestmerit if it
was ultimately domed a RCRA permtt for
the incinerator, The company would still
have a PC13 incinerator.
AMENOMPJuT TO Ai7fl(ORIZE Tilt ADihtCT5TitATOR
TO l5st’Z INTERIM 5TA’IVs COF.RECTIVE
A CT iON ORDERS
SectIon 3005(e) of the Solid Waste Dispos-
al Act authorizes certain facilities that are
required to have a permit to operate, on an
interim status basis, pending the review and
issuance of a final permit. In May of 1980,
the Environmental Protection Agency
tEPA) issued standards and minimum re-
quirements for the operatIon of interim
status facIlitIes.
As of December 1983 there were pproxi-
mately 8.000 InterIm status factlitlcs. It has
been estimated that it will take ten sears to
make final permtt deter mInations on all of
the interim status farliiues.
The EPA estimates t:,at between 53” and
60’ S of the interim rtnius land di.;ir id lii-
ditties have leaked or are leaking wn s it I
requIre corrective action Howeter there is
no current requIrement th’tt eorrreutc
action be takcn at Interim status fadilit es.
Instead, when the EPA determtnes that
there has been or is a leak at an tnterim
status facility, the itgenc lninw’tiateiy
brings such a faciLty under its p”rniit
rei iew process and req.,irres correct we
action as a condition of Issuing a linal
permit However, It now takes the EPA oler
a year to go through the process of permit
ret les t aiid Issuance. As a rest.it, there are
likely to C t a number of leaks ai Interim
status facili:,es that will go uncorrected for
some time,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
This aniendment Is designed to correct
that situat’on, It adds a new sut.necllon (h)
to Scctit’n 3038 to provide the Adrn nistra-
tor with authcr’ty to Is’ue en admniatra-
tae order reqi iring correct,sr action or
s’ich other response measures at he deems
anprapriate at intertm status f::uimtis’s
alaete there is or has been a rtieare of has,
aroous ws,ste. The Adrtlr..tiator c I sc au-
thoriatd to comtner,ce a c :,l a:t t on in ISes ’
al district court for appropnate reluef, In-
cluding a temporary or permanent Injunc-
tion. The Admints:rator has s:mmlar author-
ity now undcr other subsections oi section
3008 to requtre correctute acI:on at permit-
ted fac.llties ‘ me arnendincnt directs that
an admurmt trflp e order shall specify the
nature or tna correethe act!rii and a time
for compnance. Civil penalties of up to
t25,000 per day may be assessed e lien there
is nonconii’liance wilh the order. lii sddl-
tion. any order Issued under this rice, su b-
sect;on may include a suspension or res’oca-
tton of the authority to operate as an inter-
tnt status facility wnhc-ut a final permit.
The procedures set forth in subsection (b)
are made applicabie to orders Issued un2er
this nes subsection.
This amendment provIdes the Aduninistra-
br with a nsechar.ism for protectliig human
health arid the envlornment at Interlm
status facilities similar to that which is pres-
ently available with respect to permitted I a-
c ilitles. Since there are some 8.0)0 interim
status facilities, compared to 115 permitted
facWties, It Is mest sp,ropriato and neces-
sary to extend the correctite action require-
ment to interim status facilities and to pro-
‘ide the Administrator with the authority
to impose such requirements quickly,
• Mr. RANDOLPH. The deadline for
required notification under the provi-
sions for the control of burifing or
blending hazardous siastes has been
modified. The Agency is authorized to
determine adrninistrativel3 hich enti-
ties must give notification, s.nd the Ad-
ministrator has asked that the notifi-
cation deadline be postponed until the
regulatory pattern is determined. In
this way, notification can generally be
required from those the Agency pro-
poses to regulttte.
Since petroleum coke Is exempted
from regulation under these provi-
sions, the Agency would not be requir-
Ing notification from purchasers or
consumers of petroleum coke..
INTERrM sTATES coRREcTrvr ACT ION ORDER5
• Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. Prestdent. I
join my distinguished colleagues, Sen-
ators CHAFES, Smrroiw, RA nDom,
and MrrcRELL, In offering an amend-
merit to S. 751 to prot-ide the Adminis-
trator of the Environment P i oteetion
Agency (EPA I arth authority to Issue
an administrative oider, or to com-
mence a cit I I action in the U.S dl trict
court, to require corrective action at
Interim status faetlities where there Is
or has b-en a relca’e of hazardous
waste. This aniendinent adds a new
s tsect ion (h) to section 3008 of the
Resource Conservation and Re-cot ery
Act (RCRAJ. The Adrmnrstrator has
the authorIty currently under other
s’ibsections of 3008 to take the same
steps to requIre corrective action at
permttted facilities.
The amendment also provIdes that
the admi.ntstrative order shall specify
the nature of the corrective action and
S9173
a time for compliance, as well as for
civil penalties of up to $25.Q O per day
when there Is noncompliance v uth the
c:dcr. In add;tion, any ordrr i urd
under rh’s ne t rub.section may iLdude
a suspension or revocation 01 the pu-
thoriti. to operate an interira status fit-
cility.
Si ctlon 30fi5(cY of ti ROIL statiitrm
provides that ar.y facilit for time
treatment, storage, or disposal of haz-
ardous w’a.,Le that is required to hate a
parmit to operate, In accordance ;ith
section 3005, and has made an apphica-
ti m for such a permit, shall be
deemed to have a permit to operate,
on an interim status basis, pendrng the
review and Issuance of a final permtt,
As of December 1983 there v. ere
8,000 Interim status facilitIes. In May
of 1980, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA] Issued standards and
minimusm requirements for the oper-
ation of interi m status facilities. As a
result, some 2,000 of the Interim status
facilities are required to perform
ground a ater monitoring because they
conduct activities capable of polluting
groundwater.
As of February 1984, only 115 flnni
RCRA permits had been Issued by the
EPA. ft will take an estimated 10 }eaz’s
to make ftnah permit determinatuons
on the remaining interim status facili-
ties.
The EPA estimates that beflt een 50
and 60 percent of the Interim status
land disposal facilities are leaking and
will require corrective action. Howev-
er, there Is no current requirement
that correethe action be taken at In-
terim status facilities. Instead, when
the EPA determines that there has
been or is a leak at an Interim status
facility the agency Immed iately brings
such a facility under its permit review
process and reçulres corrective action
as a condition of issuIng a final Permit.
However, it now takes the EPA rn-er a
year to go through the permit review
and Issuance proceat As a result, there
are likely to be a number of leaks at
Interim status facilities that will go
uncorrected for some time.
This amendment simply provides the
Administrator with the same mecha-
nism for protecting human health and
the en”tronment at interim status fa-
cilitIes as Is now provided for permit-
ted facilities. Since there are some
8,000 interim status facIlIties, com-
pared to 115 permitted facilrties, It Is
most appropriate and necessary to
extend time correctIve action require-
ment to interim status facilities
A’dEHOMENT To cu.*gtry twe ADYtNiSflAToL a
AUTIIORETV TO itaqt’iRE reran- icr tsr ri &g-
cisi. prsporisra:Lrzy rca c.aricriva *ciore
Section 300t of the Solid Waste Dhposai
Act directs the Administrator to cqab!i_ h
performance standards for the owners ani
operators of I’anmdous waste rrert-nq’nt.
sitirage and dispo’al fe:IlIties, fle ltattuto-v
hanguege includes a requirement for e u-
denee ol “financial responsibility as may be
necessary or dcs rabie.” Current EPt regu-
lations requre financial responsib,l;I as-
surances for closure and Post-closure main-
-------
4Rc ’c 4111. i2i’1
Perrrut life
The bill amends section 3005(c) of the Act to require that any
permit for a treatment, storage, or disposal facility be for a fixed;
term, not to exceed ten years in the case of land disposal facilities,
incinerators, or other treatment facilities. This amendment was in
response to a recent EPA proposal to amend its current regulations
and issue permits for the life of the facility With the advancing
state of technology and the long piojected useful lifc of many of
these facilities, it is preferable to limit permit life to the minimum
period consistent with the cost and administrative burden of issu-
ing a permit. Ten years is the maximum acceptable duration for
permits involving land d sposai, incinerators, or evolving treatment
technologies.
Limited permit duration will assure that facilities are periodical-
ly reviewed arid requirements for them upgraded to reflect the cur-
rent state of the art. The amendment to section 3005(c) also re-
quires the permitting authority in any permit renewal to consider
improvements in the state of control technology and measurement
technology, as well as changes in applicable regulations. Such mi-
provements and changes must be incorporated in the renewed
permit.
In addition, any permit for a land disposal facility must be mc-
viewed after five yeats. This review, while not involving the full
procedures of a permit renewal, must be thorough and based in
31
part on inspections of the facility. The required review of a land
disposal facility permit every five years is intended to assure that
no facility is allowed to operate in a manner which does not meet
the standards of EPA ’s (or the State’s) most current applicable reg-
ulations, which is not consistent with improvements made in haz-
ardous waste control and management approaches for such facili-
ties made since issuance of the permit, or which does not adequate-
ly protect human health and the environment In conducting such
reviews and in deciding whether or not to modify the permit, the
Agency (or the State) shall consider any changes that may have oc-
curred in operation of the facility since the permit was issued,
standards and requirements of cuirent regulations under sections
3004 and 3005, advances in hazardous waste control practices and
technology since permit issuance, and other information concern-
ing the impact of the facility on human health and the environ-
ment. The Agency (or the State) shall modify the permit if exami-
nation of any of these factors indicates that such action is appropri-
ate. Where the Agency (or the State) determines that a permit
modification is required, the Agency (or the State) shall follow its
current procedures for such modifications Nothtng in the law or
this amendment precludes the Administrator horn modifying any
permit at any time during its term.
This provision also gives the Administrator, or the State if it has
been authorized to issue permits, the authomity to add permit terms
and conditions beyond those mandated in regulations, if, in the
judgment of the Administrator (or the State, if the State is issuing
the permit), such terms and conditions are necessary to protect
human health and the environment This amendment gives thç
Agency the authority to adthess speci al cases ana uniqae circmñ
stances The provision is designed to deal with factors or situatioffs
different from those addressed In the regulations 9 4Ls n also be
used to address areas already covered by the ulntions in fl i
to Incorporate new or better technologies or other new require-
Th nts in permits, whete EPA intends to add such technoiö ieFor
to e re ulations but has not yet issued a finai i ii-
latory amendment . e permitting authority is not required fo
impose every co TEon suggested by commentators on proposed
permits.
I
-------
AS çocX .) , .vb ‘5
H. R. 2867—21
PERMIT LIFE
SEc. 212. Section 3005(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
amended by adding the following new paragraph after paragraph
(2):
“(3) Any permit under this section shall be for a fixed term, not to
exceed 10 years in the case of any land disposal facility, storage
facility, or incinerator or other treatment facility. Each permit for a
land disposal facility shall be reviewed five years after date of
issuance or reisauance and shall be modified as necessary to assure
that the facility continues to comply with the currently applicable
requirements of this section and section 3004. Nothing in this
subsection shall preclude the Administrator from reviewing and
modifying a permit at any time during its term. Review of any
application for a permit renewal shall consider improvements in the
state of control and measurement technology as well as changes in
applicable regulations. Each permit issued under this section shall
contain such terms and conditions as the Administrator (or the
State) determines necessary to protect human health and the
environment.”.
-------
1 7ZJ T.) j: lI
SECTION 212—PERMIT LIFE
House bill.—The House bill requires that all permits must be re-
viewed and renewed every 10 years. Renewals shall be subject to
the same requirements applicable to new permits. The House bill
also authorizes EPA to issue class permits for containers, storage
tanks, enclosed piles, and some mobile treatment units, but EPA
must comply with the notice and hearing provisions of Section
7004(bX2). Site-specific factors shall be promulgated for mobile
treatment units, and may be promulgated for the others.
Senate amendment.—The Senate amendment states that permits
are to be of fixed term, not exceeding 10 years for land disposal,
incineration, and treatment. Land disposal permits shall be re-
viewed 5 years after issuance to assure continued compliance with
currently applicable requirements. A permit may be reviewed and
modified at any time. Permit renewals shall consider improve-
ments in the state of control and measurement technology, as well
as changes in applicable regulations.
Conference substitute.—The Conference substitute adopts the
Senate amendment with a modification so that storage permits, as
well as permits for land disposal, incineration, and treatment, shall
be of limited duration. The authorization for EPA to issue class
permits that is in the House bill, including the authorization to
issue class permits for mobile treatment units, is not included in
the Conference substitute. EPA already has such authority under
existing law and inclusion of a partial list of facilities qualifying
for class permits might have been interpreted to exclude other
classes of facilities.
95
When issuing permits, whether individual or class, EPA must
comply with the notice and hearing provisions of section 7002(b)(2).
EPA is encouraged to use its existing authority to develop a permit
program for mobile treatment units. Individual permits for each
site that will be visited shall not be required although a unit specif-
ic permit should anticipate and specify the type of site and general
location where such treatment unit is authorized to operate.
-------
41 ... 1 t
Permit life
The bill amends section 3005(c) of the Act to require that any
permit for a treatment, storage, or disposal facility be for a fixed
term, not to exceed ten years in the case of land disposal facilities,
incinerators, or other treatment facilities. This amendment was in
response to a recent EPA proposal to amend its current regulations
and issue permits for the life of the facility. With the advancing
state of technology and the long projected useful life of r ny of
these facilities, it is preferable to limit permit life to the minimum
veriod consistent with the cost and administrative burden of issu-
ng a permit. Ten years is the maximum acceptable duration for
permits involving land disposal, incinerators, or evolving treatment
technologies. . .
Limited permit duration will assure that facilities are periodical-
ly reviewed and requirements for them upgraded to reflect the cur-
rent state of the art. The amendment to section 3005(c) also re-
quires the permitting authority in any permit renewal to consider
improvements in the state of control technology and measurement
technology, as well as changes in applicable regulations. Such im-
provements and changes must be incorporated in the renewed
permit.
In addition, any permit for a land disposal facility must be re-
viewed after five years. This review, while not involving the full
procedures of a permit renewal, must be thorough and based in
31
part on inspections of the facility. The required review of a land
disposal facility permit every five years is intended to assure that
no facility is allowed to operate in a manner which does not meet
the standards of EPA’s (or the State’s) most current applicable reg-
ulations, which is not consistent with improvements made in haz-
ardous waste control and management approaches for such facili-
ties made since issuance of the permit, or which does not adequate-
ly protect human health and the environment. In conducting such
reviews and in deciding whether or not to modify the permit, the
Agency (or the State) shall consider any changes that may have oc-
curred in operation of the facility since the permit was issued,
standards and requirements of current regulations under sections
3004 and 3005, advances in hazardous waste control practices and
technology since permit issuance, and other information concern-
ing the impact of the facility on human health and the environ-
ment. The Agency (or the State) shall modify the permit if exami-
nation of any of these factors indicates that such action is appropri-
ate. Where the Agency (or the State) determines that a permit
modification is required, the Agency (or the State) shall follow its
current procedures for such modifications. Nothing in the law or
this amendment precludes the Administrator from modifying any
permit at any time during its term.
This provision also gives the Administrator, or the State if it has
been authorized to issue permits, the authority to add permit terms
and conditions beyond those mandated in regulations, if, in the
judgment of the Administrator (or the State, if the State is issuing
the permit), such terms and conditions are necessary to protect
human health and the environment. This amendment gives the
Agency the authority to address special cases and unique circum-
stances. The provision is designed to deal with factors or situations
different from those addressed in the regulations. It can also be
used to address areas already covered by the regulations in order
to incorporate new or better technologies or other new require-
ments in permits, where EPA intends to add such technologies or
requirements to the regulations but has not yet issued a final regu-:
latory amendment. The permitting authority is not required to
impose every condition suggested by commentators on proposed
permits.
-------
Se t1on 7(b) would limit the duration of a perniit under Section
3005(c) for hazardous waste storage, treatment or disposal facilities
to no more than ten years. Since the original round of permitting
is expected to consume up to eight years, this scheduled will allow
EPA to conduct virtually continuous oversight over the facilities as
a supplement to the regular compliance and enforcement effort.
Section 7(c) requires that the Administrator and authorized
states review and issue or deny final permits to all land disposal
faciites, incinerators, and all other h rdous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities within four, five and eight years, re-
spectively. In addition, any land disposal, incineration, or other
treatment, storage or disposal facility for which a final permit ap-
plication has not been submitted within two, three or four years,
respectively, will cease to retain interim status authority to operate
and would not be allowed to receive hazardous wastes from that
point forward and would be required to initiate closure of the facili-
ty. The Committee is dissatisfied with the pace Drojected by EPA to
complete the permit review process for hazardous waste facilities
and, in this section, is establishing that priority attention be given
to landfill applications and those other land disposal facilities. By
requiring all landfill owners and operators to submit their applica-
tions for final permits within nine months, the Committee intends
to reduce any competitive imbalance which might occur if compet-
ing facilities were permitted at widely varying times.
Section 7(d) allows the Administrator to issue permits by class
only to facilities which store or treat hazardous wastes in tanks,
containers, enclosed waste piles, and mobile treatment units. The
46
subsection preserves the public participation requireflients of
7004(bX2) and allows the Administrator to establish site-SpeCifiC re-
quirements in general, particularly in the case of mobile treatment
units where site-specific factors must be considered to protect
human health and the environment.
-------
ftT2 6
23 (b) TIME LIMIT FOR PERi nTs.—Section 3005(c) of
24 such Act is amended by adding after the words “complete the
25 modifications” the following: “No permit issued under this
47
1 subsection may remain in force and effect for more than ten
2 years after the date on which the permit is issued unless the
3 permit is renewed for additional periods of not to exceed ten
4 years each. Any such renewal shall be subject to the same
5 requirements as are applicable to the issuance of a new
6 permit.”
-------
1 (d) CLASS PEEMITS.—Section 3005 of such Act is
2 amended by adding the following new subsection at the end
3 thereof:
4 “(g) CLASS PERMITS.—(1) After notice and opportunity
5 for hearing, the Administrator may promulgate permit appli-
6 cation requirements and permit conditions applicable to
7 owners and. operators of a class of facilities if he determines
8 that the facilities in the class should be subject to similar
9 design, operating, and management requirements. Such
10 classes shall be limited to facilities which treat or store haz-
11 ardous waste in containers, tanks, or enclosed piles and
12 mobile treatment units designed to treat specified types of
13 hazardous waste.
14 “(2) H, after notice and opportunity for an informal
15 hearing under section 7004(b)(2), the Administrator deter-
16 mines that a facility in any class designated under paragraph
17 (1) meets the requirements and conditions promulgated under
18 that paragraph, he may issue a class permit for such facility
19 containing such permit conditions.
20 “(3) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Administrator
21 may, in establishing requirements and conditions under para-
22 graph (1), provide that certain permit conditions shall be es- 1
23 tablished for each facility on a site-specific basis. Additional
24 permit conditions shall be promulgated to take into account
25 site-specific factors in the case of mobile treatment units.”.
c2IbL
-------
- - SpAcSE J
(b) Section 3005(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
amended by adding the following: “Any permit under this
HR 2867 EAS
23
section shall be for a fixed term, not to exceed ten years in
the case of any land disposal facility, incinerator or other
treatment facility. Each permit for a land disposal facility
shall be reviewed five years after date of issuance or reis-
suance and shall be modified as necessary to assure that the
facility continues to comply with the currently applicable re-
quirements of this section and section 3004. Nothing in this
subsection shall preclude the Administrator from reviewing
and modifying a permit at any time during its term.
Review of any application for a permit renewal shall con-
sider improvements in the state of control and measurement
technology as well as changes in applicable regulations.
Each permit issued under this section shall contain such
terms and conditions as the Administrator (or the State) de-
termines necessary to protect human health and the environ-
ment. ‘
7J 0 2
-------
s c ‘ Pc_Il
3 (b) Section 3005(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
4 amended by adding the following: “Any permit under this
5 section shall be for a fixed term, not to exceed len years in the
6 case of any land disposal facility, incinerator or other treat-
7 ment facility. Each permit for a land disposal facility shall
8 be reviewed five years after date of issuance or reissuance
9 and shall be modified as necessary to assure that the facility
10 continues to comply with the currently applicable require-
11 menls of this section and section 3004. Nothing in this sub-
12 section shall preclude the Administrator from reviewing and
13 modifying a permit at any time during its term. Review of
14 any application for a permit renewal shall consider improve-
15 ments in the state of control and measurement technology as
16 well as changes in applicable regulations. Each permit issued
17 under this section shall contain such terms and conditions as
18 the Administrator (or the Stale) determines necessary to pro-
19 tect human health and the environment. ‘
-------
I j8J z-(
T CpoFl7 b
14 TIME LiMir FOR PER 1irs.—Section 3005t’c) of
15 such Act is amended by adding after the words “complete the
16 modifications’ the following: “No permit issued under this
17 subsection may remain in force and effect for more than ten
18 years after the date on which the permit is issued unless the
19 permit is renewed for additional periods of not to exceed ten
20 years each. Any such renewal shall be st bjec1 to the same
21 requirements as are applicable to the issuance of a new
22 permit.”
-------
4i2. ‘Zb j TU ?OfVT ‘i -t • J , , !. Jw
22 (d) CLASS PERMITS.—Section 3005 of such Act is
23 amended by adding the following new subsection at the end
24 thereof:
28
1 “(g) CLASS PERwITs.—(1) After notice and opportuni-
2 ty for hearing, the Administrator may promulgate pernut ap-
3 plication requirements and permit conditions applicable to
4 owners and operators of a class of facilities if he determines
5 that the facilities in the class should be subject to similar
6 design, operating, and management requirements. Such
7 classes shall be limited to facilities which treat or store ha:-
8 ardous waste in containers, tanks, or enclosed piles and
9 mobile treatment units designed to treat specified types of
10 hazardous waste.
11 “(2) If, after notice and opportunity for an informaL
12 hearing under section 7004(b)(2), the Administrator deter-
13 mines that a facility in any class designated under para-
14 graph (1) meets the requirements and conditions promulgatcd
15 under that paragraph, he may issue a class permit for such
16 facility containing such permit conditions.
17 “(‘3d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Adminisfratcr
18 may, in establishing requirements and conditions undcr
19 paragraph (1), provide that certain permit conditions shall be
20 established for each facility on a site-specific basis. Addition-
21 a! permit conditions shall be promulgated to take into account
22 site-specific factors in the case of mobile treatment units. ‘
-------
H’ ’
L4 3 (b) TIME LIMIT FOR PERMITs.—Section 3005(c) of
V 4 such Act is amended by adding the following at the end
5 thereof: “No permit issued under this subsection may remain
6 in force and effect for more than ten years after the date on
7 which the permit is issued unless the permit is renewed for
8 additional periods of not to exceed ten years each. Any such
9 renewal shall be subject to the same requirements as are ap-
10 plicable to the issuance of ne r rmit”..—
as-
23 (d) CLASS PERMITS.—Section 3005 of such Act is
24 amended by adding the following new subsection after sub-
25 section (g) (as added by subsection (a) of this section):
lilt 2867 IR—-—4
-------
26
1 “(h) OLAss PEEMI’rs.—(l) After notice and opportunity
2 for hearing, the Administrator may promulgate permit appli-
3 cation requirements and permit conditions applicable to
4 owners and operators of a class of facilities if he determines
5 that the facilities in the class should be subject to similar
6 design, operating, and management requirements. Such
7 classes shall be limited to facilities which treat or store haz-
8 ardous waste in containers, tanks, or enclosed piles and
9 mobile treatment units designed to treat specified types of
10 hazardous waste.
11 “(2) If, after notice and opportunity for an informal
12 hearing under section 7004(b)(2), the Administrator deter-
13 mines that a facility in any class designated under paragraph
14 (1) meets the requirements and conditions promulgated under
15 that paragraph, he may issue a class permit for such facility
16 containing such permit conditions.
17 “(3) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Administrator
18 may, in establishing requirements and conditions under para-
19 graph (1), provide that certain permit conditions shall be es-
20 tablished for each facility on a site-specific basis. Additional
21 permit conditions shall be promulgated to take into account
22 site-specific factors in the case of mobile treatment units.”.
C21D2
-------
rZ 7- 4stu o.L
INTERIM STATUS
SEC. 213. (a) Section 3005(e) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
amended by—
(1) inserting “(1)” after “Interim Status.—”,
(2) redesignating existing paragraphs (1) through (3) as sub-
paragraphs (A) through (C),
(3) adding the following at the end thereof:
“This paragraph shall not apply to any facility which has been
previously denied a permit under this section or if authority to
operate the facility under this section has been previously
term iriated.
12) In the case of each land disposal facility which has been
granted interim status under this subsection before the date of
enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984,
interim status shall terminate on the date twelve months after the
date of the enactment of such Amendments unless the owner or
operator of such facility—
“(A) applies for a final determination regarding the issuance
of a permit under subsection (c for such facility before the date
twelve months after the date of the enactment of such Amend-
ments; and
“(B) certifies that such facility is in compliance with all
applicable groundwater monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements.
“(3) In the case of each land disposal facility which us in existence
on the effective date of statutory or regulatory changes under this
Act that render the facility subject to th requirement to have a
permit under this section and which is granted interim status under
this subsection, interim status shall terminate on the date twelve
months after the date on which the facility first becomes subject to
such permit requirement unless the owner or operator of such
facility—
“(A) applies for a final determination regarding the issuance
of a permit under subsection (C) for such facility before the date
-------
H. R. 2867—22
twelve months after the date on which the facility first becomes
subject to such permit requirement; and
“(B) certifies that such facility is in compliance with all
applicable groundwater monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements.”; and
(4) amending subparagraph (A) (as redesignated by paragraph
(1) of this subsection) to read as follows:
“(A) owns or operates a facility required to have a permit
under this section which facility—
“(i) was in existence on November 19, 1980, or
“(ii) is in existence on the effective date of statutory or
regulatory changes under this Act that render the facility
subject to the requirement to have a permit under this
section.”.
(b) Section 3009 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by
adding the following at the end thereof: “Nothing in this title (or in
any regulation adopted under this title) shall be construed to
prohibit any State from requiring that the State be provided with a
copy of each manifest used in connection with hazardous waste
which is generated within that State or transported to a treatment.
storage, or disposal facility within that State.”
(c) Section 3005(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by
inserting “(1)” after “PERMIT ISSUANCE.—” and by adding the follow-
ing new paragraph at the end thereof:
“(2XAXi) Not later than the date four years after the enactment of
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. in the case of
each application under this subsection for a permit for a land
disposal facility which was submitted before such date, the Adminis-
trator shall issue a final permit pursuant to such application or
issue a final denial of such application.
“ii) Not later than the date five years after the enactment of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, in the case of each
application for a permit under this subsection for an incinerator
facility which was submitted before such date, the Administrator
shall issue a final permit pursuant to such application or issue a
final denial of such application.
“(B) Not later than the date eight years after the enactment of the
Ha.z rdous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, n the case of each
application for a permit under this subsection for any facility (other
than a facility referred to in subparagraph (A)) which was submitted
before such date, the Administrator shall issue a final permit pursu-
ant to such application or issue a final denial of such application.
“(C) The time periods specified in this paragraph shall also apply
in the case of any State which is administering an authorized
hazardous waste program under section 3006. Interim status under
subsection (e) shall terminate for each facility referred to in sub-
paragraph (AXil) or (B) on the expiration of the five- or eight-year
period referred to in subparagraph (A) orAB), whichever is applica-
ble, unless the owner or operator of the facility applies for a final
determination regarding the issuance of a permit under this
subsection within—
“(i) two years after the date of the enactment of the Hazard-
ous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (in the case of a
facility referred to in subparagraph (AXti)), or
“(ii) four years after such date of enactment (in the case of a
facility referred to in subparagraph (B)).’.
-------
? ‘iS
SECTION 213—INTERIM STATUS FACILITIES
House bill.—The House bill provides that interim status of exist-
ing land disposal facilities shall terminate 12 months after enact-
ment unless the owner or operator (1) submits a so-called “Part B”
application for a final permit, and (2) certifies that the facility is in
compliance with groundwater monitoring and financial responsibil-
ity requirements. It also provides that nothing in subtitle C or im-
plementing regulations shall be construed to prevent a State from
requiring a copy of each manifest for wastes generated, treated,
stored, or disposed within the State.
It also directs that the Administrator and authorized States proc-
ess all land disposal permit applications within 4 years (giving
highest priority to those currently contaminating groundwater), all
incinerator permit applications within 5 years, and all other within
8 years. Interim status shall end for incinerators and “others” at
the end of the 5- or 8-year period, unless final permit part B appli-
cation is made (1) within 2 years of enactment for incinerators, and
(2) within 4 years of enactment for “others”.
Senate amendment.—The Senate amendment grants interim
status to existing facilities which become subject to subtitle C but
which were not previously required to have a permit under section
3005. Facilities previously denied a permit, or whose interim status
has been previously terminated cannot qualify for this provision
under any circumstances.
Conference substitute.—The Conference substitute adopts the
House provisions, except that the requirement to give highest pri-
ority to facilities currently contaminating groundwater is deleted.
Such a requirement would have eliminated EPA’s discretion to pro-
ceed with the issuance of permits to qualified facilities that are in
compliance with the requirements of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
and, at the same time, to devote to applications resulting in clo-
sures or corrective action the resources necessary to protect human
health and the environment. Priority should be given to the review
of permit applications for facilities currently contaminating
groundwater. Priority should also be given to the review of applica-
tions and the issuance of permits to qualified facilities. A determi-
nation as to which should receive the “highest” priority is a case-
by-case determination that should not be directed statutorily.
The Conference substitute also adopts the Senate amendment,
except such facilities are required, as a condition of interim status
under this new provision, to submit an application for a determina-
tion regarding issuance of a final permit within six months of be-
coming subject to the Solid Waste Disposal Act. -
-------
I -I.
45
caused. In light of the predictable failure of land disposal facilities
to contain wastes, these sites are likely candidates for future reme-
dial action under the Superfund program. For the very purpose of
ensuring that these facilities do not become the province of Super-
fund, which is insufficient to address the priortiy sites that have
been identified to date, and for the principle that operators of facil-
ities should address the contamination they caused, the Committee,
has included this provision.
In addition, in the case of standards for liners and leachate col-
lection systems required in the July 26, 1982 regulations, subsec-
tion (a) requires all new units to install liner and leachate collec-
tion systems as povided in the regulations and guidance document. I
For facilities which install a liner and leachate collection system
pursuant to the requirements of this subsection and in compliance
with the Administrator’s requirements of such items, no additional
substantive requirements respecting liners and leachate collection
systems will be imposed for the duration of the permit issued for
that facility. The Committee does not intend to require by statue
the retrofitting of landfill, surface impoundment, and waste pile
units with liners and leachate collection systems if such landfills, I
surface impoundments and waste piles have interim status and
have received significant amounts of waste prior to the date of en-
actment of this section. However, the Administrator shall require
such retrofitting where he determines it is necessary to protect
human health and the environment. Significant amounts in this
case means greater than minor deposits of waste designed to create
the appearance of an existing interim status facility.
Section 7(b) would limit the duration of a permit under Section
3005(c) for hazardous waste storage, treatment or disposal facilities
to no more than ten years. Since the original round of permitting
is expected to consume up to eight years, this scheduled will allow
EPA to conduct virtually continuous oversight over the facilities as
a supplement to the regular compliance and enforcement effort.
Section 7(c) requires that the Administrator and authorized
states review and issue or deny final permits to all land disposal
facilites, incinerators, and all other haz rdous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities within four, five and eight years, re-
spectively. In addition, any land disposal, incineration, or other
treatment, storage or disposal facility for which a final permit ap-
plication has not been submitted within two, three or four years,
respectively, will cease to retain interim status authority to operate
and would not be allowed to receive hazardous wastes from that’
point forward and would be required to initiate closure of the facili-
ty. The Committee is dissatisfied with the pace projected by EPA to
complete the permit review process for hazardous waste facilities
and, in this section, is establishing that priority attention be given
to landfill applications and those other land disposal facilities. By
requiring all landfill owners and operators to submit their applica-
tions for final permits within nine months, the Committee intends
to reduce any competitive imbalance which might occur if compet-
ing facilities were permitted at widely varying times.
Section 7(d) allows the Administrator to issue permits by class
only to facilities which store or treat hazardous wastes in tanks,
containers, enclosed waste piles, and mobile treatment units. The
46
subsection preserves the public participation requirements of
7004(bX2) and allows the Administrator to establish site-specific re-
quirements in general, particularly in the case of mobile treatment
units where site-specific factors must be considered to protect
human health and the environment.
c2-i 3
-------
r ”
TI+E .
15 (0 INTERIM STATUS FAcILI’rIEs.—Section 3005(c)(2),
16 as amended by section 7 of this Act, is further amended by
17 adding the following at the end thereof:
18 “(B) In the case of each land disposal facility which has
19 been granted interim status under subsection (e) before the
20 date of the enactment of this subsection, interim status shall
21 terminate on the date twelve months after the date of the
22 enactment of this subsection unless the owner or operator of
23 such facility—
24 “(i) applies for a final determination regarding the
25 issuance of a permit under subsection (c) for such facili-
1 ty before the date twelve months after the date of the
2 enactment of this subsection; and
3 “(ii) certifies that such facility is in compliance
4 with all applicable groundwater monitoring and finan-
5 cial responsibility requirements.”.
b2/3
-------
118134
hazardous waj dch Is prohibited from
one or more metnode of land disposal by
any State.
“(3) If the Administrator fails to make a
detP - jnation for any hazardous waste
I or identified under section 3001
‘i the time provided in paragraph (1).
hazardous waste shall be prohibited
land disposal.
.) racriu D*i-sa Uxnza (cR2) aica
(d).—( IXA) Except as provided In subpara-
graph (B). the prohibition under section
(CR2) shall be effective on the date twelve
months after the date of the eriactement of
this subsection and a prohibition In regula-
tions under subsection Cd) shall be effective
Immediately upon promulgation.
“(B) The Administrator may establish an
effective date -other than that required
under subparagraph (A) with respect to a
specific hazardous waste subject to a prohi-
bition under subsection (CR2) or Cd) on the
basis of the earliest date on which adequate
capacity br alternative management will be
available. No such other effective date es-
tablished by the Administrator shall be
later than forty-two months after the effec-
tive date apecllled in paragraph (A) of pro-
mulgation.
“(2) For those hazardous wastes for which
no other effective date Is established under
paragraph (1XB), the Administrator may
grant a variance on a case-by-ease basis for
up to six months, renewable twice only.
upon a showing by a generator of severe
economic hardship. No such variance shall
be granted for wastes generated by any
agency or Instrumentality of the United
States.
“CS) The A I,, i ietrator may. from time to
time after the Initial promulgation of regu-
lations required by this subsection, revise
such regulations to add additional hazard-
nna wastes to be prohibited from one or
methods of land disposal.
‘Mposmo!c or Cozqnmoxs—The Ad-
ator may Impose such conditions as
e necessary to accomplish the purpose
a section. including but not limited to
atment and detoxification prior to
land disposal, and limitations on waste dilu-
tion.”.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. I ask
unanimous consent that section 5 be
considered as read and printed In the
REcoun.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of. the gentleman from
New Jersey.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amend-
ments to section 5?
£M DM T OF? re M L FLORJO
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment. -.
The Clerk read as follo s:
Amendment offered by Mr. Fi,oszo: Page
11, line 15. after ‘S.” Inseit “(a) LAiD I)is-
POSAL.—”.
Page 12. strIke out lines 24 and 25 and
aubstitute:
“(2) EffectIve on the date specified In sub-
section (e). except as provided in paragraph
(3) with respect to underground Injection
Into deep Injection wells.”.
Page 13, line 1. insert “listed or Identified”
before “hazardous”.
Page 14. after lIne 18. insert:
“(3)(A) Not later than 32 months after the
enactment of the Hazardous Waste Control
and Enforcement Act of 1983. the Adminis-
trator shall complete a review of the dispos-
5Y U hazardous wastes referred to In
h (2) by underground Injection into
ection wells and shall promulgate
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
1 ial regulations prohibiting the disposal of
any suth hazardous waste Into such wells If
It may reasonably be determined that such
disposal may not be protective of human
health and the environment for as’long as
the waste remains hazardous, taking Into ac-
count the factors referred to in paragraph
(2). In promulgating such regulations, the
Administrator shall consider each hazard-
ous waste referred to In paragraph (2)
which Is prohibited from disposal Into such
wells by any State.
“(B) If the Administrator falls to make a
determination for any hazardous waste re-
feri-ed to In paragraph (2) withIn the 32
month period referred to In subparagraph
(A). such hazardous waste shall be prohibit-
ed from disposal Into any deep injection
well. -
‘(C) Not lacer than 10 months after the
enactment of the Hazardous Waste Control
and Enforcement Act of 1983. the Adminis-
trator shall submit a report to the Congress
setting forth the Interim results of the
review required to be carried out under sub-
paragraph (A).
“(D) As used in this subsection. the term
‘deep injection well’ means a well used for
the underground Injection . of hazardous
waste other than a well to which section
7010(a) applies.
Page 14, lIne 20, strike out “six” and sub-
stitute “twelve”.
Page 15. lIne 1. after the period, Insert:
“The submission of such schedule shall not
be treated as rulemaking for purposes of
chapter 5 of title 5 of the United States
Code or for purposes of the Paperwork Re-
duction Act of 1980.”.
Page 15. strIke out the table following line
land substitute:
percentage of listed has- Period after enectement
a,dous wastus for by which detennina-
which a determine- lion must be made
lion of land disposal and regulation pro.
prohibition must be mulgated
made:
33 4 -. ..........._. ...,.. 32 months
66% . .. _. , . ..... 42 months
100. ..... - . 52 months
Page 15, lIne 8, strIke out “subsection
(dRi)” and substitute “this paragraph”.
Page 18, after lIne 2. Insert:
(hi APPLiCATION OP A mmmITs ro Au-
moaz STAres —Section 3006 Is amended
by adding the following new subsection
after subsection (I):
“(g) A xii’rs Maria B 1983 Aci.—(1)
Any requirement or prohibition which Ii ap-
plicable to the generation, transportation,
treatment. atorage. or disposal of hazardous
waste and which Is Imposed under this sub-
title pursuant to the amendments made by
the Hazardous Waste Control and Enforce-
ment Act of 1983 shall take effect In each
State having an authorized State program
on the same date as such requirement takes
effect In other States. The Administrator
shall enforce such requirement directly In
each such State unless—
“(A) the State program Is authorized (or Is
granted interim authorization as provided in
paragraph (2)) with respect to such require-
ment, or
“(B) the State has entered into a coopera-
tive agreement with the Administrator
under which the State wIll enforce the re-
quirement In that State pending amend-
ment of the State hazardous waste program
to Incorporate such requirement.
“(2) Any State which, before the date of
the enactment of the Hazardous Waste Con-
ti-el and Enforcement Act of 1983. has an
existing hazardous waste program whIch Is
authorized under thIs section may submit to
the Administrator evidence that such exist-
ing program contains (or has been amended
to Include) any requirement which is sub-
O. tober 6 1983
stantlally equivalent to a requirement re-
ferred to In paragraph (1) and may request
an Interim authorization to carry out that
requirement under this subtitle. The Ad-
ministrator, if the evidence submitted shows
the State requirement to be substantially
equivalent to the requirement referred to In
paragraph (1). grant an interim authoriza-
tion to the State to carry out such require-
ment in lieu of direct enforcement in the
State by the Administrator of such require-
ment.”.
Cc) Iwrmux STaTes FAc ILn’IEs.—Sectlon
3005(cR2). as amended by sectIon 7 of this
Act, is further amended by adding the fol-
lowing at the end thereof:
“CD) In the case of each land disposal fa.
cility which has been granted Interim status
under subsection Ce) before the date of the
enactment of this subsection, interim status
shall terminate on the date 12 months after
the date of the enactment of this subsection
unless the owner or operator of such facili-
ty—
“(I) applies for a final determination re-
garding the Issuance of a permit under sub-
section Cc) for such facility before the date
12 months after the date of the enactment
of this subsection, and
“(II) certifies that such facility Is In corn-
pliance with all applicable groundwater
monitoring and financial responsibility re-
quirements.”.
(d) 8mm Law Raoaaznxo Hazaarious
WAsTS MAmTZ5L—Sectlon 3009 is amended
by adding the following at the end thereof:
“Nothing In this title (or in any regulation
adopted under this title) shall be consLrued
to prohibit any State from requiring that
the State be provided with a copy of each
manifest used In connectIon with hazardous
waste which Is generated within that State
or transported to a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility within that State.”.
Mr. FLORIO (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed the REcoRD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
(Mr. FLORIO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.) -
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment which I offer on behalf of
Mr. LeiT and my colleague, Mr.
EcISABT, a member of the subcommit-
tee improves the schedule by which
EPA must decide whether to ban each
listed hazardous waste from one or
more methods of land disposal. Oui-
amendment would essentially give
EPA a little more time In wh;cn to
make the crucial decisions involving
the toxIcity, mobility, and risk associ-
ated with each waste, as well as the
safety of various methods of treat-
ment, recycling, and disposal.
This amendisent has been favorably
reviewed by the environmental com-
munity and EPA, as well as the regu-
lated communIty, by providing for a
more orderly, and better targeted,
decislonmaking process, this amend-
ment will help assure that this pro-
gram will be Implemented the way
Congress Intended. Specifically, the
amendment:
-------
October 6 1988
Reduces the number of rnlesaakh 1e
from four to three for EPAs review of
all hazardous wastes;
Gives EPA more time to set up a
schedule for the review of each waste
and allows EPA to develop that sched-
ule without formal rulemaking;
Shortens the overall time for review
from 54 to 52 months;
Allows the “deep well” injection
method of dIsposal—normally 4.000 to
6,000 feet below the surface—and an
additional 20 months In which to
prove that this method of disposal Is
sale with respect to wastes that would
otherwise be banned In 12 months:
Requti-es self-certification of ground
water monitoring and flnnn ’lal re-
sponsibility requirements; and
Allows States to require disposers
and generators to send manifests di-
rectly to that State.
I believe this amendment Is carefully
crafted and will help EPA.aceompllsh
the Lniportant task we have directed
them to do.
Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield to me?
Mr. FLORIO. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Is it not a fact that the changes
being made by this amendment will
change the land disposal leAII1I,tes in a
way that will assist EPA in makIng Its
decisions under section 5?
Mr. FLORIO. The gentleman Is ser-
r. LENT. This amendment, then,
a a segment of the regulated corn-
lty, those who utilize under-
md injection for their waste dis-
practices, some relief from the
stringent deadlines contained In sec-
tion 5?
Mr. FLORIO. Under the appropriate
circumstances, that Is correct.
Mr. LENT. My understanding Is that
this amendment contains a change
that is essential to speeding the RCRA
landfill permitting procedures along:
tWe change requires that all owners of
hazardous waste landfill facilities cer-
tify that they are In compliance with
all applicable ground water monitor-
ing, postelosure and-financial responsi-
bUlly requirements as i condition for
maintaining Interim status and again
It will assist, it should assist EPA In
performing Its responsibilities since
owners will now be forced to close
down 11 they fall to certify that they
are In compliance with the basic
RCRA requlrement&
Mr. FLORIO. Once again the gentle-
man Is Correct.
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman. I
SUpport the gentleman’s amendment.
The CHAmMAN. The question Is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New Jersey (Mr. Fi.oRIo).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
am ”4ments to section 5?
iI 5 EN7 OPPU IT an. su*UX
REAUX. Mr. Chairman, I offer
dment.
)NGRESS!ONAL RECORD — HOUSE
The Clerk read as foflowE -
Amendment offered by Mr. Basaui Page
11 ,llneLL&ter”5.”’Ca)Lae iaDzs-
resi or Catesi HAZARDoUS Wsarzs.—”.
Page 11. strIke out Une 1$ and all that fol-
lows down through line S on page 12 sad
subsLliute
“(b) SALT Doses Foasunoss, Usxisa-
GROUND Mimeas asa Cans—Cl) Effective
February 1, 1084. the placement of any
liquid hazardous waste or free liquids con-
tained In hazardous waste (whether contain-
erised, noncootalnerised or bulk and wheth-
er or not absorbents base been added) in
any salt dome formation, underground
m aine, or cave Is prohibited. Effective on the
date of enactment of this subsection, the
placement of any other hazardous waste in
a salt dome formation. underground mine,
or cave Is pr-oiubIted untIl such time as the
Administrator has promulgated perform-
ance and permitting standards for such
fae4I4t .a imader ibis subtitle and a permit
has been bened under section 3005(c) 1cr
the f.e4lIty cancerned.
“(2) The Administrator shall conduct a
study sod, wIthin 2 yesre after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, submit a
report to the Congress rcgazdmg the effects
on h n health and t envtro t
whkb ate with the p1a .i fl of
liquid bmar n w e In e.1t d form,.-
Lions, underground mines, and caves. Ikich
r et may Include F vwnaip, J ii’a for
the modification of the prohibition con-
tained in paragraph (1) en the placement of
liquid hmardous waste In silt dome torms
Lime, underground mines, and caves.
“(3) No determination made by the Ad.
mf a&or under subsection (dl or (ci of
this section r rding any hmardous waste
to which such suhection Cd) or Ce) applies
shell affect the prohibition contained In
paragraph ( I) of this subsection.
“Cc) Uaosee a LazDrn,l.s.—(11 Effective
sls.m,nths after the date of the enactment
of this a ectlon. the pl ent of bulk or
nomentainerhed liquid hazardous waste or
free liquids contained in hazardous waste
(whether or not absorbents have been
a&ied) In say Iandf in Is prohibited. Pnor to
such date the effect on
April 30. 1953) promulgated under this sec-
tion by the AdmI” traLor regarding liquid
hazardous waste shall remain In force and
effect to the extent such requirements are
. .ppl. .’ hLe to the placement of bulk or non-
contalnenzed liquid hazardous waste, or
free liquids emitsined In hazardous waste, In
l amififis.
“(2) Not later than ilx months after the
date of the enactment of this subsection.
the Administrator shall pron”lga ’ final
regulations which—
‘(A) . fflnim (to the extent technologi-
cally feasible) the disposal of containerized
liquid hazardous waste (whether or not sb-
sorbenti have been added) hi landfills, and
“ CE) minimise (by means other than the
addition of absorbent material where tech-
nologically feasible) the presence of free iiq-
uids ii containerized hazardous waste to be
dl osed of in landfills.’
Prior to the date on which such final regu-
lations take effect, the requirements (as In
effect on April 30. 1083) promulgated under
this section by the Administrator shall
remain In force and effect to the extent
such reciulremetfls are applicable to the die’
posal of containerized liquid hazardous
waste, or free liquids contained In hazardous
waste, In landfills.
“ C3) Effective 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the placement
of any liquid which is not a hszai’doua waste
In a landfill for which a pern lt Is required
under section 3 00 5 (c) or which Is operating
H 8135
porsuant to Interha status granted under
section 300 5 (e) Is prohibited unless the
owner or operator of such landfill demon-
strates to the Administrator, or the Adnun-
Istrator deterznin that-
“(A) the only reasonably available alterna-
tire to the placement In such landfill Is
placement in a landfill or unlined surface
Impoundment, whether or not permrtted
under section 3005(c) or operating pursuant
to interim status under section 3005 (e).
which contains, or may reasonably be antici-
pated to contain, hazardous waste; and
“(B) placement In such owner or opera-
toy’s landfill will not present a risk of con-
Lamination of any underground source of
drinking water. As used in this subpara-
graph, the term ‘underground source of
ditiking water’ baa the same meaning as
provided In regulations under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (Title XIV of the
Public Health Service Act).
‘(4) No determination made by the Ad-
mlnistralor under subsection Cd) or Ce) of
this aection regarding any hazardous waste
to which such subsection Cd) or Ce) applies
shall affect the prohibition contained in
paragraph (1) of this subsection,
Page 12, line I, strike out “(c i” and substi.
hits “Cd)”.
Page 14, lIne 19, strIke out “Cd)” and sub-
stitute “Ce) ”.
Page 14, lIne 25, strIke out ‘(b) or (c)’ and
substitute “(dr.
Page 15. lIne S. strike out “subsection
(d xl)” and substitute “this paragraph”.
Page 16, line 21. strike out “Ce) EFFECTIVe
Darse Uimsa (cX2.) aim (d i.—” and substI-
Lute ‘(f) ElmIelvi Dazas; S eczat RuLes.—
Page 16, line 23, strike out “ cc x 2)” and
substitute “(dX2r.
Page 17, line 1, strIke out “Cd)” and subati.
Lute “Ce).
Page 17. lIne 8, strIke out “(cX2) or (d)”
and substitute “(dX2) or Ce)”. -
Page 17. line 10, strIke out “of promulga-
tion.” and substitute the following, “, except
that In the case of dlsiv’sal of a specifIc haz-
ardous waste by agencies or Instnunental-
IUea of the Federal government, no such
other effective date established by the Ad-
malnistrator may be later than 18 months
slier the elfective date specified In aubpara.
graph (A) unless the Administrator deter.
mines at that lIme that alternative available
capacity Is still unavailable or b A quate
for the management of such hazardous
waste. If the Administrator makes such a
determination concerning disposal by an
agency or Instrumentality of the waste con-
cerned, be may establish another effective
date which may not be later than 30 months
after thf effectIve date specified in subpara-
graph (A). ”.
Page 17, line 23. strIke Out “Ci) IiiPosiTiois
orCoanxrloxs ,—” and substItute “(4)”.
Page 17, lIne 25, strIke out “this section”
and substitute “subsections ib) through Ct)
of this section”.
Page 18, line 2. strIke out the closing quo.
tatlon marks.
Page 18. lIne 2. Inserti
“(5) In the case of any hazardous waste
which Is prolubited from one or more meth-
ods of land disposal under subsection (dl or
(e) of this section (or under regulations pro-
mulgated by the Administrator under such
subsection Id) or Ce)) the storage of such
hazardous waste is prohibited unless such
storage Is solely for the purpose of the accu- -
mulatlon of such quantities of hazardous
waste is are ne ary to facilitate proper
recovery, treatment or disposal.
“(6) Pot the purposes of subiections Cd)
and Ce) of this section, the term ‘land dis-
posal’, when used with respect to a specified
-------
II 8136
hazardo as waste. shall be deemed to In-
clude, but not be limited to. any placement
of such hazardous waste In a landfill, sur-
face Impoundment, waste pile. Injection
‘eli. land treatment facility, salt dome for.
tlon, or underground mine or cave.”.
.1) IJITSIUII STATUS Sunraca I ouam-
.iosrs.—Section 3005 Is amended by “ iding
the foliowing after subsection (g):
“(h) lirruisi STATUS Sunraca I ouwn-
MzwTs.—(1) Except In the case of a surface
Impoundment which meets the require-
ments of subparagraph (A) or (B) of pare-
graph (3). no hazardous waste listed or iden-
tified under section 3001 as of the date of
enactment of this subsection may be placed
or maintained in a surface impoundment
which has been granted Interim status
under subsection Ce) unless the Adminthtra.
tor has issued a permit for such surface Im-
poundmerit under subsection (C). The re-
quirement set forth In the preceding sen-
tence shall take effect on the date 4 years
after the date of the enactment of this sub-
section. In the case of any surface Impound-
ment which is granted interim status after
the date of the enactment of this subsection
and which receives hazardous waste which
is listed or Identified under section 3001
after such date of enactmeit, the require-
ment set forth In the first aentence of this
paragraph shall take effect on the date 4
years after the date on which such hazard-
ous waste is listed or identified.
“(2) Except In the case of a surface Im-
poundment which meets the requirements
of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (3).
any permit Issued under subsection Cc) for a
surface Impoundment which Is operating
under interim status pursuant to subsection
Ce) shall require such Impoundment to
comply with the requirements which ere ap-
pUcable to new surface impoundments
der section 3004(kXl). Any such permit
allow the surface Impoundment to
e Into compliance with such require-
cia in accordance with a compliance
iedule if such schedule requires compil-
nce as rapidly as practicable but not later
than 2 years after the Issuance of the
permit.
“(3) The prohibition set forth in para-
graph (1) and the requirement set forth in
paragraph (2) may be waived by the Admin-
istrator for any surface impoundment if the
owner or- operator of the surface impound-
ment demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that, as of the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the Impound-
ment—
“(A) was not within Vs mile of under-
ground source of drinking water, and—
“(I) had a liner designed, constructed, In-
stalled and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from passing Into the liner at any
time during the active life of the facility: or
“(U) had a liner designed, constructed, In-
stalled and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from migrating beyond the liner to
adjacent subsurface soil, groundwater, or
surface water at any time during the active
life of the facility: or
“(B) was designed, operated, and located
so as to prevent the migration of any liar.-
ardous constituent Into the groundwater or
Surface water at any future time.
The exemption provided under subpara-
graph (A) of this paragraph for any surface
Iinpoundxnent shall cease to apply at any
Lime that the AdmInistrator- determines
that the liner of the surface impoundment
has failed to meet the requirements of
clause Ci) or (U) of subparagraph (A) and re-
‘ t rs acceptable to the Mmin trator have
been made to insure that such require-
Is are met. The exemption provided
r subparagraph (B) of this paragraph
COj JGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
for any surface Impoundment shall cease to
apply at any time that the Adn InIstrator
determines that the surface Impoundment
has failed to prevent the migration of any
hazardous constituent Into the groundwater
or surface water. In the case of any surface
Impoundment which has been granted Inter-
im status and which has been determined
under this paragraph to meet the require-
ments of subparagraph (AXU), at the clo-
sure of such impoundment the Administra-
tor shall require the owner or operator of
such Impoundment to remove or decontami-
nate all waste residues, all contaminated
liner material, and contaminanted soil to
the extent practicable. If all contsmIn. nted
soil Is not removed or decontaminated, the
owner or operator of such impoundment
shall be required to comply with appropri-
ate post-closure requirements, including but
not limited to groundwater monitoring and
corrective action,
“(4) If the Administrator allows a hazard-
ous waste which Is prohibited from one or
more methods of land disposal under sub-
section Cd) or (e) of section 3004 (or under
regulations promulgated by the Administra-
tor ‘under such subsection (d) or Ce)) to be
placed In a surface Impoundment (which Is
operating pursuant to interIm status) for
storage or treatment, such impoundment
shall meet the requirements that are appli-
cable to new surface Impoundments under
section 3004(kXl) as of the effective date of
such prohibition, unless such impoundment
meets the exemptions contained In para-
graph (3) of this subsection. Where neces-
sary to protect human health or the envi-
ronment. taking Into account the factors re-
ferred to in section SOO4CdXl), the Admlnls-
Utter may Impose additional requirements
to any surface Impoundment operating pur-
suant to interim status under section
3005(e) or for which a permit has been
lamed pursuant to section 3005(c).
“(5) In the case of any hazardous waste
which Is prohibited from one or more meth-
ods of land disposal under subsection (d) or
(e) of section 3004 (or under regulations pro-
mulgated by the Administrator under such
subsection Cd) or Ce)) the placement eq
maintenance of such hazardous waste in a
surface Impoundment for treatment Is pro-
hibited as of the effective date of such pro-
hibition unless the treatment residues
which are hazardous are, at a minimum, re-
moved for subsequent management within
one year of the entry of the waste into the
surface Impoundment.
“(8) In the case of each surface Impound-
ment which has been granted Interim status
under subsection Ce) before the date of the
enactment of this subsection, interim status
shall terminate on the date 12 months after ____
the date of the enactment of this subsection
unless the owner or operator of such Im-
poundment—
“(A) applies for a final determination re-
garding the Issuance of a permit under sub-
section Cc) for such facility before the date
12 months after the date of the enactment
of this subsectlon and
“(B) demonstrates that such Impound-
ment Is In compliance with all applicable
groundwater monitoring and financial re-
sponsibility requirements.
“(7) Before the date 3 years alter the date
of the enactment of this subsection the Ad-
mInistrator shall make a determination re-
gardmg the Issuance of a permit under sec-
tion (c) for all surface impoundments which
have been granted interim status under sub-
section Ce) and which are located wIthin Vs
mile of an underground source of drinking
water. -
“(8) As used In this subsection, the term
‘underground source of drinking water’ has
the same meaning as provided in regulations
October 6, 1983
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (Title
XIV of the Public Sealth Service Act).
Ce) Ant Eazssioies FaoM Lairs DisPosaL
FAcn,mzs.—Sect&on 3004 is amended by
adding the following new subsection after
subsection Ck):
(1) Ant untsszoxs ,aoN U$D DISPOSAL
rAcumza.—Not later than 24 months after
the date of the enactment of this subsec-
tion, the Administrator shall promulgate
regulations for such monitoring and control
of air emissions at hazardous waste storage,
treatment, and land disposal facilities (in-
cluding but not limited 1.0 open tanks, sur-
face impoundments, and landfills) as may be
necessary to protect human health and the
environment.”.
Cd) PmssA L FAcTLTTY Issrzcrroxs: Rrroar
To Coxoazss.—Sectlon 3007 of such Act is
amended by adding the foUowing new sub-
sections after subsection (d):
“Ce) PmZRAL FAcn,n -T IssrzcnoNs.—Be-
gInning one year after the date of enact-
ment of this subsection, the Adrnuustrator
shall, or in the case of a State with an au-
thorized hazardous waste program the State
shall, undertake no less often than every
year a thorough Inspection of etch facility
for the treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste which Is operated by an
agency or instrumentalIty of the Federal
government to enforce it.. compliance with
this subtitle and the regulations promulgat.-
ed thereunder. The records of such inspec-
tions shall be available, consistent with sec-
tion 1006. to the public as provided In sec-
tion 3007(b).
“(f) FzzissAz, Acpicv RazARnous WAsra
Facu,rrr brvzrrrony.—Each Federal agency
shall undertake a continuing program to
compile, publish, and submit to the Adinin-
Istrator (and to the State In the case of sites
In States having an authorized hazardous
waste program) an inventory of each site
which the Federal agency owns or operates
or has owned or operated at which hazard-
ous waste is stored. treated, or disposed of
or has been disposed of at any time. The in-
ventory shall be submitted every two years
beginning January 31. 1986. SuCh inventory
shall be available, consistent with section
1008, to the public as provided In section
3007(b). Information previously submitted
by an agency under sectIon 103 of the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response. Com-
pensation, and Liability Act of 1980, or
under sectIon 3005 or 3010 of this Act, or
under this section need not be resubmitted
except that the agency shall update any
previous -submission to reflect the latest
available data and information. The inven-
tory shall contaIn each of the following, at a
minimi lmi
“Cl) The location of each site, and where
hazardous waste has been disposed, a de-
scription of hydrogeology of the site and
the location of withdrawal wells and surface
water within one mile of the site,
“(2) Such Information relating to the
amount, nature, and toxicity of the harard-
ous waste in each site as may be necessary
to determine the extent of any health
hazard which may be associated with any
site.
“(3) InformatIon an the known nature and
extent of environmental contamination at
each site, including a description of the
monitoring data obtained.
“(4) A list of sites at which hazardous
waste has been disposed and environmental
monitoring data has not been obtained, and
the reasons for the lack of monitoring data
at each site.
“CS) A description of response actions tin-
dertaken or contemplated at contaminated
sites.
-------
118144
impoundment, and the conversatjon
between the gentleman from Louisi-
ana and the gentleman from Mi IcsIp-
p1 indicated that ii the liner was de-
signed so as to prevent migration was
so deemed effective, then the drinking
water source could be on top of the
Impoundment, but the language does
not say that.
- Perhaps the gentlema wishes to
adapt the language to accommodate
what he has spoken about to the gen-
tleman from Mississippi.
Mr. BREAUX. Let me try and ex-
plain the situation to the gentleman
as Intended in the written Language.
We basically say that we have three
categories of exemptions so that you
do not have to retrofit. First of all you
have to not be within a quarter of a
mile of a source of underground drink-
ing water. And then, if you fit that,
you either have to have the first liner,
which is a synthetic liner, like a plastic
vinyl liner, or the second liner, which
Is generally a clay liner.
So If you are not within a quarter of
a mile of a source of drinking water
and you have either a plastic liner or a
clay liner that Is designed to prevent
hazardous wastes from going through
those liners, you are out. That La your
exemption.
Then we have the third category.
The third category does not talk about
the quarter of a mile. You could be
within a quarter of a mile of a source
of drinking water and you do not have
to have any liner, you do not have to
have a single liner In that category, or
you could have a liner, but you do not
have to. In the third category, the.
standard Is that your operation is de-
signed and operated and located so as
to prevent the migration of any haz-
ardous constituents into the ground
water or surface water at any future
time.
0 1450
U you can meet that standard, then
you are also out. I would also offer to
the Members at this time that that
standard Ia current EPA regulations as
far as surface impoundments are con-
cerned.
So they have three exemptions, Is
what I am saying, to get out of it.
r. LENT Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAtX. I would be happy to
yield to the gentleman from New
York,
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say
that I was happy to work with the
gentleman from Louisiana and with
his staff in developing the language of
this amendment. It does address a
very serious environmental problem
involving surface impoundments.
The EPA has taken a position oppos-
ing passage of this particular amend-
-tent, and one of the points that EPA
akes is—
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
Mr. BREAUX. I am more concerned
about the gentleman’s position as op-
posed to EPA’s position.
Mr. LENT. The EPA makes the
point that they cannot make the nec-
essary regulatory amendments, they
do not have time within the stringent
framework and timetable provided by
this amendment to issue final permits
to all the surface impoundments that
exist. -
Could the gentleman comment on
that?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Baxtux) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Lmrr and by
unanimous consent, Mr. Bazaux was
allowed to proceed for 2 addItional
minutes.)
Mr. BREAUX. Let me comment on
that point.
Here Is what we are giving them,
folks. We are giving them 4 years to go
out and look at the 1,700 surface im-
poundments in the United States: 4
years to go out and iook at those that
have an interim permit right now, and
say, “Hey, guys, you have to get your
final permit.”
Then after they get the fInal permit,
we give them an addItional 2 years to
have In place a program that meeth
these new requirements.
We are giving them 6 years to reach
the goal that we are trying to accom-
plish, which Is only, “Hey, do not leak
that junk into the surface ground
water that we are drinking.” If they
tell you that they cannot do it within
6 years, then we better get an entirely
new EPA; 6 years is plenty of time.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield’
Mr. BREAUX. I would be glad to
yield to the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, a very important
point La the amendment that was just
passed with the self-certIfication pro-
visions in it will be able to target
EPA’s resources and energies to those
facilities that do not certify that they
are in compliance with ground water,
with fiscal requirements, with regard
to postclosure, so t e argument that
you have this broad scope, we can very
much refine that because we have lust
changed the law to be able to target In
on those lane surface impoundments
that are most In need of scrutiny early
on.
So what it Is we have done here
today with this amendment and the
previous amendment wW enable us to
deal with EPA’s problem of scarce re-
sources.
Mr. LOTr. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. LOTT asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LOTI’. Mr. Chairman, this is an
unusual experience for me. The gen-
tleman from Louisiana and I usually
are together on most bills and amend-
Ociober 6: 1989
ments that come to the floor of the
House of Representatives, and while I
do not have, admittedly, the expertise
on this issue that the members of the
committees and the gentleman from
Louisiana have. I do have some basic
concerns that come into my mind on
this amendment, and I would like to
address some of those concerns.
First, I wonder if the gentleman
from New Jersey would advise me as
to why this is being done in the form
of an amendment, on a bill that has
been in the works for many, many
months, a bill I thought had been very
thoroughly developed. It seems to me
that an amendment of this impact
would have been considered and in.
cluded in the bW if, in fact, there was
really a great need for this particular
approach.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LOTT. I yield to the gentleman
from New Jersey for a response to
that question.
Mr. PWRIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number
of reasons for this amendment. The
fact of the matter is, this subject was
addressed in our basic bill, but the
gentleman from Louisiana came for-
ward with a number of very creative
suggestions as to how to perfect sec-
tion 5.
We have taken a long time trying to
perfect this provIsIon. As the gentle-
man knows, I suspect there has been
some controversy as to how to go
about getting the final language. All
those involved in this Issue have really
contributed, and I think there Is, with
certain limited exceptions, the gentle-
man being one, a large consensus that
has evolved that this is the most mod-
erate, cost-effective way to dealing
with this problem.
Over and above that, almost on a
daily basis there is new informatIon
coming out on surface impoundments.
The gentleman from New York and I
yesterday released a GAO study that
came forward with some devastating
information concluding that the cur-
rent state of the law Is not serving our
basic environmental needs.
So this Is an evolving problem, and
that Is why this proposal Is appropri-
ate and timely at this point.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, win
the gentleman yield?
Mr. Lo ’rr. I yield to the gentleman
from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, lust for a brief com-
ment, I guess more to a point than
anything else, we only have EPA’s
study on surface impoundments, In-
dustrial surface impoundments, in this
country in July of this year. This
-amendment is largely based on the
problem that they pointed out existed
In their July report.
Mr. LOTr. I thank the gentleman.
-------
S ‘ -; ‘ r ’
iNTERIM STATUS
SEC. 34. Section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act is amended by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (e)
to read as folkws:
“(1) owns or operates a facility required to have a
permit under this section—
“(A) which facility was in existence on No-
vember 19, 1980, or
“(B) which facility is in existence on the ef-
fective dale of statutory or regulatory changes
under this Act that render the facility subject to
the requirement to have a permit under this sec-
lion: Provided, That the facility has not been pre-
viously denied a permit under this section and
authority to operate the facility under this section
has not been previously terminated, ‘
p2/3
-------
ed to be reviewed first and on a “faqt-trac’k” ing of the amendment be dispensed
basis. “ with.
On Febr uary 15. 1984, the Agency pub. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With’
fished an Advanced Notice of Proposed out objection, it is so ordered.
Rulemaking to announce the Agency’s curS The anieridment is as follows:
rent act vities to deselop regulations to it.
strict or prohibit the land disposal of has. AwExDsiudr No. 3409
ardous wastes (49 FR 5854). On page 5858.
the Agency stated that the dIax1n-contain
fog hazardous wastes included in the “fast (To grant LMENOMENT No. 2805 ( rpose: To extend deadlines in tarlous
sect ions of the bill)
track” study are those ldentiiied and pr fliousiy required to ha e a permit under Proposed by Mr. CRAFEE (for himself
lntenm status to facilities not pre’
posed to be added to 40 CFR 261.13 In an Section 3OiiS of the Act) &id Senators Stanoan. R.qsoot.pn. and
April 4. 1983, Federal Register notice. Those New paragraph (1MB) amends RCRA See’ Mrrcnnt),
are proposed EPA Hazardous Waste Not ttO 3005 (e) to allow facilities in existence StCTtOi4 5 LAND Dt5i’OSAi, 5,lT’tl’tATIONs
P020. P021. P022 and P023. This amend’ subsequent tO November 19. 1980 to qualify On page 39, tIne 11. strike “July 1. t985”
merit clarifies the reference to “dio’tincon’ for Interim status if those facilitIes become and Insert In lieu thereof “twenty.four
taming hazardous wastes” In this section of aubiect to the subtitle C requirements as a months after the enactment of the Solid
the bill by adding specific reference to the result of amendments to the RCRA statute Waste Disposal Act Amendments ol 1984”.
proposed hazardous waste numbers that are or regulations issued pursuant thereto. Pa’ On page 41 , line I i, strike ‘twelve” and
set forth In the April 4, 1983, Federal Regis. cititles subject to this provision Include fa’ insert in lieu thereof “ta enty-four”.
ter notice and cited In the February 15. cil lties in etistence subsequent to November On page 41. line 18. strike “thIrty-two”
1984. not Ice. 19, 1980 whicl’i treat, store or dispose of and insert In lieu thereof’iorty-elght”.
It is noted that by including hazardous newly listed hazardous castes. including On page 41, line 20. strike “forty-iwo” and
wastes numbered P003, the universe of mobile treatment units, and facilities ahich Insert in ttcu thereof “sIxty”,
wastes aelected by the Congress for a treat, store or dispose of hazardous wastes On page 41. line 21. strIke “fifty-two” and
track” review under this sectIon Ia aome which were previously exempted from cci- Insert in lieu thereof ‘seventy-two’.
what iarger than that identifIed in the Feb- rain ECRA requirements but subsequently On page 41. line 22, immediately folloning
ruary 15, 1984, Federal Register nolice. became subject to these requirements as a “e tment” add the following new sea-
— result of legislative amendments (Ic., small tence: “The Administrator shall base the
quantity generator wastes). Facilities for schedule on a ranking of such listed wastes
which RCRA permits have been previously considering their intrinsic hazard arid their
denied or Interim status has been previously I colune such that decisions a hether or not
hazardous sastes with high Intrinsic h hzard
terminated could not be able to ualifYJ to pro hibit the laud disposal of high volume
interim status pursuant to this provision shall, to the maxImum extent possible, be
under any circumstances.
made by the dale 42 months after the enacC-
Asitroisrwr No, 2808 meiit of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(To extend deadline for expiration of Inter- Aniendments of 1984 and decisions regard-
Is&authorization of State hazardous waste log low volume hazardous wastes with lower
programs) Intrinsic hazard shalt be made by the date
This amendment will assure that the 72 months after the date of such enact-
States have adequate time to fulfill the nec- ment.”.
essary requirements to become fully author’ On page 43. tine 23, strIke “one year” and
bed under Section 3005. Without this insert in lieu thereof “fifteen months”.
amendment, the States’ interim authorna’ ascnoii a usisito/natniso tonincarsows
tiuns a ill noire on January 26, 1985. It Is On page 51. tines 12 and 13. strike “twetve
my understanding that approt’niately 7 to months after the date such petition Is
14 States will not be able to meet this dead- granted or six” and insert in lieu thereof
line, and so would lose their interim author’
tzations, Therefore, this amendment gives On page 51, line 15, atn lte “, whichever Is
the States until January 26. 1988 to fulfill later”.
their requirements before they lose their in- On page 53. line 22. strike “two years” and
terim status. insert in lieu thereof “twenty.eight
The PRESIDrNG OFFICER. Is months”.
there further debate on the committee . a nit ass sixnnnio or
amendments? siaaaanoUs WASTES
— Mr. CHAPEE. Mr. President. I with. On page 54. tine 16, atrtke “twelve” and
AMVSDMEn No. 2802 draw amendment No. 2794. en in lieu thereof “fifteen”.
(To clarify authority of Administrator to The PRESIDING OFFICER. With’ On page 80. line 12. strike “twelve” and
enter into cooperative aoreementa with out objection, it is so ordered. insert in i;eu thereof “fifteen”,
States to assist In the administration of Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I move aac’rloi( 54 alit rsisstons nON LASS
new requirements and prohibitions.)
adoption of those amendments. Du posaLracsUrsn
This amendment ratifies the current prac- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The On page 85, line 22, strike “thirty” and
lice of using State-EPA agreements to
enable States to participate as much as pos- Question Li o I l agreeIng i.e the anerli- .risert in lieu thereof ‘thirty-ala”.
aible in the Implementation of RCRA prior ments.
to authorization of a State program under The amendments cNos. 2795. 2796,
Section 3006. For example, Slates that do 2797, 2800, 2801, 2802. 2805, and 2806)
not yet hate adequate autiionty to obtain were agreed to en bloc.
authorization may still hate sufficient State AM nOibIENT NO. 3409
authority to be able to enter into saree- Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I send
tnenia to conduct inspections and draft per-
mits for EPA. Other States may have made a series of 18 committee a’iiendments
the necessary statutory and reguiaiory to the desk and ask for their immedi
changes to implement an tndependent State ate cons Ideration. I ask that they be
regulatory program for small quantity g m- considered en bloc.
erators between 100 and 1.000 kilograms The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
that EPA can acknowledge in an agreement, out objection, It is so ordered. The
lii those cases, the Administrator may well clerk a ill report the amendments.
aish to arrange to dci ote his priorities and The legislative clerk read as follows:
resources to other areas chere then’ is not The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr
ai-eady considerable State activity and, or Cxarni proposes an amendment numbered
- to other States. 3409. en bloc,
The agreement or existence of an operat-
ing State program does not mean that the Mr. CRAFEE. Mr. President, I ask
Administrator relinquishes his authority or unanimous Consent that further read-
S9 170
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
responsibility , Until a State receives interim
or final authorization for a program compo-
nent, the Administrator alone is charged
v.ith the legal responsibility under aubtitle
C. We do not Intend agreements to be
viewed as a de facto, more lenient ts pe of
authorization.
July 25, 1984
Aiaxascn No. 2800
(To make technical and clarifying amend-
ments to Section 13 regarding export of
hazardous waste)
This amendment does not chance the
meaning or original intent of the provision.
As stated on page 48 of the Committee
Report “(s)hipmenta must conform with the
semis of the tLnterniitionab agreement to
satisfy the reuuirements of this section.”
The language added by this amendment
clarifies and codifies that onginal intent.
Asnwo’etN’r No. 21301
(To make miscellaneous technical and
clarifying amendments)
This amendment makes tao clarifying
amendments and one technical amendment
to correct a typographical error.
This first ctarifstng amendment retatv’s to
on-site storage by small quantity generators
and the second relates to preservation of
the Administrator’s authority, in the con-
t nt of permit Issuance or otherwise, to
ordir new liners at landfills or surface im-
poundinents a’iuch instalted linen during
Interim status.
SEC1’tON 25 REPORT TO CONGRESS
On page 90, ltne 24 and 25, strike “March
15, 1984’ and insert in lieu thereof “J.ine
15. 1984”
AMLriCMENT No 3409
(Purpose: To clarify Administrators author-
Ity to require a permit to construct a haz-
ardous waste treatment, storage, or dispos-
al faeiiiiyl
Amend S.757 by adding the follow trig new
sect ion.
Ste. - Section 3005(a) 01 the Solid Waste
Diaporal Act Ii , amended by—
U I Siri ng “a” immediately after
“os ning or operating” In the first sentence
ar.d Inserting in lieu thereof “an existing f a
ciltty or planring to construct a new”;
(2) Inserting in the second sentence “and
(lie consiruci:on of any new iacility for the
-------
October 6’, 1983
and effect for more than ten years after the
date on which the permit Li Issued unless
the permit Is renewed for additional periods
of not to exceed ten years each. Any such
renewal shall be subject to the same re-
Quirements as are applicable to the Issuance
of a new permit,”
iëY Tzwrrsszs roe Raview or EPA Puasr
bvucarsoea.—Sectlon 3005(c) of such Act
La amended by Inserting “(1)” alter “Pwm
Iasusrcx.—”and by adding the following
new paragraph at the end thereof:
“(2 1(A)) ( I I Not later than the date four
years after the enactment of the Hazardous
Waste Control and Enforcement Act of
1983, Lu the case of each application for a
permit for a land dlspoeal faculty under this
section which was submitted before such
date, the Administrator shall Issue a final
permit pursuant such application or Issue a
final denial of such applicalton. In consider.
lag permit applications for existing land dis-
posal facilities, the Administrator shall give
highest priority to permits for facilities that
are currently Contaminating ground water.
“(U) Not later than the date five years
after the enactment of the Hazardous
Waste Control and Enforcement Act of
1983, In the case of each aplicatlon for a
permit for an incinerator facility under this
section whIch was submitted before such
date, the Administrator shall Issue a final
permit pursuant to such application or Issue
a final denial of such application.
“tB) Not later than the date eight years
after the enactment of the Hazardous
Waste Control and Enforcement Act of
1983. In the case of each application for a
permit for any facility under this section
(other than a facUlty referred to In zubpsra.
graph (A)) which was submitted before such
date, the Administrator shall Issue a final
permit pursuant to such application or Issue
a final denial of such application.
“(C) The time periods specified In this
“aragraph shall also apply in the case of
y State which is administering an author-
.ed hazardous waste program under section
3D06. Interim status under subsection (e)
‘shall terminate for each faculty referred to
In subparagraph (A) or (B) on the expire-
Lion of the four, five-, or eight-year period
referred 10 in subparagraph (A> or (3),
whichever is applicable, unless an applica-
tion Is tiled for a permit under other provi-
sions of this subsection within—
“ Ci) nine months alter the date of the en-
actment of the Hazardous Waste Control
and Enforcement Act of 1983 (In the case of
a facility referred to In subparagraph (A)
which Is a landfill facility).
“ (Ii) two years after the date of the enact-
ment of the Hazardous Waste Control and
Enforcement Act oLj983 (In the case of a
faculty referred to In subparagraph (A)
other than a landfill faculty), or
“(lii) four years after such data of enact-
ment Cm the case of a facility referred to In
subparagraph (B)).”.
Id) CLASS Prmjrrs —Section 3005 of such
Act Is amended by adding the foflowing new
subsection at the end thereof:
“(g) CLass Pxiuerrs.—(1) Mter nQtlce and
opportunity (or hearing, the Administrator
may promulgate permit application require-
ments and permit ond1tlons applicable to
owners and operators of a class of Inclilties
tf he determines that the tecilities In the
class should be subject to similar design, op-
erating, and management requirements.
Such classes shall be limited to facilities
which treat or store hazardous waste In con-
tainers, tanks, or enclosed piles and mobile
treatmeat units designed to treat specified
types of hazardous waste.
“M if, after notice and opportunity for an
al hearing under section ?004(bX2l.
tmlnlstzator determines that a facility
in any class gn ’4ed under paragraph (1)
meets the requirements and conditions pro-
mulgated under that paragraph, he may
Issue a class permit for such facility contain-
ing such permit conditions.
“(3) Notwttbctanding the foregoing, the
Administrator may. In establishing require-
and conditions under paragraph (U.
provide that certain permit conditions shall
be established for each faculty on a site-epe-
dflc basis, Additional permit conditions
shall be promulgated to take Into account
site-specific factors in the case of mobile
treatment units,”.
Mr. TORRES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that section 7 be considered as
read and printed In the Racoiw.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there abjection
to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amend-
menta to sectIon 7?
orream sy am. means
Mr. TORRES, Mr. chairman, I offer
an amendment,.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Tosass: Page
28, after line 22, insert:
(C) HxaLTn braces Svviizns ,—Section 3005
is amended by adding the following new
subsection after subsection (g):
“th) Rzsr,rn Erracm-s Srvoms.—C1) Each
landfill which is operating pursuant to a
permit under this section (or for which a
permit Is treated as having been issued
under subsection Ic)) shall be required by
the Administrator (or the State in the case
of an authorized State program under sec-
tion 3006) to conduct a health effects study
for the affected community of the hazard-
ous waste associated with such landfill (In-
ludlng hazardous waste transported to or
released from the landfill). The study shall
Include, for individuals residing or working
In the affected community, a statistical
analysis of the present and future health ef-
fects associated with the landfill. Such
study shall Include an analysis of health ef-
fects associated with all pollutant pathways
through which hazardous waste may reach
Individuals L u the affected community. Not
later than one year after the date of the en-
aetnient of this subsection (or after the
commencement of operations at the landfill,
If later), the results of each such study shall
be made available to the public and shall be
submitted to the Administrator and to the
appropriate State authorities for the State
In which the landfill Is located. The atudy
shall be periodically updated as determined
by the AdmInIstrator.
“(2) For purposes of the study under this
subsection, the affected community shall
consist of individuals residing or workini
within such distance of the lafldfW as the
Administrator determines to be appropriate
based on a site specific analysis, except that
in all cases, the surrounding community
shall be treated as including at least those
Individuals working within the landfill arid
those residing or working within a 2.5 mIle
radius of the landiw. The Administrator
shall apecily the surrounding community
for each landfill referred to in paragraph (1)
as promptly as practicable after the date of
the enactment of this subsection.”.
Mr. TORRES (during the readlng)
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed In the
R Sc 0RD.
118155
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, there
sre approxImately 450 hazardous
waste landfills in this country. These
are class I hazardous waste dumps. My
asnendtnent would make It possible to
find out exactly how the health of our
constituents Is affected by these 450
landfills. Eight now there Is no way of
knowing wish any certainty whether a
person’s health Is In danger if he or
she Is living next to a hazardous waste
landfill.
People living next to landfills need
to know if the operations of the land-
fill within their community have any
effect on their health. They need to
know the facts. Landfill operators
should not be afraid to disclose the
facts. If they are operating a safe land-
fill the facts just might show that
nearby residents have nothing to fear.
But without the facts, our constitu-
ent., have only to fear the worst, and
contrary to belief my amendment Is
not intended to close down any partic-
ular landfill but rather to disclose
.faets In order to minimize constItuent
fears—I know about constituent fears
firsthand because a hazardous waste
landfill Is located In my district. Last
June 3, the Small Business Subcom-
mittee on Energy, Environment and
Safety, Chaired by the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Sm-
rote, held a factfindlng hearing about
a hazardous waste landfill In West
Covina, Calif. -
This particular landZIU Is surround-
ed by homes and businesses. The testi.
many we received from State agencies,
local enforcement officials, the landfill
operators, and residents of the area
clearly indicated that no one knows if
the landfill in West Coving adversely
affects the health of the nearby Z0,000
residents, and people that work in the
area,
My amendment will require every
hazardous waste landfill operator to
conduct an Independent health effects
study. I would anticipate that a land-
fill operator will hire an Independent
consultant to conduct the health
study. The study will include a site
specifIc examination of the landfill
and the surrounding area within at
least a 2.5-mile radius, The site specific
examination will consider the unique
hydrological and geological character-
istics of each site. For example: The
study should Investigate the presence
of ground water or earthquake faults
underneath or adjacent to the landfill.
FollowIng a determination of the
unique characteristics of each site, the
consultant will then make a decision
about the field monitoring procedures
to be used.
These procedures may include
taking soil samples by coring the land.
fill at predetermined locations, sam-
pling the ambient air at the landfill
and the surrounding area and collect-
. CONGRESSlONAL RECORD — HOUSE
c /3
-------
September 8, 1982
shall file with the Administrator a notifica-
tion stating the location and general de-
scription of the facility, together with a do-
scnption of the Identified or listed hazard-
ous waste Involved and. In the ease of a fa-
cility referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), a
description of the production or energy re-
coicry actMty can’led Out at the facility
and such other Information as the Admuils-
trator deems necessary. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, the term ‘hazardous
waste listed under section 3001’ also In-
cludes any commercial chemical product
which is Hated under section 3001 and
which, In lieu of Its original Intended use, is
U) produced (or use as (or as a component
oil a fuel, tIll distributed for use as a fuel.
or (in) burned as a fuel. Notification shall
not be required under this subsection in the
case of facilities (such as residential boilers)
where the Administrator determines that
such notification is not necessary in order
for the Admini. .trator to obtain sufficient
information respecting current practices of
facilities using hazardous saste for energy
reco ery. Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to affect or Impair the pro isions
of secuun 3003(b)(31. N.nhing hi this subsec-
tion shall affect regulatory determinations
undcr section 3012 (as amended by the Used
Oil Recycling Act of 1980).”
- (2) SectIon 3010 is amended by strikIng
out “the preceding sentence” and subsutut-
Irig “the preceding pro lslons”.
(b) STA ioaxos.—Sectzon 3004 of such Act
Is amended by adding the following at the
end thereof:
“(e) H viRooos Want Usco as Pov..—Not
later than tao years after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, and after
notice and opportunity for public hearing,
the Admmis rator shall promulgate regula-
tions establishing such—
“(1) standards applicable to the owners
and operators of facilities ahich produce a
fuel (A) from any hazardous saste identi-
fied or listed under sectIon 3001. or (B) from
any hazardous sane Identified or listed
under section 3001 and ai’y other material;
“(2) standards applicable to the owners
and operators of facilities which burn for
purposes of energy recot ery any fuel pro-
duccd as pro tded In paragraph (I) or any
fuel ahich otherwise contains any hazard.
ous waste Identified or listed under section
3001: and
“(3) standards applicable to any person
sho distributes or markets any fuel ahich is
produced as pro ided in paragraph (1) or
any fuel ahich otheraise contains any haz-
ardous waste identified or listed under sec-
tIon 3001
as may be necessary to protect human
health and the en 1rimment. Such stand-
ards may include any of the requirements
set forth in paragraphs U) through (7) of
subsection (a) as may be appropriate. 1 oth-
Ing in this subsection shalt be construed to
affect or impair the provisions of section
IOOl(bX3). For purposes of this subaec;on.
the term hazardous saste listed under sec-
tion 3001 Includes any commercial chemical
product which is listed under section 3001
and ahich, In lieu of its ori Inal Intended
use, is (A) produced for use as (Or as a coin
ponent of) a fuel. (B) distributed for use as
a fuel, or IC) burned as a fuel.
“U) LADEUNG.—Notaithstanding any
other protision of law. It shall be unlawful
for any person aho Is required to file a noti-
fication in accordance with paragraph 11) or
(3) of sectIon 3010 to distribute or market
any fuel which is produced from any haz-
ardous a sate Identified or listed under sec-
tion 3001, or any fuel shich otheraise con-
tains any hazardous waste Identified or
listed under section 3001 0 the Invoice or
the bill of sale tails—
1-1 . (D3 b 7 o,. s 47&
CONGRESSIONAL RECORd — HOUSE
“(I) to bear the following statement:
‘WARNING: THIS FUEL CONTAU 8
HAZARDOUS WASTES”, and
“(2) to list the hazardous wastes contained
therein.
Such statement shall be located In a con-
spicuous place on every such Invoice or bill
of sale and shall appear Lii conspicuous and
legible type In contrast by typography, lay-
outs, or color with other printed matter on
the invoice or bill of sale,”.
slc’noN 3005 psasuva
Sac, I (a) Firiai, Psawrz.—Sectlon 3005 of
the Solid Waste Di,sposal Act Is amended by
adding the following new subsection at the
end thereof:
“Ce) Ral-Esszs.—Any permit (other than a
permit treated as issued pursuant to subsec-
tion tel) issued to a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility wider section 3005 (or
under an authorized State hazardous waste
program under section 3Q00) shall, in addi-
tion to other applicable requirements, ad-
dress any release of hazardous saste from
such factlity which occurs prior to the date
of issuance of such permit. Such permits
shall Include schedules and provide finan-
cial assurances for addressing such releases
where the required actIon cannot be com
pleted prior to permit issuance. The permit
provisions required wider this subsection
shall not apply to any portion of the facility
at which hazardous sage treatment, stor.
age or disposal activities do not take place,
(b) Exps srox Duarvo IN-rEsins S’l ’a’rcs.—
Section 3005(e) of such Act is amended by
adding the following at the end thereof:
“The Administrator shall promulgate regu-
lations under a hich any owner or operator
of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility
operating under Interim status pursuant to
this subsection who expands the capacity of
the facility (except the capacity for storage
or treatment in tanks or containers arid en-
closed waste piles) by an amount in excess
of 10 per centum of the capacity specified in
the permit application shall be required to
obtain a permit under the provisIons of this
section prior to construction of such expan-
sion. The regulations of the Administrator
under this subsection may, in the discretion
of the Administrator, contain standards for
facilities which expand such capacity by 10
per centum or less and such standards may
vary from the standards applicable tO those
facilities operating pursuant to a permit
under this subsection which do not expand
such capacIty.”,
T1. XAflL5 r ca gzvsgw or ‘a rsasexr
APPLICATIONS
Sec. 8, Section 3005to) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is amended by insertIng ‘U)”
after “Prawn Issvazic’a,—” and by adLuing
the Iol va1nj new paragraph at the end
thereof:
“I2WA) Not later than the date four years
after the enactment of the Res ,urce Con-
servation and Reco ery Act Reauthorization
Act of 1962, In the case of each application
for a perisut for a, land dtspoaai facility
under this section shich was submitted
before such date, the Admuuatrator shall
issue a final permit pursuant to such appll-
eatlon or issue a final denial of such applica-
tion.
“(B) Not later than the date six years
after the enactment of the Resource Con.
seri’ation and Recovery Act ReauthoriZaLlDfl
Act of 1982, in the case of each application
for a permit for any facility under this sec-
tion (other than a facility referred to In sub-
paragraph (A) ahich sas submitted before
such date, the AdminIstrator shall Issue a
final permit pursuant to such application or
Issue a final denIal of such application.
“C The time periods specified In this
paragraph shall not apply in the case of any
H 675
State which Ii adminlstertng an authorizi
hazardous waste program under sectic
3006, InterIm status under subsection (.
shall terminate for each facility referred I
in subparagraph CA) or (B) on the explr
tlon of the four- or six-year period referre
to in subparagraph (A) or (B), whichever i
applicable, unless an application Is filed to
a permit under other provisions of this sub
section within such four-year or six-yeas
period, as the case may be.”.
NATIONAL GROONDWAT COMMISSION
Sac. 9, (a) EsrAsusnsmrr,—There Is estab-
lished a commission to be known as the Na’
tlonal Grounds ater Commission (herein-
after In this section referred to as the
“Commission”),
(b) Duties or CoMMssszosi.—The duties of
the Commission are to:
(I) Assess generally the amount, location,
and quality of (tie NatioWs groundwater re-
sources.
(2) IdentIfy generally the sources, extent,
and types of groundaater contamination,
- (3) Assess the scope and nature of rela-
tionship betseen groundsater contamina-
tion and grounds ater withdraaal and devel.
op projections of atailable, usable ground-
water in future years on a nationwide basis,
(4) Assess the relationship between sur-
face water pollution and grounds ater pollu-
tion.
(5) Assess the need for a policy to protect
groundwater from degradation caused by
contamination,
(6) Azaess generally the extent of over-
draftizig of groundaater resources and the
adequacy of existIng mechanisms for pro-
venting such overdraiting.
?) Assess generally the engineering and
technological capability to recharge
aquIfers.
(8) Assess the adequacy of the present un-
derstanding of grounds ater recharge zones
arid sole source aquifers and assess the ade-
quacy of knoa ledge regarding the unterrela.
tiousnlp of designated aquifers and re-
charge zones.
(9) Assess the role of land-use patterns as
these relate to protecting gi-oundsater from
contaxn :natlon.
(10) Assess methods for remedial abate-
ment of groundwater contaminatIon as sell
as the costs and benefits of cleaning up p01.
luled grounds ater and compare cleanup
costs to the costs ut substitute water supply
methods.
(11) InvestIgate policIes and actions taken
by foreign governments to protect ground-
water from contamination.
(12) Assess the use and effectIveness of ex-
isting Interstate compacts to address
groundwater protectIon from contaznma-
tlosi.
(13) Analyze existing legal rights and rem-
edies regai-dmg contamination of ground-
water,
(14) Assess the adequacy of existing stand.
ards for grounds ater quality wider State
and F ’deral law,
(15) Assess momtoring methodologies of
the States and the Federal Government to
achieve the level of protection of the re-
source as required by State and Federal law,
(16) Assess the relationship between
groundwater flow Systems (and associated
recharge areas) and the control of sources
of contamination,
(17) Assess the role of underground Injec-
tion practices as a means of disposing of
waste fluids white protecting groundwater
front contamination.
(18) Assess methods for abatement and
containment of groundwater contamination
and for aquifer restoration including the
-------
- -‘ ç. ! ç :; /1-/ ’J r - ’ AS 4pOr 1cb
23 J . (c) Tz.IIET.4BLE FOR REVIEw OF EPA PERMIT AP-
24 PLIc.4Tlo.vs.—Section 3OO5 ’c, of such Act is amended by
I inserting “(1)” after “PERMIT ISSUANCE.—” and by
2 adding the following new paragraph at the end thereof:
3 “(2)(A)(i) Not later than the date four years after thee
4 enactment of the Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement
5 Act of 1983, in the case of each application for a permit for a
6 land disposal facility under this section which was submitted
7 before such date, the Administrator shall issue a final permit
8 pursuant to such application or issue a final denial of such
9 application. In considering permit applications for exi.stiiig
10 land disposal facilities, the Administrator shall give highest
11 priority to permits for facilities that are currently contami-
12 nating ground water.
13 “(ii) Not later than the date five years after the enact-
1-I men! of the Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act
15 of 1988, in the case of each application for a permit for an
16 incinerator facility under this section which was submitted
17 before such date, the Administrator shall issue a final permit
18 pursuant to such application or issue a final denial of such
19 application.
20 “(B) Not later than the date eight years after the enact-
21 ment of the Ha:ardous lVaste Control and Enforcement Act
22 of 1983, in the case of each application for a permit for any
93 facility under this section (other than a facility referred to in
24 subparagraph ‘A)) which wa submitted before such date, the
HR 2867 RH
-------
27
1 Administrator shall issue a final permit pursuant 1 0 such
2 application or issue a final denial of such application.
3 “(C) The time periods specified in this paragraph shall
4 also apply in the case of any Slate which is administering an
5 authorized hazardous waste program under section 3006. In-
6 terim status under subsection (e) shall terminale for each [ a-
7 cility referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B) on the expirci-
8 lion of the four-, five-, or eight-year period referred to in sub-
9 paragraph ‘A) or (B), whichever is applicable, unless an ap-
10 plication is filed for a permit under other provisions of this
11 subsection within—
12 “(‘i,) nine months afteT the date of the enactment of
13 the Ha:ardous TVasle Control and Enforcement Act of
14 1983 (in the case of a facility referred to in suhpara-
15 graph (A) which is a landfill facility),
16 ‘Yii.) two years after the date of the enactment of
17 the Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of
18 1983 (in the case of a facility referred to in subpara-
19 graph (A) other than a landfill faeility , or
20 “(iii) four years after such date of enactment (in
21 the case of a f zcility referred to in subpargraph ( ‘B) ,). “.
-------
11 TIMETABLE FOR REVIEW OF EPA PERMIT APPLICATIONS ‘
1:6
12 SEC. 8. Section 3005(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal
13 Act is amended by inserting “(1)” after “PERMIT Issu- 1)
14 ANCE.—” and by adding the following new paragraph at the
15 end thereof:
16 “(2)(A) Not later than the date four years after the en- J )
17 actment of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
18 Reauthorization Act of 1982, in the case of each application
19 for a permit for a land disposal facility under this section
20 which was submitted before such date, the Administrator
21 shall issue a final permit pursuant to such application or
22 issue a final denial of such application.
23 “(B) Not later than the date six years after the enact-
24 ment of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
25 Reauthorization Act of 1982, in the case of each application
1 for a permit for any facility under this section (other than a
2 facility referred to in subparagraph (A)) which was submit-
3 ted before such date, the Administrator shall issue a final
4 permit pursuant to such application or issue a final denial of
5 such application.
6 “(C) The time periods specified in this paragraph shall
7 not apply in the case of any State which is administering an
8 authorized hazardous waste program under section 3006. In-
9 terim status under subsection (e) shall terminate for each fa-
10 cility referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B) on the expira-
11 tion of the four- or six-year period referred to in subpara-
12 graph (A) or (B), whichever is applicable, unless an applica-
13 tion is filed for a permit under other provisions of this subsec-
14 tion within such four-year or six-gear period, as the case
15 may be.’
-------
, q 7 -s 7o, ‘ 7tC ( g
Section 8. Timetable for review of EPA permit applica.tione
Section 8 amends Section 3005(e) by requiring that the Agency issue
or deny permits under the Subsection (c) of Section 3005 to all land
disposal facilities within 4 years of enactment and all remaining fa-
cilities with 6 years. This amendment codifies the Agency’s stated
intention and projections in this area. For purposes of this section,
land disposal facilities include landfills, surface impoundments, waste
piles, land treatment facilities, and incinerators—as stated by the
Agency at the Committee’s March 31 hearing. These deadlines do not
apply to facilities in States that have received authorization under
Section 3006 of RCRA to issue permits for the type of facility in ques-
tion. Any land disposal facility or other treatment storage or disposal
facility that does not submit an application for final permit review
under Subsection (c) of 3005 within 4 or 6 years, respectively, will
have the interim status that was granted to the facility under 3005(e)
revoked.
-------
H1z 7 2 O( O “.‘l
H. R. 2867—23
NEW AND INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
SEc. 214. (a) Section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
amended by adding the following new subsection after subsection (f):
“(g) Rrs&utcii, DEVELOPMENT, AND DP 1oNsmAnoN PERMrrS.—(1)
The Administrator may issue a research, development, and demon-
stration permit for any hazardous waste treatment facility which
proposes to utilize an innovative and experimental hazardous waste
treatment technology or process for which permit standards for such
experimental activity have not been promulgated under this sub-
title. Any such permit shall include such terms and conditions as
will assure protection of human health and the environment. Such
permits—
“(A) shall provide for the construction of such facilities, as
necessary, and for operation of the facility for not longer than
one year (unless renewed as provided in paragraph (4)), and
“(B) shall provide for the receipt and treatment by the facility
of only those types and quantities of hazardous waste which the
Administrator deems necessary for purposes of determining the
efficacy and performance capabilities of the technology or proc-
ess and the effects of such technology or process on human
health and the environment, and
“(C) shall include such requirements as the Administrator
deems necessary to protect human health and the environment
(including, but not limited to. requirements regarding monitor-
ing, operation, insurance or bonding, financial reponsibility,
closure, and remedial action), and such requirements as the
Administrator deems necessary regarding testing and providing
of information to the Administrator with respect to the oper-
ation of the facility.
The Administrator may apply the criteria set forth in this para-
graph in establishing the conditions of each permit without separate
establi.shment of regulations implementing such criteria.
“(2) For the purpose of expediting review and issuance of permits
under this subsection, the Administrator may, consistent with the
protection of human health and the environment, modify or waive
permit application and permit issuance requirements established in
the Administrator’s genera’ permit regulations except that there
may be no modification or waiver of regulations regarding financial
responsibility (including insurance) or of procedures established
under section 7004(bX2) regarding public participation.
“(3) The Administrator may order an immediate termination of
all operations at the facility at any time he determines that termi-
nation is necessary to protect human health and the environment.
“(4) Any permit issued under this subsection may be renewed not
more than three times. Each such renewal shall be for a period of
not more than 1 year.”.
rL1 r.
96
SECTION 214—NEW AND INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
House bill.—The House bill authorizes EPA to issue permits for
experimental facilities without first issuing permit standards. Du-
rdtion of the permit is limited to 1 year. Permit application and is-
suance requirements may be modified or waived, except for finan-
cial responsibility and public participation requirements.
Senate amendinent.—The Senate amendment does not contain a
similar provision.
Conference substitute.—The Conference substitute is the same as
the House bill with an additional authorization to renew such per-
mits not more than three times. Prior to issuing a renewal permit
the Administration should review the facility’s operation to deter
mine whether the requirements and conditions set forth in the
statute and the permit are being complied with. . - - - - -
-------
4 pp .4fL) g)
12 NEW AND INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
13 SEC. 9. (a) REsE uwH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMON-
14 STRATION PERMITs.—Section 3005 is amended by adding
15 the following new subsection at the end thereof:
16 “(h) REsE u cH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEM0NsTRA-
17 TION PERMIT5.—(1) The Administrator may issue a re-
18 search, development, and demonstration permit for any haz-
19 ardous waste treatment facility which proposed to utilize an
20 innovative and experimental hazardous waste treatment tech-
21 nology or process for which permit standards for such experi-
22 mental activity have not been promulgated under this subti-
23 tie. Any such permit shall include such terms and conditions.
24 as will assure protection of human health and the environ-
25 ment. Such permits—
t .21V
-------
P c ? ,-
1 “(A) shall provide for the construction of such
2 facilities, as necessary, and for operation of the facility
3 for not longer than one year;
4 “(B) shall provide for the receipt and treatment
5 by the facility of only those types and quantities of
6 hazardous waste which the Administrator deems neces-
7 sary for purposes of determining the efficacy and per-
8 formance capabilities of the technology or process an
9 the effects of such technology or process on huma
10 health and the environment; and
11 “(0) shall include such requirements as the Ad-i
12 ministrator deems necessary to protect human health
13 and the environment (including, but not limited to, re-
14 quirements regarding monitoring, operation, insurance
15 or bonding, financial reponsibility, closure, and remedi-
16 al action), and such requirements as the Administrator
17 deems necessary regarding testing and providing of in-
18 formation to the Administrator with respect to the op-
19 eration of the facility.
20 The Administrator may apply the criteria set forth in this
21 paragraph in establishing the conditions of each permit with-
22 out separate establishment of regulations implementing such
23 criteria.
24 “(2) For the purpose of expediting review and issuance
25 of permits under this subsection, the Administrator may, con-
0 2/çl
-------
1 sistent with the protection of human health and the environ-
2 ment, modify or waive permit application and permit issuance
3 requirements established in the Administrator’s general
4 permit regulations except that there may be no modification
5 or waiver of regulations regarding financial responsibility (in-
6 cluding insurance) or of procedures established under section
7 7004(b)(2) regarding public participation.
8 “(3) The Administrator may order an immediate termi-
9 nation of all operations at the facility at any time he deter-
10 mines that termination is necessary to protect human health
11 and the environment.”.
-------
118158
lations, and the evaluation of coftrol
populations. These are the kinds of
things that are going to be essential if
we are not to repeat the kind of Love
Canal quick and dirty. 1-year chromo-
some damage study that ended up
greatly impacting the people who live
there to no avail. Since in the final
analysis, when the Love Canal study
was done more seriously, the first ç
suits turned out not to be true,
Mr. ORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYITER. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman. just to put into ques-
tion the gentleman’s Implication that
somehow this is a new, very un-
thought out approach, this Is identical
to what it Is that Is currently being
done by HBS and EPA on Superfund.
Tlw gentleman recalls, of course,
that we put into the law the same type
of capability with regard to abandoned
dumps. ______
Mr. Rfl-i-z . I.! I may reclaim my
time—and I will yield to the gentle-
man again—I think the point Is ex-
trernely well taken that the 104(1)
study In Superfund, has approached
this very question.
Let me tell you how they have done
It. You know, of course, the gentleman
from New Jersey is responsible for this
legislation and I must say the 104(1)
study Is a responsible legislatl(’e ap-
proach. Under the Superfund statute
enacted in 1980, there Is authorized
under section 104(i) of that statute an
agency within the Public Health Serv-
ice known as the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry,
which shall report directly to the Sur-
geon General of the United States.
Under a recent court order that estab-
lished—with the concurrence of envl-
ronniental and Industry interest—a
timetable for the Agency’s action. The
Agency will: -
Establish and maintain a national
registry of serious diseases and ill-
nesses and a national registry of per-
sons exposed to toxic substances;
Establish and maintain inventory of
literature, research, and studies on the
health effects of toxic substances; and
Conduct periodic survey and screen-
ing programs to determine relation-
-ships betwen exposure to toxic sub-
stances and Illness.
Moreover, the land disposal regula-
tions effective in January of this year
(1983) mInimize the release of con-
taminants into the environment. Fur-
thermore. safeguards—for example, in
the form of mandatory groundwater
monitoring—insure that materials
from a waste disposal site would be de-
tected prior to their release from the
property boundary.
I might add that here we are talking
about toxic substances. We sometimes
mistakenly use the terms “toxic” and
“hazardous” interchangeably. I tried
to point this out in previous debate.
The two are not interchangeable.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Rrrrsa) has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Rrrran
was allowed to proceed for 3 additIonal
minutes,)
Mr. Ri-i-r -sst. We use the terms in-
terthangeably, and the two are not
the same.
Vinegar can be considered hazardous
because it is corrosive acetic acid, but
Is certainly not in the toxic category.
Flammability is a part of the defini-
tion of “hazardous,” and there are
many things that are flammable
which are not toxic. There are also
many things that are just slightly re-
active which are not toxic,
The gentleman from New Jersey
points out that in 104(1) of Superfund
we do have provisions to evaluate in
this sense—and I might add, the lan-
guage does not only pertain to aban-
doned sites, It establishes and main-
tains a national registry of serious dis-
eases and illnesses and a national reg-
Istry of persons exposed to toxic sub-
stances.
It Ismy understanding that on Su-
perfund—the gentleman may correct
me. It establishes and maintains an in-
ventory of literature of research stud-
ies and health effects of toxic sub-
stances, and it conducts periodic sur-
veys—this is the part, I think, that the
gentleman Is referring to—and screen-
lug programs to determine relation-
ships between exposure to toxic sub-
stances and illnesses.
In other words, what we are doing
there is approaching the far more
severe problem of toxic materials as
opposed to hazardous materials, which
can be defined In a way substantially
less dangerous to human health and
safety than the toxic materials.
What the gentleman from California
is doing, without the kind of definition
that Is present in 104(1) of Superfund,
is extending it to a vast new playing
field. He is trying to do something in
one year that we are having some dif.
ficulty in accomplishing over many
years. It is not the substance of what
the gentleman is proposing, It Is the
mechanism and the scope and the
extent which makes the gentleman’s
amendment extremely unworkable.
The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
-the amendment offered by the gentle’
ma” from California (Mr. Toiutzs).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to section 7?
£XE!D T OFrmm BY MR. BKn.TOx
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman. I
offer an amendment to section 7.
The Clark read as follows:
Aniéhdment offered by Mr. Sgn.rox: Page
28. after line 22, Insert:
aiw AND INNOVATIVI TRZAT iT
TscEIIOLOGIZS
Sac. ‘is. (a) Reszszcx. Drvzi.OPMZNT. AND
Drioxsxz. v ioii PuMirs.—Section 3005 Is
amended by adding the following new sub-
section at the end thercof
“(hi Rssxsuicx. Dcvxwpacxlrr. sirn DEMoS.
STIATI0N PUMITS.—(l) The Administrator
October 6’, 1988
may Issue a research, development, and
demonstration permit for any hazardous
waSte treatment facility which proposed to
utilbe an innovative and experimental haz-
ardous waste treatment technology or proc-
em for which permit standards for such ex-
perimental activity have not been promul.
gated under this subtitle. Any such permit
shall include such terms and conditions as
wilL-assure protection of human health and
the environment. Such permits—
‘(A) shall provide for the construction of
such facilities, as necessary, and for oper-
atlon of the facility for not longer than 1
year, and
“(B) shall provide for the receipt and
treatment by the facilIty of only those types
and quantities of hazardous waste which
the Administrator deems necessary for pur-
poses of determining the efficacy and per-
formance capabilities of the technology or
process and the effects of such technology
or process on human health and the envi.
ronment, and
“4C) shall include such requirements as
the Administrator deems necessary to pro-
tect human health and the environment (in-
cluding, but not limited to, requirements re-
garding monitoring, operation. insurance or
bonding, financial responsibility, closure,
and remedial action), and such require-
ments as the Administrator with respect to
the operation of the facility.
The AiiniinLctrator may apply the criteria
set forth in this paragraph in establishing
the conditions of each permit without sepa.
rate establishment of regulations Imple-
menting such criteria.
“(2) For the purpose of expediting review
and issuance of permits under this subsec-
tion, the Administrator may, consistent
with the protecUon of human health and
the environment, modify or valve permit
application and permit issuance require-
ments established in the Administrator’s
general permit regulations except that
there may be no modification or waiver of
regulations regarding financial responslbill.
ty (including Insurance) or of procedures es-
tablished under section 7004bx2 regarding
public participation.
“(3) The Administrator may order an in
mediate termination pf all operations at the
facility at any time he determines that ter-
mination is necessary to protect human
health and the envirunnuent.”.
Mr. SKELION (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed in the
Rzcozn.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection. -
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, the
amendment I offer encourages the de-
velopment of alternatives to landfill-
lug for hazardous waste disposal at the
Federal policy level, especially those
Ideas developed by people In small
business.
Mr. FLORTO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amend-
ment and I commend the gentleman
for offering it. The central purpose of
HR. 2867 is to restrict land disposal of
hazardous waste and to develop safe
-------
October 6 1983
alternatives. Unfortunately, EPA c&
rently has no system to facilitate re-
search projects Involving. hszardoaix
waste treatment. A, new mology
must go through ths.ss regulations
designed for immerclal use facilities,,
such as those fez’ ttIsp”
This Is necessarily a lengthy procecs
Since EPA does not have permit stand-
ards for new treatment technology,.
there Is little chance Innovative treat-
ment methods will become available.
My colleague’s amendment provides
a mechanL for developing the new
technologies that we need to Intelli-
gently neutralize or destroy hazardous
wastes. The Admlntctrator would be
able to accelerate the permit process
to some extent so that an innovator
has a chance to prove the validity of
his Idea and establishes a factual base
to support his process. The amend-
ment still provides for full public par-
tielpatlon and a showing of financial
responsibility. Additionally, the Ad-
ministrator retains the power to limit
the type and quality of waste to be
treated and can require extensive
safety monitoring. The Administrator
can terminate the process at any time
if human health or the environment Is
endangered.
Restricting land disposal of hazard-
ous waste and to develop safe alterna-
tives are the main goals of this bill
under consideration. This amendment
helps to accomplish these goals and I
fully support It.
Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. S TON. I yiold to the gestle-
an from New York.
Mr. LENT. I thjii k the gentleman
or yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I also rise In suppoit
of this amendment. If a person or a
company has a good Idea for a treat-
ment technology. I believe we ahmAd
make It easier for them to obtain a
permil for a limited period of time in
order to test that technology.
As I understand It, the gentleman’s
amendment would provide all of the
proper environmental protections and
would safeguard the necessary public
participation requirements. I suoport
the gentleman’s thoughtful amend-
ment.
Mr. S LTON. I thank the gentle.
man. -
Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to
commend my colleague from New
Jersey (Mr. FLoiuO) for his persever-
ance and thoroughness on such a com-
plex and important Issue. At the time
I would like to ask my coUeagues con-
sideration of an amendlnent regarding
the development of new and innova-
tive technologies for the treatment, of
hazardous waste. As we have discussed
today we cannot continue to dispose
millions of tons of hazardous waste in
landfills. We now know we only relo-
cate the problem. We must look for
safe alternatives to provide the most
efficient disposal of hazardous waste.
a result of recent hearln held
ze Small Business Subcommittee
ONGRPWON L .ECORD— HOUSE
on Energy, Environment ord SMety
which I chair, and being sprohed
by small btwIn en with Ideas for
new methods of disposal, L have found
that we are stifling the innovat&vanma
and possible solutions to our ever
growing hazardous waste psnblem.
How? Under current RCRA ststate
and regulations Innovative approaaih..
to hazardous waste treatment are con-
strained bg the potentially somplex.
lengthy arid expensive procedures for
obtaining a ECRA permit. Innovators
must go th,ough a. permittIng’ precess
designed for operationol heaerdbus’
waste facilities before they can even
experiment with a new technology or
demonstrate its feasibility. Further-
more, In many cases EPA has not yet
promulgated technical standards Co
cover new and Ibnovative techno!bgles
so that the permit cannot be Imued.
Ilnally. the technical standards that
have been issued designed for commer-
cfbl hazardous waste facilities and do
not provide the flexlbfflty needed to
conduct experimentation. Many inno-
vative smafl businessmen with new
and workable ideas cannot afford the
thne and expense of the’ present
permit procedure just to test. their
process.
This amendment authorizes the Ad-
ministrator to Issue a research, devel-
opment. and demonstration permit for
Itmovative and experimental hazard-
ons waste treatment technologies.
These pcruilts may be Issued only
after EPA has reviewed the proposed
treatment, established requirements
for monitoring and testing, and’ placed
limits on the type and quantitlr of
wastes treated.
Wherear the general permit applica-
tion requirements may not be suited
for facilities engaged In exper nental
activities and to expedite this type of
permitting process the’ Mmh f tratcr
may, consistent with the protection Of
human health and the environment,
nmdify or waive permit application re-
quirements established. However, the
A 1nktrator may not modify or
waive regulations yegardhrg public par-
tibipatlon. The Administrator also has
the authority to terminate the expert.
mental operations at any time he
should determine It Is not consistent
with tbe operation of human health
and the environment.
The supporters of my amendment
are the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council.
To elaborate on this amendment.
this Nation needs new and Innovative
approaches to solve the growing prob-
lems of hazardous waste disposal. mdi.
vsiual entrepreneurs and small busi-
nesses are frequently the source of
new technologies and new’ Ideas that
cec become tomorrow’s innovative ap-
proaches to hazardous waste treat-
ment. However, under the current
RCRA statutes and regulations, these
entrepreneurs are constrained by the
potentially complex, lengthy, and ex-
pensive process and procedures for ob-
II&159
talnlng a RCEA permit. Under the
cerrent. l Rk statute an& regulations.
these Innovators must go throi tz a
permitting pr igned ’ for oper
a$ionst b ’ aua wte forditirs.
before they can even slineat with
a. new technologa or natsabe its
feasibility. i ’v we, lii many
cases EPA does not. have ioc cal
5t re i to cover’ new end Innovative
technn g1es. Thir en causes fur-
thor dma n In ob Jr ng a. ECRA
permit as EPA tries to fit existing
permit atandords to these new tech-
nalogies, or warm, determines that n
permit san be Issued. FInally, the ech-
nfral atnadards that have been Issued
am desl ned for commercIal hazardous
orate Incilties and tIn not provide the
f xlWllty needed to’ conduct expert-
mentatlon.
This amendment Is offered to pro-
vMe a means of expedited permitting
of experimental facffitfes med to de-
velop and demonstrate hazardous
waste treatment technologies. It recog-
nines that experimental activities in-
volving research, development, and
demonstration are fundamentally dif-
ferent from operational hazardous
waste activities and require special
sinudards and silupif ied permitting
procedures. Otherwise, the develop-
ment of new treatment approaches
that are beIng counted on as alterna-
tives to land disposal wlfl not be forth-
comIng.
The a,npnilment provides the au-
thority for EPA to Issue permits di-
rectly against the criteria established
In the amendment withaut a require-
nient that It go through new rulemak-
ing to establish special standards for
experimentation and demonstration of
new types of technologies. This may
help avoid further delay In permitting
or these facilities while EPA conducts
the often lengthy rul ms.kIng process.
The amendment provides that a
permit may be Issued under this sec-
tion “for any hazardous waste treat-
ment facility for which permit
•tandards for such experImental activ-
Ity have not been promulgated under
this subtitle.” Thus, if EPA develops
special regulations for experimentar
facilities, those rules would become
the basis for research, development.
and demonstration permits.
Ti expedite permitting of these
facilities this amendment also gives
the Administrator the authority to
modify or waive permit application re-
quirements established In regulations
under section 3005(b) of this act.
These regulations outline the general
permit application requirements for
all treatment, storage and disposal
facilities. In addition, they include spe-
cific application requirements for con-
tainer and tank storage facilities, in-
cineration freilitles. and land disposal
facilities, These requirements are writ-
ten for conventional technologies and
may not be well suited for facilities en-
gaged in experimental activities. In
giving the Administrator the authority
-------
118160
to modify or waive portions of these
application requirements that are not
aPPropriate for experimental technol-
ogies, the permit can be designed to fit
the technology, rather than have the
permit writer and facility owner try to
fit the technology into the convention-
$1 permit structure, This amei1 ment
provides authority for the A IndnL tra-
tor to modify these requirements With-
out a separate rulernnklng action to es-
tablish special application requiTe-
ments.
A second area where the Mn In1stra.
tor Is given authority to modify or
waive portions of the permitting regu-
latlons Is for those regulations devel-
oped under sectIon 3005(c) of the act.
These regulations establish criteria
and procedures for modification of the
permit once It is issued. Since experi-
mental technologies are developmen-
tal and don’t operate at steady State
conditions for normal permit lifetimes,
more frequent permit modifications
may be required. The present modifi-
cation criteria are too constraining to
fit the situations anticipated for devel-
opmental technologies, Some modifi-
cations for permitted facilities require
procedures as complex as for obtaining
the original permit. These procedures
deter the type of developmental
changes—fine-tuning—that are re-
quired with any new technology.
The permits issued under this provi-
sion are Initially to be issued for a
maximum period of 360 days of oper-
ation. ‘This will be sufficient time to
complete testing or to demonstrate the
feasibility of a technology. The 360
days Is meant to be actual days of op-
eration using hazardous waste. It does,
not refer to calendar days. to periods
of construction, or to operation using
materials other than hazardous waste.
The research, development, and
demonstration of innovative technol-
ogies includes a variety of experimen-
tation activities. While EPA will need
to define the Umit,s of these terms
more precisely, it should at a mini-
mum include experimentation and
demonstration with technologies that
have never been utilized In commercial
application as well as further refine-
ment and development or performance
• testing of technologies that in some
form have been operated in a comzner-
ical capacity. In all cases, however, the
permits Issued under this subsection
are to be applicable only to experimen-
tal activities.
A hazardous waste management cx-
perirnent Is Intended to mean the
treatment of hazadous waste in a unit
or device made primarily from non-
earthen materials; that . is. other than
a surface impoundment or “land treat-
ment” for the sole purpose of gather-
ing information to evaluate the techni-
cal or economic feasibility of a particu-
lar waste management technology,
process, method, or device. The defini-
tion has two major elements: First, de-
fining the activities that could be car-
‘led-out In a hazardous waste manage-
cent experiment; and second, defining
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
the purpose which makes these activi-
ties ‘the subject of special considera-
tion under this amendment.
Activities that may be carried out
during a hazardous waste management
experiment under this definition are
the treatment of hazardous waste, de-
fined in 40 CFR 260.10 as:
Any method, technique, or process, includ-
ing neutralisation, designed to change the
physical, chemical, or biological character
or composition of say hsmrdous waste so as
to neutralize such waste, or so as to recover
energy or material resources from the
waste, or so as to render such waste nonhas-
aselous, or teas haz.ardoua safer to transport,
store or dispose of; or amenable for recov-
ery. , I1.,Ikhle for storage, or reduced in
volume,
And the associated storage of haz-
ardous waste, defined In 40 CFR
260.10 as:
The holding of hazardous for a temporary
period, at the end of which the hamrdous
waste is treated, disposed of, or stored else-
where.
The purpose of a hazardous waste
management experiment is the dem-
onstration or evaluation of a treat-
ment process, device, or equipment
system. These are some examples
which illustrate the types of activities
covered by this amendment
First, a common experiment involves
an individual or company who has de-
signed on paper or in the laboratory
an innovative treatment system for
hazardous waste. In order to deter-
mine whether this new technology Is
technically feasible a small pilot scale
unit may be constructed and operated
for purposes of evaluation. If this Is
successful, a larger, but still pilot
scale, experimental unit may be con-
structed to demonstrate the reliability,
economic feasibility, and environmen-
tal Impacts of the process.
A second type of hazardous waste
nIknftgement experiment involves an
equipment vendor and a waste gener-
ating or processing customer. Vendors
of ten custom-prepare storage and
processing equipment; that is, tanks,
incinerators, et cetera, based on a cus-
tomer’s individual needs, and this may
require one or more tests with a pilot
facility using samples of the custom-
er’s waste. And third, a manufacturer
or user of a particular commercial
treatment process may want to im-
prove its efficiency or effectiveness or
reduce Its environmental Impacts. This
may involve the construction of a pliot
scale treatment unit that will be oper-
ated in an experimental mode to test
new wastes or alternate operating con-
ditions,
Two aspects of the definition of bar,-
ardous waste management experiment
limit applicability of today’s amend-
ments. First, the definition includes
storage and treatment, but does not
include disposal,
Disposal, Is defined In part 280.10 as:
The discharge, deposit, injection, dump-
ing, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid
waste or hazardous waste Into or onto any
land or water so that such solid waste or
hazardous waste or any constitutent or de-
O. tober 6 1988
esespositlon or reaction by.product thereof
may enter the environment or be emitted
late the air or discharged into any waters.
ineluding md waters.
d second, the definition limits
coverage of today’s amendments to ex-
periments conducted In units or de-
vices made primarily from nonearthen
materials. The amendment purposely
excludes from coverage those experi-
ments and research projects that in-
volve the placement of hazardous
waste Into or onto the land or water,
for example, land treatment, surface
impoundments, landfills, and piles,
whether this placement is for storage,
treatment, or disposal.
As a result of the recent promulga-
tion of standards for operational land
disposal facIlities (47 FR 32274, July
26. 1982), EPA can now consider ap-
propriate tailoring of these require-
ments for experimental land disposal
activities. EPA can determine if those
standirds inhibit research and consid-
er whether special standards are
needed for land disposal research. It
should be noted that some land dispos-
al research can be conducted in non-
earthen units and devices: for exam-
ple, small-scale simulations in glass or
plastic cells, and as such, would not In-
volve placement into or on the land.
These experiments would be covered
by this amendment.
A further limitation on the scope of
this amendment is that the amend-
ment is intended to apply only to haz-
ardous waste management experl’
ments conducted in experimental
units. An experimental unit is a treat-
ment process or unit used only for a
hazardous waste management experi-
ment. This means that experimental
units must be units dedicated to re-
search. If a unit or process is used at
any time to store or treat waste for
any reason other than the conduct of
a hazardous waste management ex-
periment, the unit must be permited,
and operated, In accordance with all
applicable sections of 40 CFR 264. -
Finally, experimentation covered by
this amendment must be limited by
scale of operatIon. This amendment is
intended only for experimentation in
facilities no larger than pilot scale, Al-
though EPA may further define and
limit this term, the maximum scope of
operations covered by this amendment
is uxniteci to experiments in which:
First, a maximum of 15,000 kilograms
of hazardous waste are treated at a f a-
cI]Ity for experimental Purposes in any
month: second, a maximum of 15,000
kilograms of hazardous waste intended
for use in hazardous waste manage-
ment experiment Is stored at the fa-
cility at any time: and third, any ex-
periment conducted Involves the treat•
ment of a maximum of 400 kilograms
of hazardous waste per hour. This
limit would allow up to one tank truck;
that is, 4.000 gallons of waste to be
processed In a month. This would
assure a reasonable scale for demon-
strating technical and economic feasi-
vV
-------
.uvtr 0, i3 3
bility but would be well below the
acale of most commercial opex tions.
.The 400-kilogram-per-hour limit would
assure that a short-term, for example,
1 day, experiment at very large scale
could not be conducted. Bud) an ex-
periment could pose unnecessary risks.
The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Missouri (Mr. Sumvoie).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to section 7? If not, the
Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
IIUSZ, IecYCLDIG. Aim R LAi(ATION
Sac. 8. SectIon 3001 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act ii amended by adding the fol-
lowing it the end thereof:
“(e) Races. RxcYcI.ING, urn Rxctuta-
Tioii.—The Administrator shall promulgate
such regulations as may be necessary to pro-
tect human health and environment ensur-
tog that the use, reuse, recycling, and recla-
mation of hazardous waste identified or
listed under this section Ia conducted In a
manner consistent with such protection.
Such regulations shall be applicable to a re-
coverable metal waste material only if the
Administrator has Identified or listed that
material as a hazardous waste under this
section. Regulations Implementing this pro-
vision shall not contain a definition of solid
waste that makes such regulations apply, di-
rectly or by implication, to nonhazardous
wastes being recycled (such as nonhn,.D r.
dous metals, paper, textiles, or rubber used
or reused for beneficial reclamation).”.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there are any
amendments to section 8?
£M T OTTtRim ST MS. MOLII!AR1
Mr. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MoLniajil:
?age 28. line 24. after “8.” Insert: “ Ci) RaG-
vtAriozfs RZGAZDTNG Reosr, Rxcvcirsc, um
RrcLuaaTIo i —“.
Page 29, after line 14. insert:
(b) DioxiNs PRoM Resouxca Rscovxiiy
FAcu .xrxrs.—Section 1006(b) is amended by
inserting “(1)” after “IJrracRATlOx Wrr
Omsa ACT.—” and by adding the following
new paragraph at the end thereof:
“(2) As promptly as practicable a lter the
date of the enactment of the Hazardous
Waste Control and Enforcement Act of
1903. the Administrator shall promulgate
regulations requiring resource recovery
facilities to comply with the best available
control technology. (taking cost into ac-
count) for the control of emissions of poly-
chlorinated dibenzo.p-dioxlns into the ambi-
etit air. Such regulations shall apply to all
resource recovery facllit:es the construction
of ahich commences on or after the date of
the enactment of the Hazardous Waste Con.
trol and Enforcement Act of 1983 NothIng
In this paragraph shall be construed to pre-
empt or otherwise affect the authority of
the AdminIstrator to promulgate any regu-
lations under the Clean Air Act regarding
emissions of polychlorinated dibenzo.p-diox-
ins from resource recovery facilities. Any
regulation promulgated by the Administra-
tor under this paragraph shall cease to
apply on the effective date of any regula-
tion under the Clean Air Act governing
emissions of polychlonnated dibenzo-p-diox-
ins from resource recovery facilities.”.
Mr. MOLINARI (during the read-
ing), Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be con-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
ildered as read and printed In the
RecoRD.
The CHAIRMAN, Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman,
today we are confronted with a gigan-
tic dilemma—where to dispose of our
garbage. ApproxImately 90 percent of
American waste Is disposed of on land
and new dumping sites are Increasing-
ly difficult to find. As early as 1990,
America may run out of space for all
the garbage It generates. Indeed, the
No. 2 problem confrQntlng cities and
local govensnent, behind crime and
before education, Is the disposal of
garbage. In order to remedy this, we
are accelerating construction of new
resource recovery plants. Resource re-
covery, that is, recovery of material or
energy from solid wastes, can achieve
significant volume reduction. Further-
more, rising costs of landfills and
other forms of disposal, along with
dwindling energy supplies, make re-
source recovery lncrea lngly attrac-
tive.
However, new proposals for addition-
al resource recovery plants have been
blocked because of the fear of dioxin
emissions. The Hempstead, Long
Island, resource recovery facility for
example, was closed after EPA test.s
found traces of dioxin from inciner-
ator emissions. Consequently, con-
struction of new plants in New York
has been obstructed. My amendment
will allay public fears and allow re-
source recovery plants to move for-
ward. It directs the Administrator of
EPA to promulgate regulation requir-
ing resource recovery facilities to
‘comply with the best practicable tech-
nology for control of dioxins into the
air. These regulations shall only apply
until new regulations governing diox-
Ins from resource recovery facilities
are promulgated under the Clean Air
Act.
The commissioners of the depart-
ments of conservation Cf New York.
New Jersey, and Connecticut also rec-
ognized the problem of dioxin emis-
sions from resource recovery plants
and wrote to Administrator Ruckel-
shaus urging him to Issue standards
for dioxin emissions from resource re-
covery facilities. This problem Is not
confined to the New York region.
Within the United States there are
currently lIsted 97 facilities across a
span of 36 States. Thirty States have
104 planned resource recovery plants.
As we enter a new phase of resource
recovery technology, we cannot begin
construction In the absence of a stand-
ard. We may discover later, when a
standard is finally issued, that many
operating resource recovery plants are
In violation of that standard and emit-
ting dangerous levels of dioxin.
My amendment will not usurp any
authority from the Clean Air Act. It
will merely provide an Interim meas-
ure with the purpose of protecting
public health and permitting contin-
118161
ned development and operation of re-
source recovery plants. Once new regu-
lations are promulgated under section
112 of the Clean Air Act, the regula-
tions Issued under this amendment
will cease to apply.
0 1610
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLINARI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New Jersey,
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman. I am prepared to
accept the gentleman’s amendment.
Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLINARI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to especially
commend my colleague, the gentleman
from New York, for his leadership
here. This is an area that has been
very, very troubling, particularly to
those municipalities where they are
endeavoring now to have resource re-
cycling plants In operation and are
prevented from doing so because there
are no standards for dioxin.
I want to commend the gentleman
and urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr MOLINARI. I thank the gentle.
man from New York and I thank the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
close by saying that the gentleman
from New York Is correct. A number
of States have requested some assist-
ance because they simply do not know
what technology should be used In
coping with the problem of dioxin
emissions, This is one way of trying to
help them.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. M0LINARI).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to section 8?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SitS 0? C TAiN ?ACILITTtS
Sec. 9. (a) Po’ruRz Ncms.—Section 4001 is
amended by adding the following at the end
thereof: ‘in developing such cornprehenswe
plans. It is the intention of this Act that in
determining the size of a wa.ste-to.energy I a-
duty, adequate provision shall be given to
the present and reasonably anticipated
future needs of the recycling and resource
recovery interest within the area encom-
passed by the planning process.”.
(b) MaNzneENT OF Secrion 4003 —Section
4003 Is amended by redesignating the
second subsection (b) as (C) and by adding
the following new subsection Cd) at the end
thereof:
“(d) Size or WA5T!.To.ENtRGT FAciti.
Ties —Notwithstanding any of the above re
quirernents, it Is the intention of this Act
and the planning process developed pursu
ant to this Act that In determining the size
of a waste-to-energy facility, adeQuate pru i•
slon shall be gwen to the present and rea-
sonably anticipated future needs of the re
cycling and resource reco ery interesi
0 21V
-------
k _ r i t ’ QTtOLL - 4U1 vL1
EXISTING SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
SEC. 215. Section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended
by adding the following new subsection after subsection (i):
“(j) INTERIM STATUS Sw sAcE IMPOUNDMENTS.—(1) Except as pro-
vided in paragraph (2), (3), or (4), each surface impoundment in
existence on the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 and qualifying for the authorization to
operate under subsection (e) of this section shall not receive, store,
-------
H. R. 2867—24
or treat hazardous waste after the date four years after such date of
enactment unless such surface impoundment is in compliance with
the requirements of section 3004(0X1XA) which would apply to such
impoundment if it were new.
“(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to any surface
impoundment which (A) has at least one liner, for which there is no
evidence that such liner is Leaking; (B) is located more than one-
quarter mile from an underground source of drinking water; and (C)
is in compliance with generally applicable ground water monitoring
requirements for facilities with permits under subsection (C) of this
section.
“(3) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to any surface
impoundment which (A) contains treated waste water during the
secondary or subsequent phases of an aggressive biological treat-
ment facility subject to a permit issued under section 402 of the
Clean Water Act (or which holds such treated waste water after
treatment and prior to discharge); B) is in compliance with
generally applicable ground water monitoring requirements for fa-
cilities with permits under subsection (C) of this section; and (CXi) is
part of a facility in compliance with section 301bM2) of the Clean
Water Act, or ‘ii) in the case of a facility for which no effluent
guidelines required under section 304(bX2) of the Clean Water Act
are in effect and no permit under section 402(aXl) of such Act
implementing section 3011b ‘42) of such Act has been issued, is part of
a facility in compliance with a permit under section 402 of such Act,
which is achievi ig significant degradation of toxic pollutants and
hazardous constituent.s contained in the untreated waste stream and
which has identified those toxic pollutants and hazardous constitu-
ent.s in the untreated waste stream to the appropriate permitting
authority
“i4The Administrator ‘or the State, in the case of a State with an
au horized program’, after notice and opportunity for comment.
may modify the requirements of paragraph ii) for any surface
impoundment if the owner or operator demonstrates that such
surface impoundment is located, designed and operated so as to
assure chat there will be no migration of any hazardous constitutent
into ground water or surface water at any future time. The Adrninis-
tr ator or the State shall take into account locational criteria estab-
lished under section 30O44o 7).
“(5) The owner or operator of any surface impoundment poten-
tially subject to paragraph U) who has reason to believe that on the
basis of paragraph (2), ‘3i . or (4) such surface impoundment is not
required to comply with the requirements of’ paragraph (1). shall
apply to the Administrator (or the State, in the case of a State with
an authorized program) not later than twenty-four months after the
date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 for a determination of the applicability of paragraph (1) (in
the case of paragraph (2) or 13)) or for a modification of the require-
ments of paragraph (1) (in the case of paragraph (4)), with respect to
such surface impoundment. Such owner or operator shall provide,
with such application, evidence pertinent to such decision, includ-
ing:
“(A) an application for a final determination regarding the
issuance of a permit under subsection (C) of this section for such
facility, if not previously submitted;
-------
H. R. 2867—25
“(B) evidence as to compliance with all applicable ground
water monitoring requirements and the information and analy-
sis from such monitonng;
“(C) all reasonably ascertainable evidence as to whether such
surface impoundment is leaking; and
“(D) in the case of applications under paragraph (2) or (3), a
certification by a registered professional engineer with aca-
demic training and experience in ground water hydrology
that-
“(i) under paragraph (2). the liner of such surface im-
poundment is designed, constructed, and operated in ac-
cordance with applicable requirements, such surface im-
poundment is more than one-quarter mile from an under-
ground source of drinking water and there is no evidence
such liner is leaking; or
. j under paragraph (3). based on analysis of those toxic
pollutants and hazardous constituents that are likely to be
present in the untreated waste stream. such impoundment
satisfies the conditions of paragraph (3).
In tne case of any surface impoundment for which the owner or
operator fails to apply under this paragraph within the time pro-
vided by this paragraph or paragraph (6), such surface impound-
ment shall comply with paragraph (1) notwithstanding paragraph
(2), (3), or (4). Within twelve months after receipt of such appLication
and evidence and not later than thirty-six months after such date of
enactment, and after notice and opportunity to comment, the Ad-
ministrator (or, if appropriate, the State) shall advise such owner or
operator on the applicability of paragraph (1) to such surface
impoundment or as to whether and how the requirements of
paragraph 1) shall be modified and applied to such surface
impoundment.
“(6)(A) In any case in which a surface impoundment becomes
subject to paragraph (1) after the date of enactment of the Hazard-
ous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 due to the promulgation
of additional listings or characteristics for the identification of
hazardous waste under section 3001, the period for compliance in
paragraph (1) shall be four years after the date of such promulga-
tion, the period for demonstrations under paragraph (4) and for
submission of evidence under paragraph (5) shall be not later than
twenty-four months after the date of such promulgation, and the
period for the Administrator (or if appropriate, the State) to advise
such owners or operators under paragraph (5) shall be not later than
thirty-six months after the date of promulgation.
“(B) In any case in which a surface impoundment is initially
determined to be excluded from the requirements of paragraph (1)
but due to a change in condition (including the existence of a leak)
no longer satisfies the provisions of paragraph (2), (3), or (4) and
therefore becomes subject to paragraph (1). the period for compli-
ance in paragraph (1) shall be two years after the date of discovery
of such change of condition, or in the case of a surface impoundment
excluded under paragraph (3) three years after such date of
discovery.
“(7XA) The Administrator shall study and report to the Congress
on the number, range of size, construction, likelihood of hazardous
constituents migrating into ground water and potential threat to
human health and the environment of existing surface impound-
ments excluded by paragraph (3) from the requirements of para-
-------
H. R. 2867—26
graph (1). Such report shall address the need, feasibility, and
estimated costs of subjecting such existing surface impoundments to
the requirements of paragraph (1).
“(B) In the case of any existing surface impoundment or class of
surface impoundments from which the Administrator (or the State,
in the case of a State with an authorized program) determines
hazardous constituents are likely to migrate into ground water, the
Administrator (or if appropnate, the State) is authorized to impose
such requirements as may be necessary to protect human health
and the environment, including the requirements of section 3004(o)
which would apply to such impoundments if they were new.
“(C) In the case of any surface impoundment excluded by
paragraph (3) from the requirements of paragraph (1) which is
subsequently determined to be leaking, the Administrator (or, if
appropriate, the Statei shall require compliance with paragraph (1),
unless the Administrator ‘or. if appropriate, the State; determines
that such compliance is not necessary to protect human health and
the anvuonment.
“18) In the case of any surface impoundment in which the liners
and leak detection system have been installed pursuant to the
requirements of paragraph I 1) and in good faith compliance with
section 3004(o) and the Administrators regulations and guidance
documents governing liners and leak detection systems, no liner or
leak detection system which is different from that which was so
installed pursuant to paragraph (U shall be required for such unit
by the Administrator when issuing the first permit under this
section to such facility Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the
Administrator from requiring installation of a new liner when the
Administrator has reason to believe that any liner installed pursu-
ant to the requirements of this subsection is leaking.
“ 9) In the case of any surface impoundment which has been
excluded by paragraph on the basis of a Liner meeting the
definition under paragraph 12)(ANIi), at the closure of such im-
poundment the Administrator shall require the owner or operator of
such impoundment to remove or decontaminate all waste residues.
all contaminated liner material, and contaminated soil to the extent
practicable. If a l contaminated soil is not removed or decontarnin-
ated, the owner or operator of such impoundment shall be required
to comply with appropriate post .closure requirements. including but
not limited to ground water monitoring and corrective action.
“(10) Any incremental cost attributable to the requirements of
this subsection or section 3004(o) shall not be considered by the
Administrator (or the State, in the case of a State with an author-
ized program under section 402 of the Clean Water Act)—
“(A) in establishing effluent limitations and standards under
section 301. 304, 306, 307. or 402 of the Clean Water Act based
on effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated
any time before twelve months after the date of enactment of
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984; or
“(B) in establishing any other effluent limitations to carry out
the provisions of section 301, 307, or 402 of the Clean Water Act
on or before October 1, 1986.
“(1LXA) If the Administrator allows a hazardous waste which is
prohibited from one or more methods of land disposal under subsec-
tion (d). (el, or (g) of section 3004 (or under regulations promulgated
by the Administrator under such subsections) to be placed in a
surface impoundment (which is operating pursuant to interim
2Lc.
-------
H. R. 2867—V
status) for storage or treatment, such impoundment shall meet the
requirements that are applicable to new surface impoundments
under section 3004(oXl), unless such impoundment meets the re-
quirements of paragraph (2) or (4).
18) In the case of any hazardous waste which is prohibited from
one or more methods of land disposal under subsection (d), (e), or (g)
of section 3004 (or under regulations promulgated by the Adminis-
trator under such subsection) the placement or maintenance of such
hazardous waste in a surface impoundment for treatment is prohib-
ited as of the effective date of such prohibition unless the treatment
residues which are hazardous are, at a minimum, removed for
subsequent management within one year of the entry of the waste
into the surface impoundment.
“( I2XA) For the purposes of paragraph (2XA) of this subsection,
the term liner’ means—
“(i) a liner designed, constructed, installed, and operated to
prevent hazardous waite from passing into the liner at any time
during the active life of the facility; or
“ Ui) a liner designed. constructed, installed, and operated to
prevent hazardous waste from migrating beyond the liner to
adjacent subsurface soil, ground water, or surface water at any
time during the active life of the facility.
“(B) For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘aggressive
biological treatment facility’ means a system of surface impound-
ment.s in which the initial impoundment of the secondary treatment
segment of the. facility utilizes intense mechanical aeration to
enhance biological activity to degrade waste water pollutants and
“(i) the hydraulic retention time in such initial impoundment
is no longer than 5 days under normal operating conditions, on
an annual average basis:
“uii the hydraulic retention time in such initial impoundment
is no longer than thirty days under normal operating condi-
tions, on an annual average basis: Proc tded. That the sludge in
such impoundment does not constitute a hazardous waste as
identified by the extraction procedure toxicity characteristic in
effect on the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984; or
“(iii) such system utilizes activated sludge treatment in the
first portion of secondary treatment.
“(C) For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘underground
source or drinking water has the same meaning as provided in
regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act title X IV of the
Public Health Semce Act).
“(13) The Administrator may modify the requirements of para-
graph (1) in the case of a surface impoundment for which the owner
or operator, prior to October 1. 1984, has entered into, and is in
compliance with, a consent order, decree, or agreement with the
Administrator or a State with an authoilzed program mandating
corrective action with respect to such surface impoundment that
provides a degree of protection of human health and the environ-
ment which is at a minimum equivalent to that provided by
paragraph (1).”.
-------
(.o’-’ r p -r,, p4?
SECTION 215—SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
House bill.—The House bill requires existing interim status sur-
face impoundments, with certain exceptions and modifications, to
come into compliance with the minimum technological require-
ments for new surface impoundments.
The House bill prohibits any waste listed or identified pursuant
to section 3001 from being placed or maintained in an existing in-
terim status impoundments unless a final permit had been issued
by EPA pursuant to section 3005(c). EPA is required to issue such
final permits within four years of the date of enactment of this sec-
tion.
In addition, the House bill provides a four year final permit issu-
ance time schedule for those surface impoundments granted inter-
im status after the date of enactment and which received hazard-
ous waste listed or identified under section 3001 after the date of
enactment.
The House bill requires existing interim status surface impound-
ments to file part B applications (to receive final permits) within 12
months of the date of enactment (or else the impoundment would
lose interim status) and requires the final permit to contain a
schedule to bring the impoundment into compliance with the mini-
mum technological requirements for new surface impoundments
(see discussion of section 203, supra) within two years of the issu-
ance of the permit.
The House bill contains three exemptions from the general rule.
Two exemptions applied to those impoundments not within one-
quarter mile of an underground source of drinking water. Thus, if
an impoundment was beyond one-quarter mile of such a drinking
water source and had either a synthetic liner designed to prevent
the migration of hazardous waste into the liner during the active
life of the facility or a natural (clay) liner designed to prevent haz-
ardous waste from migrating beyond the liner during the active life
of the facility, it could be exempted from the general rule.
In addition, the House bill allows EPA to exempt from the re-
quirements of the general rule those impoundments, wherever lo-
cated, if the owner or operator could demonstrate that there would
be no migration of any hazardous constituent into ground or sur-
face water at any future time. For the purpose of this provision,
c,2i
-------
97
the term “hazardous constituent” is defined to exclude those con-
stituents determined at the time of permitting to be incapable of
migrating in concentrations that may adversely affect human
health and the environment.
Finally, the House bill provides specific authority for EPA to
waive the requirements of this provision for those impoundments
used solely for the placement of wastes described in section 8002 (0,
(n), and (p)—relating to certain mining wastes, fly ash waste,
bottom ash waste, clay waste, flue gas emission control waste and
cement kiln dust waste. As to these impoundments, EPA is author-
ized to impose such requirements as necessary to protect human
health and the environment (including, if necessary, the new mini-
mum technological requirements).
Senate amendment.—The Senate amendment prohibits existing
interim status surface impoundments from receiving, storing or
treating hazardous wastes after four years from the date of enact-
ment unless the impoundment is in compliance with the minimum
technological requirements for new impoundments. The Senate
amendment also contained provisions requiring those impound-
ments granted interim status after the date of enactment to come
into compliance with the minimum technological requirements
within four years of being granted interim status.
The Senate amendment contains specific exemptions for those
impoundments: (1) which have at least one liner and for which
there is no evidence of leakage, and (2) which are not located
within an area of vulnerable hydrogeology. To qualify for this ex-
emption, the Senate amendment required the impoundment to
meet the applicable liner regulations for new impoundments in
effect on the date of enactment and to be in compliance with
groundwater monitoring requirements applicable to facilities per-
mitted under section 3005(c).
In addition to this exemption, the Senate amendment allows
EPA (or authorized States) to modify the requirements of the gen-
eral rule for those impoundments where the owner or operator
could demonstrate that the location, design and operation of the
impoundment would assure no migration of any hazardous constit-
uent into ground or surface water at any time during the period
hazardous waste remained in the impoundment. The Senate
amendment contains no provision similar to the House definition
of hazardous constituent for the purpose of this modification.
The Senate amendment contains an additional exemption for
those impoundments which—
(1) contain treated waste water during the secondary or terti-
ary phase of an aggressive biological treatment facility;
(2) are in compliance with ,roundwater monitoring require-
ments for facilities granted final permits; and
(3) are part of a facility in compliance with section 301(b)(2)
of the Clean Water Act. In the case of a facility for which no
effluent guidelines required under section 304(b)(2) of the Clean
Water Act are in effect and no permit under section 402(a)(1) of
that Act implementing section 301(b)(2) of that Act has been
issued, the impoundment must be part of a facility in compli-
ance with a permit under section 402 of the Clean Water Act
and which is achieving significant degradation of toxic pollut-
21S
-------
98
ants and hazardous constituents contained in the untreated
waste stream and which has identified those pollutants and
constituents to the appropriate permitting authority.
In order to be granted a modification or exemption pursuant to
these provisions, the owner or operator has to submit appropriate
evidence to EPA (or the authorized State) within 24 months of the
date of enactment of this section. Within 12 months of receipt of
the evidence and not later than 36 months after enactment of this
section EPA (or the authorized State) is to advise the owner or ow
erator whether and, if so, how the requirements of the general rule
are to be modified and applied against the impoundment.
Finally, the Senate amendment contains separate authority al-
lowing the Administrator to modify the requirements of this provi-
sion as to those impoundments used for the receipt, storage or
treatment of mining waste.
Conference substitute. —The conference substitute contains ele-
ments of both the House bill and the Senate amendment, modified
as discussed below.
Existing surface impoundments must come into compliance with
the minimum technological requirements for new surface impound-
ments, with certain exceptions and modifications.
The first exemption from the general rule applies to any surface
impoundment that has at least one liner and for which there is no
evidence of leakage; is located more than one-quarter mile from an
underground source of drinking water; and is in compliance with
applicable groundwater monitoring requirements for facilities with
permits issued under section 3005(c) (hereinafter cited as the one-
quarter mile rule).
The Conference substitute adopts the House definition of “liner”
for the purpose of this exemption. Thus, the liner must be de-
signed, constructed, installed, and operated so as to either prevent
hazardous waste from passing into the liner or migrating beyond
the liner to adjacent subsurface soil, groundwater, or surface water
at any time during the active life of the facility.
The second exemption applies to certain qualified wastewater
treatment impoundments as set forth in the Senate amendment
(hereinafter cited as the wastewater treatment rule).
In addition, the provision grants EPA the authority to modify
the requirements of the general rule as that authority was set
forth in the House bill. That is, the owner or operator must demon-
strate no migration of any hazardous constituent into groundwater
or surface water at any furture time. In this formulation, the Con-
ferees explicitly reject the provision contained in section 18 of the
original House bill modifying the definition of hazardous constitu-
ent. In considering applications for modifications to the general
rule pursuant to this authority, the Administrator (or the author-
ized State) is to take into account locational criteria that will a-
tempt to define vulnerable hydrogeology.
As in the Senate amendment, an owner or operator who believes
a particular impoundment qualifies for an exemption or modifica-
tion must submit evidence pertinent to such a decision, within 24
months of enactment. At a minimum such information must in-
clude the information set forth in this provision of the Conference
substitute. Time periods for the review of submitted evidence are
-------
99
also set forth in the Senate amendment. In addition, the Conference
substitute makes clear that those impoundments for which the
complete data necessary to make a determination as to an exemp-
tion or modification has not been submitted within the 24 month
period must meet the requirements of the general rule. These rules
are to be applied with respect to both existing interim status sur-
face impoundments and those impoundments that become subject
to RCRA regulation after the date of enactment due to the promul-
gation of additional listings or characteristics for the identification
of hazardous waste under section 3001.
The Conference substitute contains separate authority, as in the
Senate amendment, allowing the Administrator to modify these re-
quirements as to those categories of waste mentioned in sections
8002 (0, (n), (o), and (p).
The House bill provides that the three exemptions granted would
cease to apply at any time the Administrator determined that
either: (1) the liner of the impoundment failed to prevent waste
from passing into the liner (in the case of a synthetic liner) or mi-
grating beyond the liner (in the case of a natural (clay) liner) and
repairs acceptable to the Administrator had not been made; or (2)
the impoundment had failed to prevent the migration of any haz-
ardous constituent into the groundwater or surface water.
The Senate amendment provides that in the case of any im-
poundment that was subject to an exemption or modification and
where the Administrator determined hazardous constituents were
likely to migrate into groundwater, requirements as may be neces-
sary to protect human health and environment, including the ap-
plication of the minimum technological requirements applicable to
new surface impoundments, could be imposed by the Administra-
tor.
The Conference substitute adopts a combination of these two pro-
visions as explained more fully below. In the case of a surface im-
poundment (other than a wastewater treatment impoundment)
which is initially determined to be excluded from the general rule
but due to a change in condition, including the existence of a leak,
subsequently becomes subject to the general rule, such impound-
ment must comply with the minimum technological requirements
for new impoundments. Such compliance must be performed within
two years after the discovery of the change of condition.
With respect to those impoundments that initially qualified for
an exemption pursuant to the wastewater treatment rule such im-
poundment must, when it is determined that a change in condition
would require application of the general rule, meet the minimum
technological requirements for new impoundments. Where such an
impoundment is found to be leaking, it must meet the minimum
technology requirement unless the Administrator determines that
such compliance is not necessary to protect human health and the
environment. The period for achieving compliance with the new
minimum technological requirements is three years.
The Conferees agreed to define leaking as in the current EPA
regulations, that is, a statistically significant increase over back-
ground concentrations, attributable to the surface impoundment.
Other evidence of leaking, such as visible leaks or sudden drops in
liquid level of the impoundment, also would be sufficient.
r21 S
-------
100
Finally, the Conference substitute specifically grants to the Ad-
ministrator authority to take such action as may be necessary to
protect human health and the environment, including the applica-
tion of the minimum technological requirements, where it is deter-
mined that hazardous constituents are likely to migrate from any
impoundment initially qualifying for an exemption or modification
into groundwater or surface waste.
The Conference substitute adopts four provisions that were con-
tained in either the original House bill or Senate amendment.
First, the Conferees adopted the provision of the Senate amend-
ment generally prohibiting the Administrator, when issuing a
permit to a surface impoundment facility, to require the installa-
tion of liners or leak detection systems different from those in-
stalled by the owner or operator in good faith compliance with this
provision. However, the Administrator may require installation of
a new liner when there is reason to believe that any installed liner
is leaking.
Second, the Conferees adopted the provision of the House bill re-
quiring any surface impoundment excluded from the general rule
because of the existence of a natural (clay) liner upon the closure
of such impoundment to remove or decontaminate all waste resi-
dues, all contaminated liner material and contaminated soil (to the
extent practicable). In addition, if all contaminated soil is not re-
moved or decontaminated, the owner or operator of the impound-
ment shall be required to comply with appropriate post-closure re-
quirements including but not limited to groundwater monitoring
and corrective action.
Third, the Conferees adopted the provisions of the House bill re-
quiring those impoundments used for the storage or treatment of a
waste that has been prohibited by the Administrator from one or
more methods of land disposal to meet the minimum technological
requirements applicable to new surface impoundments unless such
impoundment qualifies for an exemption under the one-quarter
mile rule or a modification under the no migration rule.
Finally, the Conferees adopted the provision of the House bill
which requires those impoundments used for the treatment of a
waste that has been prohibited from one or more methods of land
disposal to remove the treatment residues at least once a year for
subsequent management.
The Conference substitute also authorizes the Administrator to
modify the minimum technology requirements in the case of a sur-
face impoundment whose owner or operator has entered into, and
is in compliance with, a consent decree with the Administrator (or
an authorized State) if the consent decree mandates corrective
action that provides protection of human health and the environ-
ment that is, at a minimum, the equivalent of the minimum tech-
nology requirements.
-------
L e - cPAS -D
18 HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
19 SEc. 18. Section 3005(h)(3), as added by section 5 of
20 this Act, is amended by inserting the following immediate1y
21 after subparagraph (B) thereof: “For the purpose of making
22 any demonstration under subparagraph (B), the term ‘hazard-
23 ous constituent’ does not include those hazardous constitu-
24 ents which the owner or operator demonstrates to the satis-
25 faction of the Administrator and the Administrator deter-
1 mines at the time of permitting will not migrate into ground
2 or surface water in concentrations which may adversely
3 affect human heaith or the environment.”.
-------
,-i .-d 1 t ’ i
iVt 1t I - I
21 (b) INTERIM STATUS SImFAcE IMPOUNDMENTS.—
22 Section 3005 is amended by adding the following after sub-
23 section (g):
24 “(h) INTERIM STATUS SuRFAcE IMPOUNDMENTS.—(1)
25 Except in the case of a surface impoundment which meets
1 the requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (3), ? ‘
2 no hazardous waste listed or identified under section 3001 as
3 of the date of enactment of this subsection may be placed or
4 maintained in a surface impoundment which has been granted
5 interim status under subsection (e) unless the Administrator
6 has issued a permit for puch surface impoundment under sub-
7 section (c). The requirement set forth in the preceding sen-
8 tence shall take effect on the date four years after the date of
9 the enactment of this subsection. In the case of any surface
10 impoundment which is granted interim status after the date
11 of the enactment of this subsection and which receives haz-
12 ardous waste which is listed or identified under section 3001
13 after such date of enactment, the requirement set forth in the
14 first sentence of this paragraph shall take effect on the date
15 four years after the date on which such hazardous waste is
16 listed or identified.
17 “(2) Except in the case of a surface impoundment which
18 meets the requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of para-
19 graph (3) and except in the case of a surface impoundment
20 which is used only for the placement of any waste described
21 in section 8002 (f), (n), or (p), any permit issued under sub-
22 section (c) for a surface impoundment which is operating
23 under interim status pursuant to subsection (e) shall require
24 such impoundment to comply with the requirements which
25 are applicable to new surface impoundments under section
-------
1’
1 3004(k)(1). Any such permit may allow the surface impound-
2 ment to come into compliance with such requirements in ac-
3 cordance with a compliance schedule if such schedule Fe-
4 quires compliance as rapidly as practicable but not later than
5 two years after the issuance of the permit. In the case of any
6 surface impoundment—
7 “(A) which is operating under interim status pur-
8 suant to subsection (e), and
9 “(B) which is used only for the placement of any
10 waste described in section 8002 (f), (n), or (p) which
11 has become subject to regulation under this subtitle,
12 the Administrator may impose such requirements (by regula-
13 tion or on a case by case basis) as necessary to protect
14 human health and the environment.
15 “(3) The prohibition set forth in paragraph (1) and the
16 requirement set forth in paragraph (2) may be waived by the
17 Administrator for any surface impoundment if the owner or
18 operator of the surface impoundment demonstrates to the sat-
19 isfacti’rn of the Administrator that, as of the date of the en-
20 actment of this subsection, the impoundment—
21 “(A) was not within one-fourth mile of an under-
22 ground source of drinking water, and—
23 “(i) had a liner designed, constructed, in-
24 stalled, and operated to prevent hazardous waste
c2i . c
-------
1 from passing into the liner at any time during the
2 active life of the facility; or
3 “(ii) had a liner designed, constructed, in-
4 stalled, and operated to prevent hazardous waste
5 from migrating beyond the liner to adjacent sub-
6 surface soil, ground water, or surface water at
7 any time during the active life of the facility; or
8 “(B) was designed, operated, and located so as to
9 prevent the migration of any hazardous constituent into
10 the ground water or surface water at any future time.
11 The exemption provided under subparagraph (A) of this para-
12 graph for any surface impoundment shall cease to apply at
13 any time that the Administrator determines that the liner of
14 the surface impoundment has failed to meet the requirements
15 of clause (I) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) and repairs acceptable
16 to the Administrator have not been made to insure that such
17 requirements are met. The exemption provided under subpar-
18 agraph (B) of this paragraph for any surface impoundment
19 shall cease to apply at any time that the Administrator deter-
20 mines that the surface impoundment has failed to prevent the
21 migration of any hazardous constituent into the ground water
22 or surface water. In the case of any surface impoundment
23 which has been granted interim status and which has been
24 determined under this paragraph to meet the requirements of
25 subparagraph (A)(ii), at the closure of such impoundment the 1
o p -is -
-------
1 Administrator shall require the owner or operator of such
2 impoundment to remove or decontaminate all waste residues,
3 all contaminated liner material, and contaminated soil to the
4 extent practicable. If all contaminated soil is not removed or
5 decontaminated, the owner or operator of such impoundment
6 shall be required to comply with appropriate post-closure re-
7 quirements, including but not limited to ground water moni-
8 toring and corrective action.
9 “(4) If the Administrator allows a hazardous waste
10 which is prohibited from one or more methods of land dispos-
11 a! under subsection (d) or (e) of section 3004 (or under regu-
12 lations promulgated by the Administrator under such subsec-
13 tion (d) or (e)) to be placed in a surface impoundment (which
14 is operating pursuant to interim status) for storage or treat-
15 ment, such impoundment shall meet the requirements that
16 are applicable to new surface impoundments under section
17 3004(k)(1) as of the effective date of such prohibition, unless
18 such impoundment meets the requirements of subparagraph
19 (A) or (B) of paragraph (3) or unless such impoundment is a
20 surface impoundment which is used only for the placement of
21 any waste described in section 8002 (f), (n), or (p). Where
22 necessary to protect human health or the environment,
23 taking into account the factors referred to in section
24 3004(d)(1), the Administrator may impose additional require-
25 ments to any surface impoundment operating pursuant to in-
-------
1 terim status under section 3005(e) or for which a permit has
2 been issued pursuant to section 3005(c).
3 “(5) In the case of any hazardous waste which is prohib-
4 ited from one or more methods of land disposal under subsec-
5 tion (d) or (e) of section 3004 (or under regulations promul-
6 gated by the Administrator under such subsection (d) or (e))
7 the placement or maintenance of such hazardous waste in a
8 surface impoundment for treatment is prohibited as of the
9 effective date of such prohibition unless the treatment resi-
10 dues which are hazardous are, at a minimum, removed for
11 subsequent management within one year of the entry of the
12 waste into the surface impoundment.
13 “(6) In the case of each surface impoundment which has
14 been granted interim status under subsection (e) before the
15 date of the enactment of this subsection, interim status shall
16 terminate on the date twelve months after the date of the
17 ehactment of this subsection unless the owner or operator of
18 such impoundment—
19 “(A) applies for a final determination regarding
20 the issuance of a permit under subsection (c) for such
21 facility before the date twelve months after the date of
22 the enactment of this subsection; and
23 “(B) demonstrates that such impoundment is in
24 compliance with all applicable ground water monitoring
25 and financial responsibility requirements.
-------
1 “(7) Before the da.te three years after the date of the
2 enactment of this subsection the Administrator shall make a
3 determination regarding the issuance of a permit under sec-
4 tion (c) for all surface impoundments which have been grant-
5 ed interim status under subsection (e) and which are located
6 within one-fourth mile of an underground source of drinking
7 water.
8 “(8) As used in this subsection, the term ‘underground
9 source of drinking water’ has the same meaning as provided
10 in regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act (title XIV
11 of the Public Health Service Act).”.
-------
-c s P 5S!i)
(c)(1) Section 3005(e) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act is amended by inserting “(1)” after “iNTERIM
STATus.—’ by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)
as suiiparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), and by ad4ing the fol-
lowing new paragraph:
“(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), each
surface impoundment in existence on the date of enactment
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984 and
HR 2867 LAS
-------
24
qualifying for the authorization to operate under paragraph
(1) of this subsection, which—
“(i) does not have at least one liner for which
there is no evidence that such liner is leaking, or
“(ii) is located in an area of vulnerable hydrogeol-
ogy as defined in subparagraph (G) or as deter’mined
by criteria or guidance for the acceptable location of fa-
cilities issued in accordance with section 3004(f),
shall not receive, store, or treat hazardous waste after the
date four years after such date of enactment unless such
surface impoundment is in compliance with the require-
ments of section 3004(f) which would apply to such im-
poundment if it were new. For the purposes of clause (i) of
this subparagraph, the term ‘liner’ means a liner meeting
the requirements of regulations for new surface impound-
ments in effect as of such date of enactment, and that the
surface impoundment is in compliance with generally appli-
cable ground water monitoring requirements for facilities
with permits under subsection (c) of this section.
“(B) The Administrator (or the State, in the case of a
State with an authorized program), after notice and oppor-
tunity for comment, may modify the requirements of sub-
paragraph (A) for any surface impoundment if, not later
than twenty-four months after the date of enactment of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984, the owner
-------
25
OT operator demonstrates that such surface impoundment is
kcated, designed and operated so as to assure that there will
be no migration of any hazardous constituent into ground
water or surface waler at any time during the period haz-
ardous waste remains in such surf ace impoundment.
Within twelve months after the receipt of evidence submitted
under this subparagraph and not later than thirty-six
months after such date of enactment, the Administrator (or,
if appropriate, the State) shall advise such owner or opera-
tor as to whether and, if so, how the requirements of sub-
paragraph (A) shall be modified and applied to such surface
impoundment.
“(C) Subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall not
apply to any surface impoundment which (i) contains treat-
ed waste water during the secondary or tertiary phase of an
aggressive biological treatment facility subject to a permit
issued under section 402 of the Clean Water Act (or which
holds such treated waste water after treatment and prior to
discharge), (ii) is in compliance with generally applicable
ground water monitoring requirements for facilities with
permits under subsection (c) of this section, and (iii) is part
of a facility in compliance with section 301 (b) (2) of the
Clean Waler Act, or in the case of a facility for which no
effluent guidelines required under section 304(b) (2) of the
Clean Waler Act are in effect and no permit under section
HR 2867 EAS
—, I
-------
26
4 02 (a) (1) of such act implementzng section 301(b) (2) of
such Act has been issued, is part of a facility in compliance
with a permit under section 402 of the Clean Water Act
which is achieving significant degradation of toxic pollut-
ants and hazardous constituents contained in the untreated
waste stream and which has identified those toxic pollutants
and hazardous constituents in the untreated waste stream to
the appropriate permitting authority. The Administrator
shall study and report to the Congress on the number, range
of size, construction, likelihood of hazardous constituents
migrating into ground water, and potential threat to human
health and the environment of existing surface impound-
ments excluded by this subparagraph from the requirements
of subparagraph (A). Such report shall address the need,
feasibility, and estimated costs of subjecting such existing
surface impoundments to the requirements of subparagraph
(A). in the case of any existing surface impoundment or
class of surface impoundments from which the Administra-
tor (or the State, in the case of a State with an authorized
program) determines hazardous constituents are likely to
migrate into ground water, the Administrator (or, if appro-
priate, the State) is authorized to impose such requirements
as may be necessary to protect human health and the envi-
ronment, including the requirements of section 3004(f)
which would apply to such impoundments if they were new.
-------
27
“(D) The owner or operator of any surface impound-
ment potentially subject to subparagraph (A) of this para-
graph who luis reason to believe that on the basis of sub-
paragraph (A)(i) or (ii) or subparagraph (C) such surface
impoundment is not required to comply with the require-
ments of subparagraph (A) shall apply to the Administrator
(or the Stale, in the case of a State with an authorized pro-
gram) not later than twenty-four months after the date of
enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of
1984 for a determination of the applicability of subpara-
graph 1 (A) to such surface impoundment. Such owner or op-
erator shall provide evidence pertinent to such decision, in-
cluding evidence as to compliance with ground water moni-
toring requirements and all reasonably ascertainable evi-
dence on whether such surface impoundment is leaking. As
part of such evidence an owner or operator relying on sub-
paragraph (A)(i) or (ii) shall provide a certification by a
registered professional engineer with academic training and
experience in ground water hydrology that (i) such surface
impoundment is not located in an area of vulnerable hydra-
geology, (ii) the liner of such surface impoundment is de-
signed, constructed and operated in accordance with the re-
quirements of regulations, and (iii) based on a review of
ground water monitoring information and other available
information, there is no evidence such liner is leaking. As
HR 2867 EAS
-------
28
part of such evidence an owner or operator relying on sub.
paragraph (C) shall provide a certification by a registered
professional engineer with academic training and experience
in ground water hydrology that such surface impoundment
satisfies the conditions set forth in clauses (i), and (iii)
of subparagraph (C), based on analysis of those toxic pollut-
ants and hazardous constituents that are likely to be present
in the untreated waste stream, and that hazardous constitu-
ents are not likely to migrate from the impoundment into
ground waler. Within twelve months after the receipt of
such ‘evidence and not later than thirty-six months after
such dale of enactment, and after notice and opportunity for
comment, the Administrator (or, if appropriate, the Slate)
shall advise such owner or operator on the applicability of
subparagraph (A) to such surface impoundment.
“(E) in any case in which a surface impoundment is
initially determined to be excluded from the requirements of
subparagraph (A) but due to a change in condition subse-
quently becomes subject to subparagraph (A), the period for
compliance in subparagraph (A) shall be two years after the
date of discovery of such change of condition, in any case
in which a surface impoundment becomes subject to sub-
paragraph (A) after the date of enactment of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984 due to the pro-
mulgation of additional listings or characteristics for the
HR 2867 EAS
-------
29
identification of hazardous wastes under section 3001, the
period for compliance in subparagraph (A) shall be four
years after the date of such promulgation, the period for
demonstrations under subparagraph (B) and for submission
of evidence under subparagraph (D) shall be not later than
twenty-four months after the date of such promulgation, and
the period for the Administrator (or, if appropriate, the
State) to advise such owners or operators under su¶-
graphs (B) and (D) shall be not later than thirty-six months
after the date of promulgation.
“(F) in the case of any surface impoundment in which
the liners and leak detection system have been installed pur-
suant to the requirements of this paragraph and in good
faith compliance with section 3004(f) and the Administra-
tor s regulations and guidance documents governing liners
and leak detection systems, no liner or leak detection system
which is different from that which was so installed pursuant
to this paragraph shall be required for such unit by the Ad-
ministrator when issuing the first permit under this section
to such facility. Nothing in this subparagraph shall preclude
the Administrator from requiring installation of a new liner
when the Administrator has reason to believe that any liner
installed pursuant to the requirements of this paragraph is
leaking.
-------
30
“(U) For the purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), a sur-
face impoundment is located in an area of vulnerable
hydrogeology if the impoundment is over or hydrologically
connected to—
“(i) a sole source aquifer, or
“(ii) a formation which contains an underground
source of drinking waler if such formation or the un-
saturated soils hydrologically connected to such forma-
tion are characterized by high hydraulic conductivity
or permeability (including karsl formations, medium-
lo-coarse-grained materials or fractured rock) or are
geologically unstable, and there is no intervening natu-
ral barrier formation that would significantly restrict
migration of waste constituents. “
-------
, ‘-rr X- -b ç
18 HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
19 SEC. 18. Section 3005(h)(3), as added by section 5 of
20 this Act, is amended by inserting the following immediately
21 after subparagraph (B) thereof: “For the purpose of making
22 any demonstration under subparagraph (B), the term ‘hazard-
23 ous constituent’ does not include those hazardous constitu-
24 ents which the owner or operator demonstrates to the satis-
25 faction of the Administrator and the Administrator deter-
76
1 mines at the time of permitting will not migrate into ground
2 or surface water in concentnitions which may adversely
3 affect human health or the environment.”.
-------
T c c
D(._i , ,1
ca .ls to cOflUnue to pollute our u i tictin the public health and safety (Mr. ECKAP.T asked and was given
ing water supplis—EPA uiu act axtd the environment, . pesinisal to revise and extend his re-
quickly to evaluate them and I would like to take just a minute to - marks.)
them where necessary. w IECnd some of y cofleagucs who Mr. ECKART. M n Speaker In
,—Surf ace impoundinent.s. which ax have worked extremely bard, often Match 1983. dining aubcoesmttee
I filled with liquid hazardous wastes, With difficulty and adversity tO come markup of U.R. 2887, I offered an
also appropriately regulated lfl thu up with a reasonable and workable amendmenl—9 1 0fl8 with my friend
measure. These facilities which are bin. I would like to commend the gem and j ingul3hed colea . Jix I
generally unlined and located within a tieman from New Jersey fM ‘ g QJ , Pt pjo—to prnhLlbit land disposaL of
one-quarter mile of underground the ubcommlttee chairman, as well as the California Hat wastes—that is.
sources of drinking water, are required •the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ma. those with heavy concentziUOns of ar-
to be double lined and have leak detec- .incutswil, the gentleman train Lou ’ senic, cyanide. lead. mercurY. PCB’s. et
tion installed. Several narrow xernp- falana (Mr. TAczmJ, the gentleman cetera. My amendment also required
Uons are provided, but on the whole, from Ohio (Mr. Ecxrnl. the gentle- EPA to condUct S waste-bY-Waste
KR. 2867 will result in these impound- man from Mississippi (Mr. DowDrJ. revtevof all the remaining listed and
mania being appropnatcky sie a J and the gentleman from Alabama [ Mr. Identified hazardous wastes and to
I ed. SHr..sv. I want. also to commend our allow continued land disposal of these
L DIoxIn emissions from resource re- minority members starting with my wastes only under circumstances that
emery facilities are alas addressed In good friend and ranking member, the will be protective of human health
this legislation. EPA is directed to gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. and the environment. Und& my
submit a report describing the current Bso im .t]. the ranking member of the ainentilneElt.. EPAa failure to review a
data and infçrnation on thoxina from subcommittee, the gentieman from waste would mean that, by statue.)
resource recovery facilities, any sigitif- New York (Mr. L rrl. and the gentle- that the waste would be prohibited
leant rtsk.s to human health pOsed by man from Pennsylvania [ Mr. Rii-r from an form of land disposal. I
these emissions and operating prac- Section 42 of this legi&atiodts pro Mr. Speaker, with sonic modif tea-
tices appropriate for controlling these wti es t iat jiolItIng in tions , this prevision Is contained in the
emissions. Based on this report, EPA this aff or change the 4lnai version of Ru.. 2887.
may publish advisories on guidelines U ium ML I I TaJUng a Act, and In dia. By enacting this provision, aa well U
regnrdu’ig the control ol dioWi emia. cuasing the matter. t4ie !onferees the other safeguards in this bill. Con-
slons from resource recovery facilities. agreed to accept the pTovlsk i?’ gress will be sending a clear and unain-
I strongly endorse this provision b The section was added at the behest biguous message to the regulated coni-
cause there is a resource recovery Cs ’
duty on Long Island which was forced of the SeoatolC ’from c m1nz [ Mr. niunity and the Environmental Protec-
to close by public pressure over dioxin Surpsoiil, and I want to commend him tion Menc reliance on land disposal
emissions. If EPA had dioxin emission for his accommodation with respect to of hazardous waste has resulted In an)
regulations In place, this closing could the agreement, not only on the statu- unacceptable risk to human health I
have been avoided. I will. therefore, tory language but aLso on the state- and the environment. Consequently,
work to assure that EPA prepare this rnent of managers. What we agreed to the Congress Intends that through the i
dioxin report and guidelines in a In the conference committee was that vig io s implementation of the objec..
timely fashlbn so that my facility the statement of managers would con- tlves of this act, land disposal will be
might be reopened and do u i stitute. for purposes of legislative his.- eliminated for many wastes and mini- I
other parts of the country car be tory, the sole explanation. For the wised for all others, and that ad- I
avoided, benefit of my colleagues. I woulllijk& vanced treatment, recycling. inciner-!
m l. atlon, and other hazardous-waste-con-
One other Important provision to quote that statement at this po trol technologies should quickly i-c-
UR. 2867 should be mentioned—and flouae bill—No provisions. place land disposaL In other words
that Is the new regulatory program for Sensie antendxaen The Senate amend- land disposal should be used only as a I
underground storage tanks. Most of us ment Lncludea. provlsloo to ensure that the
here today are aware of the large Solid Waste DI5PCSM Act Ameodmenia ,g Last resort and only tinder condltlori.s
1984 do not ailed.. modily. or imend iti,. which are fully protective of human
number of these tanks which are leak- Mitt TaI1 adlaLton Conttol health and the environment,
Ing and polluting our precious ground Act of 1975, as amended Wd’rRCA). In addition, the enactment of this
water, supplies. It Cs lmportdnt that Conference m ibittwte.—The Conference bill constitutes a recognition that the
these tanks be regulated. I believe that as the Senate amend- successful Implementation of the 1984 I
}LR. 2867 does this In an evenhanded . in thi.. secUon shall be ndmenta will require an Improved
war which will result In increased en- doe to vteclude or to retiutre the revi- working relationship between the En-
i4ronmenta] protection and a minimal don of existing ytroninental Protection Agency and
amount of disruption to the regulated under UMTRCA. - - the States. Congress, In m opinion.
community. I think this resolution of the matter regards the development of a viable
In sum. Mr. S eBker. I wholeheart- Is entirely acceptable. and dceply Federal-State parthershlp to be one of
edly support ILR. 2867 and urge Its ex- predate the cooperation of the other the highest priorities of this legisla-
peditious passage today. body and, particularly, of the aoonsor tion and eicpect.s the Agency to devote
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker. I yield 4 of the amendment, the Senator f1 Ozfl much greater effort, to assisting States
minutes to the chairman of the full Wyoming. in aei IevLng authorization of their
committee. the entIeman from Michi- majority nd ininority staffs of RCRA programs.
gan [ Mr. Dti cts.Ll. ’ both this body and of the other body I would like to mention that,
iMr. DINGELL asked and was given
permission to ‘revise and extend hi.s re- have worked long and hard on thL&. BR.. 2887 amends RCRA by adding a
arid they had invaluable support. U new title—Regulation of Underground
marks.)
Mr. DINGELL Mr. Speaker, I thank we always do. from the Office of Legts.- Tanks. There are more than 2;
my distinguished friend, the gentle ’ lative Counsel. million underground tanks in the
man from New Jersey. the able chair- Again. I thInk this is a superb piece United States which contain hazard-.
man of the subcommittee. of legislation, crafted with a great deal otis suintances or gasoline. An estirnat.
Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of care, and I urge my colleagues to ed 100,000 are presently leaklng
of this conference report. We have support It. potentially contalillnatlrir ground i
worked over this legislation over a M i, FLORIO. Mr. Speaker.- I yIeld 4 water—and another 350.000 are cx-
long number of months, and I am con- minutes to the gentleman from Ohio pected to leak La the next 5 years,
fident. that It will lead this Nation for- [ Mr. Ecz.astl. very valuable member Since hail the population of this coun.
ward in its absoluteLy essential task of of the subcommittee who played a try depends 00 ground water as It.iI
controlling hazardous waste and pro- very significant role In the conference. osirm of drinking wates . a CocitsinIfla ’
-------
S 13812
ing supplier programs) are amended by
striking out “January L 1985.” each place it
appears and inserting in lieu thereof “Janu-
ary 1. 1986.”.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the motion is agreed to.
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
AMENDMENTS
Mr. BAKER. Madam President, I
submit a report of the committee of
conference on H.R. 2867 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
report will be stated.
The Assistant Legislative clerk read
as follows:
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2867) to amemi the Solid Waste Disposal
Act to authorize appropriations (or the
fiscal years 1985 through 1988, and for
other purposes, having met, after full and
free conference, have agreed to recommend
and do recommend to their respective
flouses this report, signed by all of the con.
lerecs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With.
out objection, the Senate will proceed
to the consideration of the conference
report.
(The conference report will be print-
ed in the House proceedings.)
Mr. SYMMS. Madam President, I
rise In somewhat reluctant support of
the conference report on the ‘Hazard-
ous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984.”
About the most that I can say In
favor of this bill is tijat it i not as bad
as it could have been in several key re-
spects. and that a few provisions may
make a positive contribution to the
proper management of hazardous
waste.
The fundamental problem with this
bill Is that It attempts to write detailed
regulations into the law. It is instruc-
tive to compare the original 28 page
version of S. 757 as Introduced with
the voluminous, extraordinarily com-
plex bill that we have before us today.
Can any Member of this body explain
why it Is necessary to’require EPA to
list halogenated dibenzofurans as haz-
ardous wastes within the next 15
months Or why the lower liner of a
hazardous waste disposal facility
should have a permeability of 1 x 10-’
centimeter per second? Or why sec-
ondary waste-water treatment ponds
employing biological treatment should
be retrofitted if they have a retention
time in excess of 5 days? Or why steel
underground tanks can no longer be
used in soils with a resistivity of 12,000
Ohms? I submit that making these
kinds of technical judgements Is the
function of EPA. not the Congress.
These particular regulations may be
workable, even appropriate, but writ-
ing regulations is not our job.
Nevertheless, I am pleased that
some necessai-y modifications In the
House and Senate bills were made
with regard to small quantity genera.
tors. EPA dead lines, and surface im-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
poundmnents. In particular, I endorse
the compromise on mining wastes
worked out by the conferees. The stat-
utory language and the statement of
managers make it very clear that the
conferees do not. Intend for this
amendment to in any way diminish
the scope of the so-called “Bevill
Amendment” that was adopted in
1980. ThIs language clearly reflects
the intention of the House and Senate
conferees with regard to this provi-
sion, and leaves no room for ambigui-
ty.
The Senate conferees, and this Sena-
tor in particular, have made consider-
able concessions to get a bilL Although
I am dissatisfied with many provisions
of this bill, I believe that it is the best
we are going to get and so I will sup-
port Its passage.
Mr.- DENTON. Madam President,
the disposal of hazardous waste is a se-
rious national issue. I feel that we as
legislators have a responsibility to pro-
vide all Americans the maximum envi-
ronmental protection allowed by in-
sisting that environmental laws are en-
forced, Clarification of our laws will
help companies, who deal with hazard-
ous waste, comply with the letter of
the law. -
I wish to commend the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on En-
vironmental Pollution for his efforts
to fashion a reasonable compromise in
the RCRA Conference Committee
report. I was particularly pleased to
see that, in section 215(j) dealing with
existing surface Impoundments, the
conferees kept the Senate exemption
for impoundments that are part of a
secondary or tertiary wastewater
treatment system. This measure
strengthens existing laws to ensure in-
creased protection for both public
health and the environment.
Further, I wls ’h to make a point of
clarification for the record. In my dis-
cussions with the subcommittee chair-
man and the staff of the Committee
on Environment and Public Works, I
have been assured that the exemption
In section 215(j)(4) to the requirement
In section 215(j)( 1) has a foundation in
existing regulations. The exemption In
paragraph (4) allows the EPA Admin-
istrator to modify the requirements of
paragraph (1) If the owner demon-
strates that, a:
- Surface Impoundment is located, designed,
and operated so as to assure that there will
be no migration of any hazardous constitu-
ent Into ground or surface water at any
future time,
The phrase “any future time” is not
intended to present a legal bar to the
consideration of petitions for exemp-
tion from the requirements of para-
graph (1). For example, an equaliza-
tion basin that collects wastewater
prior to biological treatment could rea-
sonably be considered for an exemp-
tion under paragraph (4) if it were
built in natural clay with a compacted
clay liner that would prevent migra-
tion of hazardous constituents for 150
years. A period of 150 years clearly
October 5, 1.984
falls within the definition of “any
future time” in a legal Interpretation,
However, given the engineering and
technological considerations in the
design and construction of any surface
impoundment. 150 years may not nec-
essarily be considered within ‘-any
future time.” Indeed, 150 years is
longer than the design life of synthet-
ic liners used for,
No engineer will certify that a sur-
face impoundment, regardless of how
it. Is constructed and with what materi-
al it is constructed, wilj not leak for
any future time if “any future time” Is
given a strict legal definition.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam
President, I wonder if I might direct
the attention of the distinguished
manager of the conference report to a
particular portion of the manager’s
language on Underground storage
tanks, I refer specifically to the follow-
ing sentence which describes the
second modification to the Senate bill
made by the conferees:
In this regard, the conferees believe that
while sophisticated methods of inventory
control may be adequate to determine
whether a tank Is leaking, exclusive reliance
on a “dipstick” method of inventory control
(even with periodic tank testing) will not be
sufficient to detect slow leaks,
Does the Senator from Rhode Island
find that reference.
Mr. CHAFEE, Yes, the Senator from
Minnesota correctly states the lan-
guage of the conference report.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Would tile
Senator from Rhode Island assure this
senator that the specific sentence
which I have read does not imply that
an automatic gauging system or other
electronic detection system is a mini-
mum requirement under the statutory
language reported by the conference.
Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from
Minnesota states the intent of the
conference correctly, We do not intend
this sentence to be Interpreted as a re-
quirement for automatic gauging. The
discussion of the conferees focused on
the way that data collected by me-
chanical devices is analyzed and not
solely on the characteristics of the me-
chanical devices.
Mr, SIMPSON. Madam President, I
do support the con erenee report on
the “Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984,” and I richly
commend the conference chairman,
my fine friend Senator JOHN CHr FEE,
who served with patience and real
skill.
By that, act I do not pretend to be
wholly satisfied with the work of the
conference committee, Yet, In order to
forge a comproinlse’—the essential act
of legislating—with the House it was
necessary to drop certain provisions
from the Senate bill that I feel very
strongly about and that I indeed still
hope and expect to see enacted in the
ftiture. We also accepted certain provi-
sions of the House bill about which I
have reservatlon& In general the bill
lurches ponderously In the direction of
-------
Oc1o1 er 10, 1984
In Chad, relief officials believe 1.000
people have died as a result of starvation or
malnutrition since July. The situation, they
said La almoit certain to deteriorate further
when what is normally referred to as the
dry season begins in the next few weeks.
For Chad. this current drought Is worse
than the great drought of the 1970’s,” said
Jamie Wickens. the representative In Ndja-
mena of the Food aiid Agriculture Organiza-
tion. “The food needs will certainly be
greater.”
TREND SEEN 51 EXPERTS
No one really knows what Is causing the
drought or how long it will last. Many scien-
tists fear, however, tha i a long-term climatic
change may be under way, aggrasated to
some degree by man-made ecological
damage such as over-grazing and extensive
cutting of forests.
The drought of the early 1970-s and the
current drought, a growing number of ex-
peds have come to suspect may be not sep-
arate eventi, but rather symptoms of the
same trend or of a single phase in the clI-
matic cycle.
Adapting to such changes ma)- have been
simpler in the past. Some anthropologists
point out that about 100 years ago there
were virtually no nations as such in Africa
south of the Sahara. so severe changes In
the weather would have merely caused
people to pick up and move on to greener
arena that were sparsely inhabited or poorly
defended.
Now, however, such migrations can no
longer occur without causing political and
social tunnott)
Relief officIals say they believe It will be
more diff Icult to help Chad than most of
the other drought-stricken countries of
AirIca. The country is landlocked and the
best port in the region Is at Lagos. NIgeria.
But Nigeria has closed its borders with its
neighbors, saying It has economic problems
of its own.
Even If adequate supplIes of food do
arrtve. distribution is likely to be a logistical
nightmare, the relief of Ilcials said. The
north of Chad has been under the control
of Libyan-backed rebels for more than a
year. and insurgent activity has been flaring
sporadically in the south as welt.
NO RAILROADs OR iticitWA ys
The country, which Is as large as Texas.
Oklahoma and California combined, has no
railroads or hlghwa)s, although there are
dirt tracks that are passable at certain tImes
of the year.
In the past special camps have been set up,
where displaced people could be housed and
fed. Relief officials said, howeter. that they
would prefer another approach if possible.
“Conditions In the camps often become’
ternbte. squalid, a breedIng round for dis-
ease.” said Mr. Wickens. “That’s a lesson we
le,.rned from the last drought?’
But the other option, the absorption of
displaced people into existing population
centers, could lead to additional preasures
on Chad’s poorly developed urban areas. ‘ it,
could be staggering,” Mr. Wickens said,
For now, at least, Mr. Makai and those
who came with him are llvlng among rela-
tives In the city. The chief explained that
the relatives shared what little food they
had and the villagers slept on straw mats In
the courtyards bf the adobe compounds.
“There is little for them to do during f he
long, hot days,” he saId, “We’re looking for
work, but so far there Is nothing.”
Someday, he said, he would like to lead
his people back to the village, to regather
the familIes arid clans there. But he said he
was not hopeful
“We’re looking at at least nine months of
severe hardship,” said Mr. Wickens. “If we
can get through that, then maybe people
can begin to hope agaln.”s
CONFERENCE REPORT ON KR.
2867, HAZARDOUS AND SOLID
WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
srezca or
HON. JOHN B. BREAUX
OP LO UISiANA
IN ‘IHE ROUSE OF EPRE5Elfl&’tIVE5
Wednesdag, October 3 , 1984
• Mr. BR EAU’X. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
strong support of HR. 2967, provIding
amendments and Improvements to the
Solid Waste Disposal Act of l9’lS. I be-
lieve that this legislation heralds In a
new era for the responsible disposal of
this Nation’s hazardous waste. By this
legislation, the Congress Is sending a
clear signal to the American people
that the long standing out-of-sight.
out-of-mind attitude which has char-
acterized our traditional hazardous
waste disposal practices must come to
an end. This legislation should also
prove to be an enormous stimulant to
the development of alternative treat-
ment arid destruction technologies so
that we might once and for all stop
the practices that have led to the poi-
soning of our land, water, air, and
human resources.
I would not normally find It neces-
sary to comment on specific provisions
of the conference report and state--
meat of managers, however, remarks
made In the other body during Its con-
sideration of the conlerence report
prompt me to make three points.
The first pertains to the exemption
provided in section 2l5(jX4) enabling
certaIn existing surface impoundments
to avoid the general rule of sectlbn
2l5CjX1) requiring such impound-
ments to meet the new minimum tech-
nological requirements within 4 years
of enactmenL This exemption pro .
vides that If an owner or operator of
such a facility demonstrates that a:
“Surface impoundment is located, de-
signed, and operated so as to assure
that there will be no migration of any
hazardous constituent into ground or
surface water at any future time”,
then the Administrator is authorized
to modify the 2l5cj)(Cl ) requiremenL
Statements on the floor of the other
body Interpret the phrase “any future
time” as beIng 150 years. ThIs was not,
in fact, the intent of the conferees arid
as the original author of this provi-
sIon, I reject this interpretation. The
phrase “any future time” means exact-
ly what Is says. No arbitrary outside
time was assumed as being sufficient
to meet this test,
The second pertains to statements
made in the other body Indicating that
mining wastes—or for that matter any
other wastes—that, “assume a solidi-
fied form after they are placed in a
mine or cave” are not subject to the
statutory prohIbitIon on bulk or non-
containerized liquid waste placement.
In salt dome formations, salt bed for-
E4 . 155
mations, underground mines and
eaves, until the Administrator deter-
mines after hearings on the record In
affected areas that such placement. is
protective of human health and the
environment.
Again, I must take strong issue with
this statement. The conferees, includ-
ing this conferee, were directly con-
fronted with the option of placing this
Interpretation in the statement ,of
managers—and rejected It. Any waste
that does not pass the EPA regulatory
definition distinguishing between
liquid and solid waste are subfect to
the prohibition noted above and the
disposal of such waste is prohibited
until the necessary hearings and de-
terminations have been made.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me again
reiterate my support for this impor-
tant, indeed vital, piece of legislation. I
would be remiss If I did not thank the
distinguished chairman of the House
committee. Mr. DnsunL. the chairman
of the subcommittee, Mr. Fi.oazo, the
subcommittee ranking member, Mr.
Lsxr and their able staffs, particularly
John Clough, Chris Harris, and Claire
Whitney for the ninny courtesies and
assistance they gave to me and my
staff In the dIffIcult process of forging
this legislatlon.
TRIBUTE TO CHICK KAZEN
srnen or
RON. NICK JOE RAHALL I I
- or wzar viaornu .
EN THS HOU5E OP SZPaE5ENTATIVE5
Thursday, October 4, 2984
• Mr. RAHALL Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to add my
voice to those of nay colleagues in
saying that we are going to miss our
friend from l’exas, Crucz Kszni. It
has been my pleasure’ to serve with
Csncsc-on the Interior and Insular Af-
fairs Committee, where I have been
able to observe firsthand the dedIca-
tion with which he served the people
of the 23d District In-the great State.
of Texas. He always made sure that
the ‘views of his constituency were well
represented In any debate.
Sc has been a true public sen-ant,
using his position in this Institution to
meet the needs of those he has served
so faithfully. Culcit and I have also
Joined forces on issues of interest to us
with regard to our ethnic heritage
which we both proudly share. Just re-
cently, largely through the efforts of
CHICK Kazzas, legislation was passed
which wilt authorize land in the Dis-
trict of Columbia to memorialize the
great, Lebanese American post-philoso-
pher-artist, KahJll Olbran. Cnicz was
also Instrumental tp helping me secure
passage oL a resolution I sponsored
awarding a gold medal La Danny’
Thomas In recognition of his outstand-
ing humanitarian work ‘with St Jude’
Children’s Research Hospital. ‘ .
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Exgens/oni of Remarks
-------
July 25 1984
vention, detection, and correction of
leaks. States which are attempting to
move on thL problem are now looking
to EPA for this information. EPA’s
timely standard-setting function will
eliminate the need for reinvention of
the wheel.
States will submit their programs to
EPA for approval. If these programs
meet the general designated program
criteria and reflect new tank perform-
ance standards at least as stringent as
those of the Agency they will be eligi-
ble for grant moneys for the purpose
of program implementation. The
amount of money available for this
purpose would be $25 million a year
through 1988. This is a small amount
of money compared to after-the-fact
cleanup costs which have been known
to range as high as this at a single site.
A State must demonstrate that Its pro-
gram Includes the following elements
and provides for adequate enforce.
ment of compliance with these re-
quirements:
First, maintaining a leak detection
system or inventory control syst’em
and performing tank testing designed
to Identify releases:
Second. maintaining records of any
monitoring or leak detection system or
Inventory control system or tank test-
ing system:
Third. reporting of any releases and
corrective acUon taken in response to
a release from an underground storage
tank:
Fourth. standards of performance
for new underground storage tanks;
Filth, taking corrective action In re-
sponse to a release from an under-
ground storage tank;
Sixth, taking underground storage
tanks out of operation; and
Seventh, maintaining evidence of fi.
nancial responsibility for taking cor-
rective action and compensating third
parties for bodily Injury and property
damage caused by sudden and nonsud-
den accidental releases arising from
operating an underground storage
tank.
Exempted from this program are
tanks that are less than 1.100 gallons
capacity used for storing motor fuel
for noncommercial purposes or and
tanks for storing heating oil for con-
sumptive use.
This amendment will assure that all
other new tanks are built and installed
as they should be and that old tanks
are operated and maintained so that
the possibility of leaks is minimized.
We must take this sensible and rea-
sonable action in order to avoid na-
tionwide contamination of our pre-
cious ground water resources. I ask my
distinguished colleagues to join with
me in support of this program which
provides essential protection to the
publ c’s drinking water.
• Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President. I
rise to cosponsor with the Senator
from Minnesota (Mr. DuRENaERGEn
an amendment that will close a major
gap in environmental control.
CONGRESSIONAL RECQRD — SENATE
We are all aware by now of the seri-
otis problem of ground water contami-
nation. Those who draw their drinking
water from the water-bearing geologic
formations known as aquifers count on
a supply free of toxic pollutants. Yet
many of man’s activities on or below
the land surface introduce contami-
nants to underground supplies of
drinking water. We have only recently
realized the gravity of the problem
with the discovery of high concentra-
tions of pollutants in many aquifers
used by millions of people.
A variety of environmental laws
serve to partially control ground water
contamination, but much more must
be done. Some types of sources are not
regulated under any Federal law. Per-
haps the most significant category of
unregulated source is the underground
storage tank.
Underground storage tanks are ubiq-
uitous In our society. They are most
commonly used to store petroleum
products such as gasoline, but many
tanks also contain industrial chemi-
cals. Nobody knows how many million
tanks exist in the United States or
what proportion of the tanks leak, but
that should not stop us from acting
promptly to reduce the threat to
ground water. We do know that the
majority of tanks are made of bare
steel and that many have been in the
ground for decades. The basic princi-
ples of chemistry lead to the conclu-
sion that many of these tanks are
leaking.
More direct evidence of the phe-
nomenon derives from the many Inci-
dents of ground water contamination
that have been traced to leaking un-
derground storage tanks. In some
cases, leaks occurred for many years
before they were detected. Sometimes
the contamination is detected only
when pollutants reach a drinking
water supply.
For example, a most amazing epi-
sode has unfolded In Brooklyn. New
York City’s most populous borough.
Quite by accident, the pilot of a Coast
Guard helicopter noticed In 1978 what
appeared to be an oil slick In Newtown
Creek. which separates the Boroughs
of Brooklyn and Queens. The slick is
now kncan to be seepage from a 17
million gallon, 52-acre lake of petrole-
um floating on the aquifer beneath
the streets of Brooklyn. Hydrologists
have traced the origin of the spill to
an array of gasoline storage tanks.
Even more astonishing than the mag-
nitude of the spill is the fact that the
leakage might have started as long ago
as 1948, escaping detection for 30
years.
How can we prevent large, undetect-
ed leaks of hazardous and toxic chemi-
cals into soils and aquifers? The
amendment we are proposing today
will move us in the right direction. It
would establish sensible practices
aimed at preventing, detecting, and
correcting leaks from underground
storare tanks. First, owners of tanks
would provide the States with some
S9165
basic Information about their tanks.
leading to the compilation of tank In-
ventories. The Environmental Protec-
tion Agency would promulgate regula-
tions to improve the management of
tanks. The regulations would require
such practices as inventory control, a
simple method for detecting leaks
soon after they start. The EPA would
also Issue performance standards for
new tanks in order to reduce the
future Incidence of leaks.
The need for better control of un-
derground storage tanks has been rec-
ognized by many States and local com-
munities. For example, the New York
State Legislature recently enacted a
law applicable to the bulk storage of
petroleum. Suffolk County. NY. which
has experienced serious pollution of
its sole-source aquifer, passed a strict
local ordinance.
It is now time for Congress to act.
There Is no question that toxic chemi-
cals are leaking from storage tanks to
aquifers. Yet no clear Federal author-
ity Is currently available to tackle this
threat.s
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
call the roll.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
G0RT0N). Without objection, it is so
ordered. — 1
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. President, I wish
to thank Senator CHAISE. Senator
DuREr1BERGER. and also, of course, our
distinguished chairman and distin-
guished ranking minority member of
the subcommittee, and others who
have worked on this for their coopera-
tion.
-I wish to make a few comments here.
I will be as brief as possible. I know
the floor managers of the bill are anx-
ious to move on with this project and I
think it is Important.
Mr. President, reauthorization of
the Resources Conservation and Re-
covery Act has been a long, complex,
and arduous task. It began during the
97th Congress, when, in September
1982. the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee passed a
simple reauthorization of the act.
That. In Itself, sho s what a strong
statute RCRA is. The committee origi-
nally Intended to keep it on the books
as It was.
In this Congress, the committee
changed direction, partly because of
the problems that occurred at EPA.
and began searching for more compre-
hensive language to the act. With that
effort, more and more discretionary
authority was yanked from EPA. The
Senate was not only reauthorizing the
act, it as establishing EPA’s regulato-
ry programs as well. When S. 757 came
out of the committee last November. I
opposed Its passage, and outlined five
-------
S 9166
major concerns that I felt had to be
addressed before the bill was palatable
Lu Thc, e points were:
First, deadlines for EPA action must
be attainable;
Second. a provision to consider
mining waste differently than other
waste because it Is, by nature, high
volume waste with low toxicity:
Third, a provision to exempt second.
ary and tertiary ponds from the
double liner requirements of the bill:
Fourth, opposition to the House
amendment requiring landfills to con.
duct risk assessment surveys that are
too expensive and questionable in
value: and
Fifth, support for EPA’s current
study of underground storage tanks
and opposition to efforts to tie the
Agency’s hands with requirements
that are unnecessary and which pre-
suppose the outcome of the study now
underway.
First, I wish to say that without the
cooperation of Senator CRAFEE, It
would not have been possible, as far.*s
this Senator is concerned, that I could
be here on the floor supporting this
legislation. And on these criticisms.
which I think have been corrected, he
certainly deserves a lot of commenda-
tion for his able leadership and his
able staff to make these corrections
and work these things out.
Let me address these points individ-
ually. Although they are not the only
problems I have with S. 757, they do
constitute the lion’s share of those
concerns.
First, the committee bill originally
established some 35 deadlines for EPA,
Now all of us know that EPA has
never seen a deadline it could not miss.
The problem is that oftentimes, EPA’s
resources are limited, and their prior-
ities are not always In harmony with
the demands of Congress. The result Is
that the moment EPA misses a dead-
line, they are in litigation, and the
court mandates timetables or makes
decisions that are not always In the
best Interests of good rulemaking.
When EPA originally proposed the
deadlines in the bill, they were acting
under the assumption that they had
unlimited resources, When those dead-
lines were incorporated Into the bill,
EPA realized how very unrealistic
they were. I joined the battle in their
support, and the result of those ef-
forts is the committee amendment re-
vising those deadlines. I feel that it Is
important for this body to be delibera-
tive, especially in the case of highly
emotional issues like this one. The
committee amendment does that In
this case— it substitutes deadlines that
are workable for deadlines that were
simply unattainable. It Is my sincere
hope that even these deadlines are not
overly optimistic, because if they are
the courts will make the decisions
EPA is directed to make. Nonetheless,
the House bill retains deadlines that
are more unrealistic than those in the
Senate bill. This body should adopt
the more reasonable deadlines of the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
committee amendment, and It must
stand firm with the House to see that
the deadlines that find their way into
law will result In deliberative and sup-
portable rulemaking by the Agency.
I think this Is most critical that this
happen and that all Senators under-
stand the critical nature of this and
that the Senate be able to stand by its
position on this particular issue.
Second, the bill as passed by the
committee contains provisions that
relate to banning certain land disposal
practices. During committee consider-
ation, Senator SIMPsoN and I proposed
an amendment to recognize that, for
the purposed of this amendment,
mining waste is not the same and
should not be treated as the same as
other wastes covered under RCRA. By
its nature, mine waste must be dis-
posed of in surface impoundments be-
cause of the sheer volume of waste
rock, mill tailings, slag, and overbur-
den generated on a daily basis in the
extraction, beneficlation, and process-
Ing of ores and minerals. The double
liner requirement of S. 757 Is impracti-
cable for these surface impoundments.
and the effect of this requirement
could be to shut down certain parts of
the mining industry altogether. Al.
though the language that the commit-
tee adopted originally left ambiguity
in Its application to the mining corn-
munity. the committee has since
agreed to offer an amendment to recti’
fy that ambiguity, and I urge the
adoption of this very important com-
mittee amendment.
In a related issue, my third concern
revolved around the imposition of
double liner requirements on second-
ary and tertiary treatment facilities.
By nature, these facilities are also very
large, often acres and acres in size.
Double lining these ponds would be
impractical, and most companies
would simply opt to close them down
altogether. This concerned me primar-
ily because the ponds are usually used
for secondary treatment of water
which is close to being clean, and con-
taining few of the hazardous wastes
that this bill Is designed to address.
Tertiary ponds are often used only to
cool the water before it is discharged
into the receiving waters or to control
the flows of those discharges. In
either event, it Is simply unnecessary
to double line these facilities. Again, I
commend Senator CIUFEE and Senator
STAFFoRD for their efforts in resolving
this concern. The committee amend-
ment would waive the double liner re-
quirements if the NPDES permit re-
quirements were being met by the fa.
cility.
My fourth concern revolved around
an amendment that was passed by the
House relating to’risk assessment sur-
veys. This amendment would require
each of 450 landfill operators in the
United States to choose and pay con-
tractors to perform complete health
risk assessments at their sites, within 1
year. The assessment would have to
include comprehensive air and water
July 25, 1984
monitoring and the taking of medical
histories of all persons living or work-
ing within 2.5 miles of the site. It Is
doubtful whether EPA and all private
contractors combined could perform
these amendments. In addition, the
studies would be highly questionable
because of the small size of the sarn
ples, the lack of any consistent expo-
sure at the site, and the lack of any
meaningful control group. In short.
what seems to be a good concept, is se-
verely flawed. The risk assessments
would be expensive—at least $300,000
a piece—and since the operator pays
for the study, it Is questionable wheth.
er anyone would believe the results.
Senators HuMPm rr and CRANsToN
have come up with an amendment
that is satisfactory to me. and I hope
the Senate will adopt it and stick to it
in conference.
My final concern was one which was
only resolved today. It deals with un-
derground storage tanks.
First, EPA is currently doing a study
to determine the extent of this prob-
lem. The Agency testified to the com-
mittee that it had the authority to es-
tablish a regulatory program If it
deemed It to be necessary.
Second, the Agency and I opposed
initial efforts to go beyond that, and I
still have concerns over the extent of
the Durenberger amendment. None-
theless, I want to commend the Sena-
tor for his accommodations to the con-
cerris we raised. Although his amend-
ment still binds EPA to a regulatory
program that is specific, he has come a
long way to resolve the concerns I had
over this problem.
Third, the amendment is not yet
complete or reviewed by me or the
committee. Consequently. I ask the in-
dulgence of the Senate and the floor
leaders that we have an opportunity to
review it for its technical accuracy.
Fourth. In addition, since the lan-
guage was only agreed to this alter.
noon, and I feel that a legislative his-
tory accompanying the amendment Is
essential. I hope the REcORD could
remain open for a period of time ade-
quate so that the Senate could clarify
the legislative record as to exactly
what Is intended if there Is no prob.
1cm.
I thank the Senator very much.
I commend my colleagues on the En.
vironment and Public Works Commit-
tee for their hard work and persever-
ance on this piece of legislation, It is a
highly technical piece of legislation. I
think we made substantial improve.
ments from where we were 6 months
ago with this. I thank all my col-
leagues.
Mr. DURENBERGER addressed the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Minnesota,
Mr. DURENBERCIER. Mr. Presi-
dent. I ask unanimous Consent that
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Snc’rzal be added as a cosponsor to
this amendment.
-------
July 5, 1984
gated under paragraph (1) of this subsec-
lion.” -
AisE DMcirr No. 3409
(Purpose: To clarify appliration of require-
ment to conduct ground water monitor-
ing)
Proposed by Mr. CIfAFEE (far hiwself
and Senators EEXTSLN, S srpoao, RaNDoLPH,
and MITCHELL).
On page 86, line 13, sLri! e the quotation
marks and final period, and after l (ne 16
Insert the follou (zig:
“This subsection shall not be constr at’d to
affect other exemptions or waivers from
such standards provided In regulattons In
effect on the date of enactrnPnt of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984 or
as may be provided in revi,,tons to those r9-
ulatlons. to the extent consistent with this
subsection. The Administrator is authorized
on a case-by-case basis to exempt from
ground artIer monitoring reqiilrcments
under this se tlon (ln.iu’ ng subsection (f))
any englneeied structure nkh the Admin-
istrator funds does not receive or contain
liquid waste (nor aaste containing free liq-
uids). is dasigned and operated to exclude
liquid from preripitat ion or other runoff.
Utilizes multiple leak detection systems
aithin the outer layer of contalnmer4 and
pro ides for eont,nuinr operation and main-
tenance of these leak detection systems
during the operating period, closure, and
the period required for post-closure moni-
tonng and for which the Administrator con-
cludes on the basis of such findin ts that
there is a reasonable certainty hazardous
constituents aill not migrate beyond the
outer layer of contautnent prior to the end
of the period required for post-closure moni-
toring.
I T4OiecNT NO. 3409
(Purpose: To clarify scope of new section
3001(e) ban on certain aeliz)
Proposed by Mr. CHAF E liar himself
and Senators STAn-oRb, R ic oi.r-ii and
MitcxzLzJ.
R INJECTION OF TREATED CROON!) WATD1
On page 44, lIne 23, after “a tter.” insert
the fulloaing: “This subseci:on shall not
apply to the Injection of contain!r’ated
ground aster Into the aquifer from a hich It
aaa aithdiawn, If st ch Injection Is a re-
sponse action taken under section 104 or 106
of the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, CompensatIon and Lie billty Act of
1900 or part of corrective action required
under this title Intended to clean up such
contamination and such contaminated
ground water Is treated to substantIally
reduce hazardous constituents prior to such
injection,”.
AzeeHnuzzrr No. 3409
(Purpose: To clarify authority of Adfl’fzuis-
trator to modify application or ce,t’iin re-
quirements to some mining wastes)
Proposed by Mr. CHAFEE (for hln’self
and Senators SIMPsoe and Raxaui,eu)
MIllING WaSTE AME? DMEN?
On page 48,beglnnhitg on line 18 thro’jgh
line 2 on p ’ ge 49. strike the sentence follow-
ing “the erruronment.”.
At the end of S. 757. add the fol:oa tag
new section:
“Src. . Section 3004 of the Solid V’aste
Dispn’ cI cr Is azrendrd L’, add1ng at the
end thtreof cl fobs Ing ne sucser jon:
‘1 ) If solid waste fro’n the exiraction.
bentfiL’ation or processing of o.es and flui:i-
erals, including phosphate rock and over-
bu .lcn ham the mining of uranzwn ore, is
subject to regulation under this subtitle, the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
Administrator is authorized to modify the
requirements of subsections (b), (f)(1)
(other than the requirement for ground
water monitoring), and g), In the case of
landfills or surface imppunclrnents receiving
such sand aas e, to take Into account the
special characteristics of such wastes, the
practi’ al Jtfflcultu s associat.ed aith imole-
mentaoLl of such requirements, and site-
specific characteristics. Including but not
liralted to the climate, geology, hydrology
and soil chcmistry at the sIte, so long as
such niud:f ed requIrements assure protec-
tion of human health and the environ-
merit..’.”
Aswoazzzrr No. 3409
(Purpose: To assure that the Solid Waste
Disposal Act Amendments of 1 84 do riot
affect, modify, or amend the Urvuuin
Mill Ta llnqs Radiation Control Act of
1978. as amended)
Proposed by Mr. C tAFEE (for h!msell
and Senator Szisrsos).
Amend S. 757 by adding the following new
section:
“ORAifIUM )(ILL TAILINGS
“SEc. . Nothing In the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act Amendments of 1584 shall be con-
strued to affect, modify, or amend the Ura-
nium Mail Tailings Radiation Control Act of
1973, as amended.”.
AMEeDMENI No. 3409
IPurpose: To establish minimum technologi.
cal requirements for existing surface Im-
pOundziicn ts)
Proposed by Mr. CILAFEE ifor himself
and Senators BENThEN. STAVP0RD, RAaooLPx.
and M1TcRr ,z.).
On pr ar 49, after line 19. Insert the fol-
lowing:
(CR )) S”vtion 3005(e) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is amended by Inserting “(1)”
after “Interim Status. “, by redesigneting
paragraphs (1). (2). and (3) as subpara-
graphs (A), (B), and C). and by adding the
foliowinj new paragraph:
‘(2XA Except as pro lded in subpara-
graph (C), each surface inipouiid.nent In ex-
istcnee on tt.e date of enactment of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of
1934 and qualIfying for the authorization to
operate under paragraph (1) of this subsec-
tion, which—
“(I) does not have at least one liner, for
ahich there Is no evidence that such liner is
leaking, or
“(h) is located In an area of vuLnerable by-
drogeology as deflnsd in subparagraph (G)
or as dctei 1 mned by criteria or guIdance for
the acceptz ,ble location of faclHties Issued In
aecordance aith section 3004(f),
shall not receive. store, or treat. hazardous
waste after the date four years after such
dste of enactment unless such surface un’
pounoment is In compliance a’th the re-
quirenients of seciton 3004(f) which would
apply to siu’h lmpi’undment If It were new.
For the p irposea of clause I) of this subpar-
ag;agh, the term “liner” means a liner
nieetrng tne ietiui:ement.s of regulations for
n”w surfar’e tirpoundu ciita in effect as of
such date of enactment. and that the sur-
face impoundment is In compliance with
generalI applicable ground water monitor-
ing requiremen for facilities auth permits
uii er subsection c) of this section.
‘131 The Administrator (or the Stste. in
the case o1 a State wIth an authorized pro-
gram), after notice and opportunity for
comment. niav mocufy me req iirements of
sLbparagraph (A) br any surface impound.
nient if, not later than 24 mor.ths after the
date of enactmein of tire Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act Amendments of 1964, the owner
S9173
or operator demonstrates that such surface
Impoundments Is located, designed and op-
erated so as to assure that there aill be no
migration of any hazardous constitw’nt into
ground water or surface water at any time
durrng the period hasardous asste remains
In such surface Impoundment. Within 12
months after the receipt of esiderice submit’
ted unJer this subparagraph end not lacer
than 36 mrintl,5 after s.ich date of erset-
men!, the Administrator (or, ii appropriate,
t’ie State) ehall advise such oa”er or op.ra-
t r as to whether and. if so. h3e the re
quirements of subparagraph (A) shall be
modified and applied to such surface Im.
poundnient.
‘(C) Subparagraph (A) of this paragraph
shall not apply to any surhtge trnpouriiment
which (i) contains treated azste water
duTing the scrondary or teiliary phase of an
aggrescive biological Ireatr ent !LCiiI y sub-
ject to a permit issued under section 402 of
the Clean Water Act (or which hclds such
treated waste water after treatmeni, nJ
prior to discharge), (U) Is in coripLuice a
generally applicable ground aater monztor-
lug requirements for facilities aIth permIts
under subsection (c) of this section, and Uii)
Is part of a facility In compliance alto see’
tbon 301tbR2) of the Clean Water Act, or. In
the ce e of a facility for ahich no e (Iluent
guidelines required under section 304. o (2)
of the Cean Water Act are in effect and no
permit under section 4021a)(l) ot suth Act
Implementing section 3Olb)(2) of suu.h Act
has been issued. I, part of a facuity in com-
pliance with a permit tinder section 402 of
the Clean Water Act which Is achieving sig
ziificant degradation of toxic pollutants and
hazardous constituents contained in the un
treated wa -,te stream me a Inch ha.’ Identi-
fied those toxic pollutants and hssardo is
constituents In the untreated waste stream
to the appropriate permgting authority,
The Administrator shall s’udi’ Bid report to
the Congress on the number, range of size,
construction, likelihood of hazar.1.us con-
stituents migrating into ground water, and
potential threat to human health auid the
environment of existing surface Impound-
mento excluded by this subparagraph from
the requirements of subparagraph IA). Such
report shall address the need, feasfbrlity,
and estimated costs of subjecting su.1t exist-
ing surface impoundments to the require-
ments of subparagraph (A). In the case of
any exlst’ng suiface Impoundment or class
of surface impoundments from a hlch the
Administrator (or the State, In the ca, e of a
State with an authorized program) deter-
mines hazardous constituents are lii ely to
migrate Into ground water, the Adminlatra’
tor (or, If appropriate the State) is author.
Lied to Impose such requirements as may be
necessary to protect human hcaith ane the
entironnieflt. including the requirent nts of
section 3004(f) a hich would apply to such
Impoundments if they were new,
“(D) ‘I he owner or operator of any surfar
impoundment potentially subject to stub.
paragraph (A) of this paragraph who ti.is
reason to believe that on the bssiz of sub.
paragraph (Aiti) or (Ill or suibparagrarjfl ( (‘I
such surface impoundment is not required
to comply with the requirements of sub.
paragraph (Al shall apply to the Adnpii’x.
trator (or the State, in the case of a Stale
with an authorized progran.) not later than
24 months after the date of enatmenr of
the Sol d Waste Disposal Act Amencn n ’
of 1984 f r a determination of the Rpn’ica.
bility of subparagraph (A) to sucn sur --e
impoundnicnt, Such oaner or operat,:r Stui.l
protide esidence pertinent to su” ecl ’uii,’n.
including evidence as to co .anre s:th
ground water monItoring requurt -m l t and
all reasonably ascertainable e ide’nr— on
-------
S 9174
whether such surface impoundment is leak-
ing. As part, of such evidence an owner or
operator relying on subparagraph (A)(i) or
(ii) shall provide a certification by a regis-
tered professional engineer with academic
training and experience in ground water hy-
drology that (I) such surface impoundment
Is not located in an area of vulnerable hy-
droccology, (ii) the liner of such surface Im-
poundznent Is de.smged. constructed and op-
erated in accordance aith the requirements
of regulations, and (iii) based on a retiew of
ground sater monitoring Information and
other available information, there is no evi-
dence such liner is leaking. As part of such
evidence an owner or operator relying on
subparagraph (C) shall provide a certifica-
tion by a registered professional engineer
with acadcmic training and expertence in
ground water hydrololgy that such surface
impoundment satisfies the conditions set
forth in clauses i), (ii ), and (Iii) of subpara-
graph (C), based on analysis of those toxic
polluntants and hazardous constituents that
are likely to be present in the untreated
waste strcam and that hazardous constitu-
ents are not likely to migrate from the tin.
poundment into ground water. Within
taelve months after the receipt of such evi-
dence and not later than 36 months after
such date of enactment, and after notice
and opportunity for comment, the Adminis 5
trator (or. if appropriate, the SLate) shall
ath ise such owner or operator on the appli-
cability of subparagraph (A) to such surface
impoundment.
“(E) In any case In wh!ch a surface im-
poundment is initially determined to be ex-
cluded from the requirements of subpara-
graph (A) but due to a change in condition
subs ’quently becomes subject to subpara-
graph (A). the period for compliance In sub-
paragraph (A) shall be two years after the
date of discovery of such change of condi-
tion. In any case in which a surface im-
poundnient becomes subject to subpai a-
graph (A) after the date of enactment of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments
of 1984 due to the promulgation of addition-
al listings or characteristics for the identifi-
cation of hazardous wastes under section
3001. the period for compliance In subpara-
graph (A) shall be four years after the date
of such promulgation, the period for demon-
stations under subparagraph (B) and for
submission of evidence under subparagraph
(Di shall be not later than 24 months alter
the date of such promulgation, and the
period for the Administrator (or, If appro-
pilate. the State) to advise such owners or
operators under subparsgraphs (B) and (D)
shall be not later than 36 months alter the
date of promulgation.
“tpi In the case of any surface impound-
ment is which the liners and leak detection
System have been installed pursuant to the
requirements of this paragraph and in good
faith compliance with section 3004(f) and
the Administrator’s regulations and guid-
ance documents governing liners and leak
detection systems, no liner or leaf detection
syatem which is different from that ahich
was no installed pursuant to this paragr ph
shall be required for such unit by the Ad-
mintstrator when issuing the first permit
under this section to such faciti y, Nothing
in this subparagraph shall preclude the Ad’
ministrator from requiring instalation of a
new liner ahen the Adznin.strator has
reason to believe that any liner installed
pursuant to the requirements of this para-
graph Is leaking.
W i For the purposes of subparagraph
(A’CIil. a surface impoundment is located in
an area of vulnerable hydrogeoiogy if the
impoiinament is over or h drologically con-
nected to—
“(1)8 sole source s uifer or
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
July 25, 1984
pected that EPA will know which wastes it
intends to propose to ban prior to publica-
tion of the schedule, therefore We do not
expect EPA to place In the first third wastes
which will be restricted and in the last third
wastes which will not be restricted. Howev-
er. in establishing the schedule, EPA must
consider factors such as the intrinsic hazard
of a waste. In evaluating the intrinsic
hazard of a waste. EPA should consider a
waste’s toxicity and may ccnsider other fac-
tors such as mobility, persistence and pro-
pensity to bioaccumulate. In addition. EPA
must consider the volume of a waste gener-
ated ‘or managed in land disposal. Accord-
ingly, large volume aastes with a high in-
trinsic hazard shall be placed in the first
third and so on. with low hazard, low
volume wastes in the last third. Because of
the relatively short time frame for publica-
tion c.f the schedule. weexpect EPA to rely
QjL jpg for determining waste vol.
tunes.
As introduced on March 15. 1984. amend-
ment number 2804 aould have simply ex-
tended the deadlines In section 5 on land
disposal limitations. Concern was expressed
that, aithout the imposition of a statutory
standard, pressure would be placed on EPA
to establish a schedule that would place
high’volume wastes and wastes with high
intrtnsic hazard in the last third arid that
decisions whether to prohibit the land dis-
posal of such wastes would not occur for 72
months. Such a result would be unaccept-
able. Therefore, the amendment a as mod!’
fied to include a mandatory. judicially en-
forceable, statutory standard for the ached.
We.
“(ii) a formation which contains an under-
ground source of drinking water if such for-
mation or the unsaturated soils bydrologi-
eally connected to such formation are char-
acterized by high hydraulic conductivity of
permeability (including karat formations,
and medium-to.course-grained materials or
fractured rock) or are geologically unstable.
and there is no intervening natural barrier
forrnamtion that would significantly restrict
migration of waste constituents.”.
On page 49, line 2. before the quotation
maras insert the following:
“The Adininstrator shall promulgate regu-
lations or issuie guidance documents imple-
menting the requirements of paragraph (1)
within two years after such date of enact-
ment. Until the effective date of such regu-
lations or guidance documents, the require-
ment for the installation of tao or more
liners may be satisfied by the Ln.stallatlon of
a top liner designed, operated, and con-
structed of materials to prevent the migra.
tion of any constituent into such liner
during the period such facility remains In
operation (including any post-closure moni-
toring period), and a lower liner designed,
operated and constructed to preient the mi-
gi’ation of any constituent through such
liner during such period. For the purpose of
the preceding sentence, a lower liner shall
be deemed to satisfy such requirement ii It
is constructed of at least a three-foot thick
layer of recompacted clay or other natural
material with a permeability of no more
than lx 10- ‘centimeter per second.”.
On page 43, line 7, strike “section” and
insert in lieu thereof “subsection”.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is -
there further debate on the amend- —
AME ’DMENT TO CLARIFY ADMINiSTRATOR’S AU’
ment? If not, the question Is on agree- To REQUIRE A PERMIT TO CON’
Ing to the amendment. -- ——- STRUCT A HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMERT,
—- The amendment (No. 3409) was SToRAGE. OR DISPOSAL FACILITY
agreed to, - - f On May 19. 1980. EPA promulgated regu
Mr. CIIAFEE. Mr. President, I send lations establishing procedures for permit’
to the desk a series of explanations of ting hazardous waste management facilities.
the amendments which have just been Among oilier things, these regulations pro-
agreed to. These explanations are in hibit the construction of new facilities
the same sequence as the amendments before the Issuance of a RCRA permit, See
sent to the desk and cons 1 dered en 40 CFR 127010tf)(l). This amendment
bloc and can be identified by the title aill clarify the Administrator’s authority to
at the top. I ‘hsk that they be printed require a RCRA permit to construct a haz-
ardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal
in the REcORn. facility and codify that portion of the May
There being no objection, the mate- 19, 1980 reguiations.
rial was ordered to be printed in the One purpose of this provision is to provide
Rgcoiw, as follows: the Agency with an opportunity to review
AIrsZ4DMEZIT TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN VARIOUS the choice of location for such facilities
SECTIONS or rars aru.. before there has been a significant commit-
s. 757 contains numerous statutory dead. mont of resources, Recent studies have conS
lines for various actions and decisions y eluded that locational characteristics and
EPA, Since reporting the bill, we have met requirements are at least as important to
on set eral occasions with representatives of protection of human health and the eiwi-
EPA to assure that the deadlines are reason- ronrnent as are minimum technological
able and attainable. EPA requested seve”al characteristics and requirements. For exam.
deadline extensions and assured us that pIe, although double liners and leak detec.
they could meet the new deadlines we have tion systems are an improvement oter the
agreed to. This amendment will make those current most a idely used technology, the
changes, fact that double liners are known to eventu.
As mod 1 tied by this amendment, new see- ally Icak means that even such double-lined
tion 300 ’ ib ,(6)(A) requires EPA to publish. facii:ti-’s may not be protective 01 human
not later than 24 months after enactment, a health and the environment ii they are 10.
schedule for deciding ahether or not to re- cateu in areas of vulnerable hydrogeology.
Strict the land disposal of wastes listed The need for EPA to establish and enforce
under Section 3001. This schedule must pro- locational criteria is as essential to prc,tec.
vide for review and decision on at least one- tion of human health and the environment
third of the listed wastes w ,thln 48 months as is the need for periodic revision 01 tech-
after enactment, for at least tao thirds of nological standards.
the listed aastes within 60 months alter en- As introduced on March 15. 1934. this
aetment. and all listed wastes not later than ainendrient revealed an inconaistenry be.
the date 72 months after enactment. These tacen the EPA regulations under the Toxir
fractions refer to the number of wa tcs Substances Control Act (T&A) an l the reg.
listed, arid not the volume of aastes listed ulation under RCRA affcctinq the con
The schedule mandated by subsection strut’tion and operation 01 land-based inein
(bi(6)(A) must be based on environmental erators, Under RCRA. no construction may
considerations and objectises. It is not ex. begin prior to receipt of a final RCRA
-------
S9174
whether such surface impoundment Is leak-
ing. As part of such evidence an owner or
operator relying on subparagraph (AXI) or
(Ii) shall provide a certification by a regis-
tered professional engineer with academic
training and experience in ground water hy-
drology that (I) such surface impoundment
is not located in an area of vulnerable hy-
drogeoiogy, ( I I) the liner of such surface tin-
poundment is de.cinged, constructed and op-
erated in accordance with the requirements
of regulations, and (iii) based on a ret iew of
ground aster monitoring information and
other available information, there is no evi-
dence such liner is leaking. As part of such
evidence an owner or operator relying on
subparagraph (C) shall provine a certifica-
tion by a registered professional engineer
with acadcmic training and expcr!ence in
ground water hydrololgy that such surface
impoundment satisfies the conditions set
forth in clauses U). (ii), and (iii) of subpara-
graph (C). based on analysis of those toxic
poliuntants and hazardous constituents that
are likely to be present in the untreated
waste stream, and that hazardous constitu-
ents are not likely to migrate from the im-
poundment into ground water. Within
twelve months after the receipt of such evi-
dence and not later than 36 months after
such date of enactment, and after notice
and opportunity for comment, the Adrmnise
trutor (or. if appropnate, the State) shall
adtise such owner or operator on the appli-
eabihty of subparagraph (A) to such surface
Impoundment,
‘tB) In any case in wh!ch a surface Ira-
poundment is initially determined to be ex-
cluded from the requirements of subpara-
graph (A) but due to a change in condition
subsequently becomes subject to subpara-
graph (A), the period for compliance in sub-
paragraph (A) shall be two years after the
date of discovery of such change of condi-
tion. In any case in which a surface tin-
poundnient becomes subject to subpai a.
graph (A) after the date of enactment of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments
of 1984 due to the promulgation of addition-
al listings or characteristics for the identifi-
cation of hazardous wastes under section
3001, the period for compliance in subpara-
graph (A) shall be four years after the date
of such promulgation, the period for demon-
stations under subparagraph (B) and for
submission of evidence under subparagraph
(0) shaLl be not later than 24 months after
the date of such promulgation, and the
period for the Administrator (or, If appro-
pilate. the State) to advise such owners or
operators under subparagraphs (B) and (D)
shall be not later than 36 months after the
date of promulgation,
“(F) In the case of any surface impound-
ment is which the liners and leak detection
system have been instailed pursuant to the
requirements of this paragraph and in good
faith compliance with section 3004(f) and
the Administrator’s regulations and guid-
ance documents governing liners and leak
detection systems, no liner or leaf detection
syzIe!n which is different from that ahich
was no Installed pursuant to this parai r .ph
shall be required for such unit by the Ad-
minisll’ator when issuing the first permit
wider this section to such facibty Nothing
in this subparagraph shall preclude the Ad-
sninistrator from requiring insta:lation of a
new liner when the Administrator has
reason to believe that any liner installed
pursuant to the requirements of this para-
graph is leaking.
(U) For the purposes of subparagraph
(A’(ii). a surface impoundment Is located in
an area of vuinerabFe hydrogeoiogy if the
impounament is over or h) drologicaily con-
nected to—
(i a sole source aquifer. or
“(ii) a formation which contains an under-
ground source of drinking water ii such for-
mation or the unsaturated soils hydrologi-
cally connected to auth formation are char-
acterized by high hydraulic conductivity of
permeability (including karst formations.
and medium-to-course-grained materials or
fractured rock) or are geologically unstable.
and there is no intervening natural barrier
formamtion that would significantly restrict
migration of waste constituents.”.
On page 49. line 2. before the quotation
marKs insert the followingi
‘-The Admmstrator shall promulgate regu-
lations or issuie guidance documents imple-
menting the requirements of paragraph (1)
within two years after such date of enact-
ment. Until the effective date of such regu-
lations or guidance documents, the require-
ment for the installation of tao or more
liners may be satisfied by the installation of
a top liner designed, operated, and con-
structed of materials to prevent the migra-
tion of any constituent into such liner
during the period such facility remains in
operation (including any post-closure moni-
toring period), and a lower liner designed,
operated and constructed to preteni the mi-
gration of any constituent through such
liner during such period. For the purpose of
the preceding sentence, a lower liner shall
be deemed to satisfy such requirement if it
is constructed of at least a three-foot thick
layer of recompacted clay or other natural
material with a permeability of no more
than lx 10- ‘centimeter per second.”.
On page 43, line 7, strike “section” and
insert in lieu thereof “subsection”,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate on the amend-
ment? If not, the question is on agree-
ing to the amendment. — —— -
The amendment (No. 3409) was
• agreed to. -
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send
to the desk a series of explanations of
the amendments which hare just been
agreed to. These explanations are in
the same sequence as the amendments
sent to the desk and considered en
bloc and can be identified by the title
at the top. I ‘ksk that they be printed
In the RECORD.
There being no objection, the mate-
ha] was ordered to be printed in the
REcoien, as follows:
AMENDMENT TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN VARIOUS
SECTIONS OF THE DELi,,
8. 757 contains numerous statutory dead-
lines for various actions and decisions by
EPA. Since reporting the bill, we have met
on set eral occasions with repreaentattt’cs of
EPA to assure that the deadlines are reason-
able and attainable. EPA requested seve”al
deadline extensions and assured us that
they could meet the ne deadlines we have
agreed to. This amendment will make those
changes.
As modified by this amendment, new sec-
tion 300’tb,(6XA) requires EPA to publish,
not later than 4 months after enactment, a
schedule for decidir g a hellier or not to re-
strict the land disposal of wastes listed
under Section 3001. This schedule must pro-
,t’ide for review and decision on at least one-
third of the listed wastes w,thin 48 months
after enactment, for at least two thirds of
the listed wastes within 60 months after en-
actment, and all listed wastes not later than
the date ‘12 months after enactment, Thi’se
fractions refer to the number of wastes
listed, and not the volume of eastes listed
The schedule mandated by subsection
(b)(6RM must be based on environmental
considerations and objecti%es. It is not cx-
July 25, 1984
pected ‘that EPA will know which wastes it
intends to propose to ban prior to publica-
tion of the schedule, therefore We do not
expect EPA to place iii the first third wastes
which will be restricted and in the la n third
wastes which will not be restricted. Hower.
er, in establishing the schedule, EPA must
consider factors such as the intrinsic hazard
of a waste. In evaluating the intrinsic
hazard of a waste. EPA should consider a
wastes toxicity and may consider other fac-
tors such as moblhtty. persistence and pro-
perisity to bioaccunuilate. In addition. LPA
must consider the volume of a waste gener-
ated.’&r managed in land disposal. Accord-
ingly, large volume wastes with a high in-
truisic hazard shall be placed in the first
third and so on, with low hazard, low
volume wastes in the last third. Because of
the relatively short time frame for publica-
tion cf the schedule. we.,expect EPA to rely
on_gxistin a for determining waste vol-
umes.
As Introduced on March 15, 1984. amend-
ment number 2804 would have simply ex-
tended the deadlines In section 5 on land
disposal limitations. Concern was expressed
that. without the imposition of a statutory
standard, pressure would be placed on EPA
to establish a schedule that would place
high-volume wastes and wastes with high
intrInsic hazard in the last third and that
decisions whether to prohibit the land dis-
posal of such wastes would not occur for 72
months. Such a result would be unaccept-
able. Therefore, the amendment was modi-
fied to include a mandatory. Judicially en-
forceable, statutory standard for the sched-
ule.
AMENDMENT TO CLAR i s’? ADMINIsTRATOR’S AU-
ThroRIT? TO REQUIRE A PERMIT TO CON-
STRUCT A IiA2ARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, OR DIsPOSAl. FACiLITY
On May 19, 1980, EPA promulgated regu-
lations establishing procedures for permit-
ting hazardous waste management facilities.
Among other things, these regulations pro-
hibit the construction of new facilities
before the issuance of a RCRA permit. See
40 C.F.R. 4270.10(f)(1). This amendment
will clarify the Administrators authority to
require a RCRA permit to construct a haz-
ardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal
facility and codify that portion of the May
19. 1980 reguiations.
One purpose of this provision is to provide
the Agency with an opportunity to review
the choice of location for 5uch facilities
before there has been a significant commit.
ment of resources. Recent studies hare con-
cluded that locational characteristics and
requirements are at least as important to
protection of human health and the ent I-
roninent as are minimum technological
characteristics and requirements, For examS
pie, although double liners and leak detec-
tion systems are an improvement oter the
current most aidely used technology, the
fact that double liners are known to et entu-
ally leak means that eten such doub!e.hined
facijltiCs may not be protective of human
health and the environment if the) are lo-
catea in areas of vulnerable hydrogeology.
The need for EPA to establish and enforce
locational criteria is as essential to protec-
tion of human health and the environment
as Is the need for periodic revision of tcch.
nological standards.
As’introdjced on March 15. 1934, this
ainendn,pnt revealed an inconistenet’ be-
tacen (lie EPA regutaUons und r the Toxic
S’ihstances Control Act (T CA) Pn the reg-
ulations under RCRA affecting the con-
struction and operat.on or land basel incin-
erators. Under RCRA. no construction nay
begin pncir to receipt of a final RCRA
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
-------
S9 182
of UMTRCA that EPAs generally ap-
plicable standards for nonradiological
hazarcL shall provide for the protec-
tion of human health and the environ-
ment consistent with the standards re-
quired under subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended.
which are applicable to such hazards.
while at the same time ensuring sp
propriate and uniform treatment of all
mining waste&o
A2,iEZ(DStENT TO ESTABLISH MiNIMUM TECHNO-
Lonirat. flQTIIREMEN’rs 105 EXISTING SUR-
FACE IMPOUNOMENTS
This amendment establishes a minimum
technological retrofit requirement (double
linen or equivalency) for certain existing
surface impoundments as an interim status
requirement, and provides statutory guid’
ante on a hat qualifies as a liner.
Surface Impoundments In interim status
must come into compliance with the mini-
mum technological double liner and leak de-
tection requirements of new section 3004(f)
within 4 years after enactment, or stop re-
eetvtng hazardous waste. Permit action is
not required.
Surface impoundments with one or more
intact liner that meets current EPA require-
ments, as set forth in 40 CFR 264 221(a) . are
not subject to this requirement, unless lo-
cated in an area of vulnerable hydrogeoiogy
as defined in subparagraph (0) or as deter-
m u t t -u lay cnLeris or guidance issued by
EPA. One condition of this exclusion is com-
pliance with those portions of the ground-
water monitoring requirements contained in
10 CFR Part 264 that are not dependent
upon issuance of a permit.
Surface Impoundments which contains
treated waste water during or after ihe sec-
ondary or tertiary phase of an aggressive bi-
ological treatment facility aubject to a
permit issued under section 402 of the Clean
Watcr Act are not subject to this require-
ment if those portions of the groundwater
monitoring requircments contained in 10
CFR Part 264 that are not dependent upon
issuance of a permit are being coniilied with
and if the impoundment is part of a facility
that is compliance with best available tech-
nology effluent guidelines issued under the
Clean Water Act. For those facilities for
which no BAT guidelines are in effect and
no Clean Water Act permit implementing
such guidelines has been issued, the facility
must be in compiiance with a Clean Water
perniit. and must have identified to the ap-
propriate permitting authority the toxic
pollutants and hazardous constitutents con-
tained in the untreated waste stream and be
achieving slgnilicsnl degradation of those
pollutants and constituents.
EPA or an authorized State may waive the
section 3004(f) techLalogy requirements for
e’iisiing impopndments if the operator dem-
onstrates the fac lity Ia located, designed
and operated so as to assure no migration of
a hazardous constituent into round or sur-
face waler while waste remains in the ins-
poundment.
All of the provisions of section 3004(f)
apply for existing surface impoundments:
that is, operators may demonstrate that al-
tentative technoiogies prevent migration at
least as rift-tn-ely as double liners, and cer-
tain mining wastes may be exempted from
the double liner requirements.
Surfare Impoundments that retrofit in
compliance and good faith reliance on the
statutory definition and EPA giudance doc-
uments. eouid not be required to do nore at
the time of their first permit unless there is
evidence of leakage.
Until EPA regulations or guidance docu-
nients are published, a satisfactory upper
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
liner Is defined as one which prevents mi-
gration into the liner during the operating
and post-closure monitoring period, and a
satisfactory lower liner is one which pre-
vents migration through the liner in such
period. Three feet of 10-7 em/second perme-
ability clay constitutes an adequate lower
liner.
One variance from the double liner re-
quirement allows a single liner, that meets
the current 40 CFR 264.221(a ) liner requsre-
ments. provided that there is no evidence
that such liner is leaking. Esidence that the
liner Is leaking includes: (1) contaminants
from the impoundment detected in ground
water: (2) seeps and leaks observed coming
out of the impoundment dike, and (3) a
sudden or unexplained drop in the fluid
level in the impoundment. Any one of these
three conditions is evidence that the liner is
leaking. To make these determinations, the
Impoundment owner and operator must: (1)
monitor ground water downgradient and up-
gradient of the impoundment and compare
these for significant differences: (2) periodi-
cally Inspect the whole outside perimeter of
the dike for seeps and leaks: and (3) monitor
the fluid level in the impoundment and do a
liquid balance (I.e., compare the level ex-
pected based on a calculation of inflow, out-
flow, and percipitation/evaporation with
the actuai fluid level). Of course, a sudden
drop in liquid level in an impoundment
without an outflow of essentially equivalent
volume is an indication of a major leak The
variance does not apply whenecer such evi-
dence of a leak exists.
This amendment is meant to provide only
a minImum level of protection during Inter-
im status. EPA can require tugher level of
protection and is free to require more so-
phisticated liner systems and/or compliance
with locational eriterla as part of a correc-
tive action order or as a permit requirement.
Since the early I 900s. liquid industnal
wastes or wastes containing liquids have
been dumped into ‘surface impound-
ments”—itaturai ponds, pits and lagoons, or
shallow excavated depressions in the ground
above the water table. Surface Impound-
ments of chemial a’astcs are used to sepa-
rate. through evaporation, solid wastes from
the water in which they are suspended and
for the disposal, temporary storage, and
treatment of Industrial wastes.
The use of surface Impoundments poses a
threat to public health an the environment
because the wastes deposited in them
escape. The presstu-e of the liquids forces
hazardous contents to flow downward Into
the surrounding soils where even dilute con-
centrations of toxic substancea can, over
time, pouute the ground water. Heavy rain-
fall can cause ponds to overflow into sur-
rounding areas, resulting In contamination
of nearby streams and, eventually, contanii-
nation of subsurface waters. Many of the
most dangerous contamination sites in the
nation have been caused by hazardous mate-
nais escaping from surface Impoundments.
Almost one-third of the federal “Super-
fund” sites were a result of leaking surface
impoundments Ten of the IS dump sites
identified for maximum prior?”, cleanup in
California were contaminateu by unlined
impoundments.
Under present federal laws and regula-
tions. hazardous waste impoLindmc’sts con-
structed after January 26. 1983. must be
double lined, have ieak detection systems,
and comply with standards regulat:ng
where these facilities may be located How’
ever, the hundreds of ponds buiit before
1983 are exempt from preventise safety fea-
tures Instead, these ponds are only re-
quired to have four ground water monitor-
ing wells—one “uppradient” from the im-
poundnient and three ‘downgradient.
July 25, 1984
Current law does not ensure that hazard
otis wastes in surface impoundments will
not contaminate underground water sup-
plies.
Facilities built before Jaiiisary 26. 1983.
are not required to hate construction ft a
tures that Impede or present wastea from
escaping, nor are they required to hase leak
detection systems Regulation 01 t M-sc in.
poundmcnt,s relies on monitoring proce-
dures n litch require technologies that has e
not been fulty developed and are difficcit to
Implement Further, these regulations have
not been complied with nor enforced.
Psesent federal and state regulations fail to
prevent contaminants from entering ground
water supplies because they rely on timely.
effective coi rective action a htcn is extreme-
ly costly and generally ineffective.
Reliance on ground water monitoring to
regulite facilities built before January 26.
1963. will neither prcseri e drinking water
quality nor protect public health for the fol-
lowing reasons:
(1) Monitonng ground water is difficult,
complex and dots not often produce secu-
rate. reiishie results To detect hazardous
substances, monitoring must be: (a) located
near the toxic pond: (b) constructed and
drIlled property: (ci designed to detect the
eonst tucnts placci in the pond: (dl placed
properly to intercept the flow of hazardous
contaminants in underground basins and
streams: and U-) operated pursuant to a reli-
able sampling plan.
(2) Mon toring is useful only to the extent
that effective, timely corrective action can
be taken on the basis of information denved
from the monitoring. Correc-tis e actions.
such as removing contaminated soils or
pumping out contaminated ground waters,
are alv a expensive, but seldom effertive.
in preventing the spread of contamination.
Waiting until pollution occurs and then
attempting to contain the contamination is
extremely costly. The U.S. Office of Tech-
nology Assessment estimates that it costs 10
to lC D times more to clean up a contanunat-
ed site and compensate victims than to pre-
vent pollution migration through adcquate
waste containment A thousand pounds of
waste ge nerated today can mean one million
to 10 million pounds of contaminated soil in
three or four years and millions of gallons
of contaminated water later.
- SURFACE I5LPOUNDZERTS
• Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
agree with the distinguished floor
manager’s description of our amend-
ment establishing certain require-
ments for existing surface impound-
ments. I would like to ask for addition-
al clarification of one point. As I
understand one provision in the com-
mittee’s amendment, a surface im-
poundment which does not qualify to
continue to receive or store hazardous
waste after 4 years after enactment
may, however, receive nonhnzarcious
waste after that date for storage or
disposal. Is that correct?
• Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, the amendment
prot ides for this.
• Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Senia.
tor. This is Important to West Virgin-
ia. and I believe to other States In my
State there Is at least one surface ins-
poundment that receives waste for dis-
posal which Is primarily ash from the
combustIon of West Virginia coal, but
also Includes sludge from a city-owned
sewage treatment plant, sludge from
an industrial waste water treatment
-------
July 25, 1984
plant that Is a RCRA hazardous waste
facility and which is thus a hazardous
waste, and some other nonhazardous
wastes that are solids. These solid ma-
terials are all conceyed to the im-
poundment in a ater slurry form
through a pipeline system. The clids
settle out in the impoundment to
rcinain there permanently. hiIe the
carrI ’ge ater is decanted and re-
turned to the cmty se t.ge plant for
treatment prior to discharge. When
the impoundment is full. It v ilI be cov-
ered and closed out.
Since such an impoundment and
pipeline system represents a major
capital investment of between $20 and
$30 million and has many years of
useful li remaining, it would be a se-
rious matter If it could no longer be
used. The development and construc-
tion of a new site would not only be
extremely costly, but could Involve sig-
nlficant environmental problems, since
this is an area which does not have
large parcels of land available for dis-
posal sites.
As I understand the committee
amendment, If hazardous wastes v.ere
no longer i eceived at the Impound-
ment after the 4 year date In the
amendment, the impoundment could
otherv .ise continue to operate as it
has. Does the Senate agree that this is
within the intent of the committee
amendment?
• Mr. CRAFEE. Yes, Senator, I do. It
would not be proper to require that
impoundment to be closed out perma-
nently prematurely if It can handle
wastes t.hat are not hazardous wastes
while being protective of human
health and the environment.
• Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Sena-
tors
WASTt WATER TREATM T F CiLXTiES
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President,
during the detelopment of the amend-
ment to control the use of surface im-
poundments, there were a number of
Issues raised with regard to the specif-
ic language on the subsection address-
ing waste water treatment facilities. I
would like to discuss a number of
these items with my colleague from
Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. I would be pleased to
discuss these issues with my colleague
from Texas.
Mr. BENTSEN. The amendment
refers to waste water during the sec-
ondary or’tertiary phase of treatment,
Questions have been raised regarding
the distinction between primary treat-
ment and secondary or tertiary treat.
ment of waste Water. It is my under-
standing that primary treatment at
waste water treatment facilities are
largely mechanical or chemical treat-
ment. These include operations such
as oil/water separation, neutralization
ponds, and equalization ponds. Sec-
ondary and tertiary treatment oper-
ations are largely biological in nature.
They ln lt’de both aerated and natural
ponds. These are distlr.ctions that are
well kno’An and recognized. The exclu-
sion provided for waste aIer treat.-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
ment surface Impoundments applies
only to secondary or tertiary phases.
It does nut apply to primary treatment
operations. The exclusion would not
apply to primary treatment operations
which someone would attempt to
make appear to be secondary treat-
ment, such as putting en aerator In a
primary operation In the hope that
sume biological activity culd take
place. Is this an accurate delineation
of the distinction between primary
and secondary or terl.idry treatment?
Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator presents
an accurate description of the differ-
ences.
Mr. BENTSEN. There has also been
some concern that the use of the
words secondary and tertiary are in-
tended to mean the second and third
ponds of a mull i-impoundment system.
This is clearly not the case. These
terms refer to the type of waste ‘ater
treatment.
Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator Is cor-
rect. There can be systems v here the
first pond Is a secondary treatment op-
eration and there will be systems
v.here there will be more than three
ponds, all of which will be secondary
or tertiary treatment operations.
Mr. BENTSEN. Another issue which
has been raised is what constitutes an
aggressive biological treatment facili-
ty”. This term Is used to descrabe a fa-
cility which has biological treatment
as a planned and primary function of
its operation. An example would be an
Impoundment system In which some
or one of the ponds would include aer-
ation. The use of tt e word ‘aggres-
sive” Is included to distinguish be-
tween these types of facilities and im-
poundment systems here biological
activity is an incidental rather than
primary purpose of the Impoundment
system. An example of where a biolog-
ical acthity Is an Incidental purpose
would be evaportation ponds that rely
upon extended retention periods
during which some biological activity
will occur. It Is not Intended to suggest
that all elements of the impoundment
waste water treatment system must in-
clude aeration. It this description an-
curate?
Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator Is cor-
rect.
Mr. BENTSEN. The amendment, for
certain situations, requires the facility
to demonstrate It is part of a facmlity—
which Is achte’ing sign:flcant de rada.
tIoTi of toxic pollutants and ha7a1 dous con.
stituents contatned In the untreared waste
stream
This phrase is intended to apply to
the as’e water treatment facilities as
a hole. It does not require that each
impoundment of a multi-Impound-
ment system must achieve a si nifi-
cant degradation. It o es not require
that the impoundment system taken
as a whole must achieve a significant
degradation where other com ,enents
of the aste atcr treatment system
have significantly degraded the toxic
pollutants or hazardous conStituents
in the untreated waste stream. For ex-
S 9183
ample, in some instances it Is more ef.
fective mid appropriate to remove con-
taminants from waste streams prior to
sending theni to the biological aa.ste
water treatment system. Th.is. the
te’t required in th:s amendmert is in.
tended to look at the entire was’ e
water treatment opc rat ons at a fai Hi-
ty. Is tins the Senator from Ri dc I .
land s un k’rstariding of the te r. z in
the amendment? -
Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from
Texas has accurately described the
intent of this phrase.
Mr. BENTSEN. In the Instance
where the facility has no effluent
guidelines required under section
304(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act in
effect and no pcrmit under section
402(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act im-
pleinenting section 301(b)(2) of the
Clean Water Act has been Issued, it
must be In compliance with a permit
under section 402 of the Clean Water
Act and it must, among other require-
ments, identify—
those toxic pol t utants and hazardous
consL tuents in the untreated waste stream
to the appropriate permitting authority.
Is It the Intent of thIs requirement
that the operator of the facility make
a positive identification of only those
toxic pollutants and hazardous con-
st tuents which appear in Its
waste ater?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, this requirement
Is designed to assure that the permit-
ting authority knows of these sub-
stances. Because the list of hazardous
constituents under the Solid Waste
Disposal Act can be large, it. is not the
intent that the operator iT’ake a deter.
mination regarding the absence of all
constituents which ace not prezerit.
Rather, the operator Is expected to
know hich substances are present
and make an Identification of those
substances.
Mr. BENTSEN. A condition of ob-
taining the exception for v.’aste water
treatment facilities provided in this
amendment Is the cr’mpiiance with a
permit under section 4O of the Clean
Waster Act. Because the process of de-
veloping effluent guidelines for the
purposes of Implementing sections of
the Clean Water Act or permits under
the Clean Water Act requires a s?gtis.
tical assessment of the effectiveness of
waste water treatment facilities. tr.ere
is a statistical certainty that a small
percentage of the time permit limits
will be exceeded. Consequently, It
would not be realistic to require abso-
lute permit compliance as a condition
to receive the exception provided in
this amendment. Is this the Intent of
the a’-nendment?
Mr. CHAFEE. The languaie of the
amendment Is intended to recoze
the realities of permit and effluer,t
guideline development. EPA is well
a tare of the limitations of its aste
water treatment permitting process
and the Administrator should iew the
exception for waste water treatment
-------
S918 .1
surface impoundments in the context
of these realities.
Mr. BENTSEN. I appreciate the op-
portunity to discuss these issues with
the manager of the bill.
Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. President. that
completes It.
Mr. President. I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President. I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it Is so ordered.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President. I
am pleased that the Senate is teday
turning to consideration of S. 757. the
Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments
of 1983. This important piece of legis-
latlon will strengthen our Nation’s
system of hazardous waste manage-
ment, thereby providing greater assur-
ance of protection of human health
and the environment. I supported this
bill in committee, and urge my col-
Icagues to support it today.
‘Ihis comprehensive 5-year reauthor-
f’ t iei of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act Is based on tt o essential premises
with which I believe all Arnencans il1
agree: first, wherever feasible, the gen-
eration of hazardous waste should be
reduced or eliminated as exped!tiously
as possible, and; second, waste that is
nevertheless geherated should be
treated, stored, or disposed of so as to
minimize the present and future
threat to human health and the envi-
ronment.
Among Its major sections. the bill di.
rects the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to promulgate regula-
tions prohibiting land disposal of cer-
tain hazardous wastes, brings genera-
tors of small quantities of hazardous
astes into the reporting system. es-
tablishes minimum technological re-
quirements for landfills, surface im-
poundments and Incinerators, gives
EPA full authority to regulate the
burning and blending of hazardous
wastes for energy and heating pur-
poses. Improves enforcement of has.
ardous waste provisions, increases con-
trols over hazardous waste exports.
takes a first step toward minimization
and reduction of the generation of
hazardous wastes, and requires EPA to
promulgate regulations for monitoring
and control of air emissicns from haz-
ardous waste facilities as may be nec-
essary to protect human health and
the environment.
This last provision is one which I of-
fered during committee markup of the
bill. Although the bill as reported in-
cluded a 30-month deadline for pro.
mulgation of these regulations. EPA
subsequently asked that this deadline
be extended to 42 months. I am
pleased that Senators CUMtE and
MITcHELL have agreed not to grant
this extension in Its entirety, but
rather to compromise on a 36-month
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
deadline. Promulgation of these regu-
lations is already several years over-
due; if we are to close a significant
loophole and ensure that liquid haz-
ardous wastes are actually treated and
rendered nonha.zardous rather than
merely shifted to surface impound-
ments or other forms of land disposal,
then these regulations are essential.
Accordingly. I urge EPA to move rap-
idly and dilIgently to address this re-
quirement.
Mr. President, I am also delighted
that the distinguished manager of this
bill. Senator C stz, has agreed to
accept an amendment I authored with
Senator CMNST0N. which will address
the many concerns raised about the
threat to public health posed by oper-
ating and abandoned hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facili-
ties. By conducting health assessments
and studies at such sites and facilities,
we will not only be able to respond to
Immediate public health concerns, but
wiU also build a comprehensive body
of data that will help us better under-
stand the th;eat that exposure to haz-
ardous wastes may pose to human
health. In the long term, greater
knowledge of the human health ef-
fects of exposure to toxic substances
will Improve the prevention and con-
trol strategies required to protect and
improve the health of the citizens of
thIs country.
Mr. President. It is my strong hope
that we will enact tl’ s reauthorization
before the year s out. Finally, I wish
to express my sincere thanks and con-
gratulatlons to Senators CnArsE,
Mz’rcHEu., Si rronn. and RAnDOLPH, 55
well as to the dethcated staff of the
Environment and Public Works Com-
mittee, for their hard work and per-
sistence in getting this bill reported
and to the Senate floor.
AM DMENT NO. 41O
(Purpose: To amend the Comprehensive En-
vlro’imental Response. Compensation, and
Liability Act and the Solid Waste Disposal
Act to provide for health asesiments to
determine potential risks to human health
resulting from exposure to relpa.ses of haz-
ardous substances from landfills and sur-
face iinpoundmt, fls)
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of Senator CatrisToN, Senator
STAFF0IW, Senator RANDoLPH. and
myself, and ask for Its immediate con-
sideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows’
The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Hrnn’axgyl. for himself, Mr. SrAFoRD. Mr.
CRAZIsroiq, and Mr. RANDoLph. proposes an
amendment numbered 3410.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President. I
ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dis-
pensed with.
•The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it isso ordered.
The amendment is as fpllows:
At the end of the bill, add the following
new section:
July 25, 1984
USE OF FUND FOR REALm AJSESSMEKTS. amis-
TRY OF EXPOSED INDIVIDUALS. AND DIAGNOS-
TIC SERVICES
Sm. . (a) Section 111(c)(4) of the Corn.
prcticnslve Environmental Response. Corn.
pensatiori. and Liability Act of 1980 is
amended—
(1) by Inserting “In accordance v’ith sub.
section (m),” after “(4)’; and
(2) by striking “epidemiologic studi. s” and
Inserting in lieu thereof “epidemiologic and
laboratory studies and health assessments’
(b Section 111 of such Act is amended by
adding at the end thereof the folios ins new
subsection:
“(mXl) For fiscal year 1985. not less than
$18,003,000 shall be used for the purpose of
carrying out activities described In subsec.
lion (c)(4). including any such acu ities re
lated to hazardous as c stored, treaLed. or
disposed of at a facility having a permit
under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Dis.
posal Act.
“(2) The activitIes described In subsection
(c)(4), including any such activities related
to hazardous aste stored, treated or dis-
pos,’d of at a facility ha lng a permit under
sccticn 30(5 of the Solid Waste Dtsposal
Act, shall be carried out by the Ageney for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry es-
tabitslwd by section 104 (i). either directly.
or through grnnts to the State (or political
subditfstons thereof) In the case of States
(or pnhtical subdivisions) v.hich the Aclmin-
istrntor of such Agency determines are ca-
pable of cat rying out such actitities Such
activities s’ialI include conducting health as-
sessments. inclt ’ding tliot e required under
aectton 3005(j) of the Solid Waste Di posal
Act.
“(3) In determining sites at which to con.
duct health assessments under this sLbsec.
Lion, the Adn.uustratjr of the Agency for
Toxic Substances end Discase Regisir shall
give priority to thise facthtles or sites at
hich there Is documented evidence of re-
lease of hart.rdous Constituents, at hich
the potential risk to human health appears
highcst, and for altich in the judgment of
the Administrator of such Agency existing
heslth assetsrnent data Is inadequate to
assess the potential risk to human health as
protaded in paragraph (5’.
(4) Any Slate or poliiical SUbdfliSiOfl car-
rying out an assessment shall report the re-
sults of the ssse. ’.s:nenl to Llie Administratoi
of such Agency, and shall include recom-
mendations with respect to further actiti.
ties u hk’h need to be carried out under this
s.ibsection or section 104 The Administra-
tor of such Agency shall include the same
recommendations in a report on the results
of any assessment carried out directly by
the Agency, and shaU issue peilodic reports
ahlch include the results of all the assess-
ments carried out under this paragraph
Such assessments or other acti Ities shall be
reported after appropriate peer ret iew,
“(5) For the purpu ’es of this subsection
and subsection (cX4). the term health as-
sessments shall Include preliminary assess-
ments of the potential risk to human health
posed by ind.tidual sites and facilities sub.
led to this subsection. based on such fectors
as the nature and extent of contamination,
the existence of potential for pattittays of
human exposure (iiicludtng ground or sur-
face waler cont trn1nation, air (missions, and
food chain contamination). (lie size and P0’
tential susceptibility 01 the community
alt hin the likely pathways of e\posure, the
comparison of expected human exp ure
levels to the short-let-rn anti long term
health effects associated with idcntifi d
contaminants and any availabie recom-
mended exposure or tolerance limits for
such contaminants, and the comparison of
-------
October 6, 1983
Reduces the number of ruleraaktng
from four to three for EPA ’s review of
all hazardous wadS;
Gives EPA more time to set up a
schedule for the review of each waste
and allows EPA to develop that ached.
ule without formal rulemaking;
Shortens the overall time for review
from 54 to 52 months;
Allows the “ p well” Injection
method of dIsposal—normally 4,000 to
6,000 feet below the surface—and an
additional 20 months In which to
prove that this method of disposal Is
safe with respect to wastes that would
otherwise be banned in 12 months;
Requires self-certification of ground
water monitoring and flnaneial re-
sponsibility requirements; and
Allows States to require diaposers
and generators to send manifests di-
rectly to that State.
I believe this amendment Is carefully
crafted and will help EPA,accomplish
the Important task we have directed
them to do.
- Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield to me?
• Mr. FLORIO. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Is It not a fact that the changes
being made by this amendment will
change the land disposal deaimnes in a
way that will assist EPA In making Its
decisions under sectIon 5?
Mr. FLORIO. The gentleman Is cor-
t.
‘r. LENT. This amendment, then.
a a segment of the regulated cam-
nIty, those who utilize under-
ground Injection for their waste dis-
posal practices, some relief from the
atringent deadlines contained In sec-
tIon 5?
Mr. FLOR IO. Under the appropriate
circumstances, that is correct. -
Mr. LENT. My understanding Is that
this amendment contains a change
that Is essential to speeding the RCRA
landfill permitting procedures along;
thIs change requires that all owners of
hazardous waste landfill facilities cer-
tify that they are In compliance with
all applicable ground water monitor-
ing, posiclosure and-financial responsi-
bility requirements as a condition for
maintaining Interim status and again
It will assist, It should amlst EPA In
performing Its responsibilities since
owners *111 now be forced to close
down If they fall to certify that they
are In compliance with the basic
RCRA requirements,
Mr. FLORIO. Once again the gentle-
man Is correct.
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman. I
support the gentleman’s aniendntent.
The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
the aniendrnen( offered by the gentle-
man from New Jersey (Mr. FLolIxo) ,
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
P”Cnhiments to section 5?
WDMDIT OPTfl 5T fl SEn SOR
I IEAUX. Mr. Chairman, I offer
ndmenL
€ONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bazaur Page
11. lIne 13, after “5,” Irseit “(a) lAss Dis-
P0 5*1,0? TAa Raaasnous Waarga—”.
Page 11, strike out line 15 and all that fol-
lows down through line 5 on page 12 sad
subst ltuta
‘(b) Sat Doses Foassrioiis, Urcon-
oaounu Mints an Cavss.—( 1) EffectIve
February t, i98.4 , the placement of any
liquid hazardous waste or free liquids con-
tained In hazardous waste (whether contain-
erized, noonontalnerized or bulk and wheth-
er or not absorbents have been added) In
any salt dome formation, underground
mine, or cave Is prohibited. Effective on the
date of enactment of this subsection, the
placement of any other hazardous waste in
a salt dome formation, underground mine,
or cave Is prohibited until such time as the
Administrator has promulgated perform-
ance sad permitting standards for such
fadlitS under this subtitle and a permit
has been Sued under sectIon 3005(c) for
the facility concerned.
“(2) The Athntnatrflor shall conduct s
study and, within 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, submit a
report to the Congress regarding the effects
on h n health and the envlro nt
wh are with the plaeeinn t ci
Ilauld hwra wse in alt dome theta-
‘tists, imdera-ound mines, and caves. Bach
report may Include ree nn en ions for
the modification of the prohibition con-
tained in paragraph (1) on the placement of
liquid .rdous waste In salt dome forms-
tiem, underground mines, and cava
‘13) No deterntnniion made by the Ad-
Snedrator nader subsection Cd) or (ci of
this section regarding any hazardous waste
to which such subsection Cd) or (e) applies
shall affect the prohibition contained In
paragraph Ct) of this subsection,
‘ Ic) Legume es Iasz,raa—( I) Effective
slx.menths after the date of the enactment
of this subsection, the placement of bulk or
iuismontslnerised liquid hazardous waste or
free liquids contained In hazardous waste
(whether or not absorbents have been
aSded) In any landfill Is prohibited. Prior to
such date the requirements (as In effect on
Apr il 30. 1983) promulgated under thIs sec-
tion by the Administrator regarding liquid
hazardous waste shall remain in f ores snd
effect to the extent such requirements are
applicable to the placement of bulk or non-
containerized liquid hasrdous waste, of
free ilcuide contained In hazardous waste, in
landfills.
‘12) Not late than six months after the
date of the enactment of this su ctlon,
the Adsnlnlatrator shall promulgate final
regulations which—
“(A) minimoa (to the extent technologi-
cally feasible) the (isposal of contalnermed
liquid hazardous waste (whether or not ab-
sorbents have been added) in landfills, and
‘IB) minimize (by means other than the
addition of absorbent material where tech’
nolo lcally feasible) the presence of free llq.
ulde In containerized hazardous waste to be
disposed of In landfdls,’
Prior to the date on which such final regu-
lat lona take effect, the requirements (as In
effect on AprIl 30, 1983) promulgated under
this section by the Administrator shall
remain In force and effect to the extent
such requirements sre applicable to the dia-
posal of containerized liquid hazardous
waste. or free liquids contained In hazardous
waste, In landfills.
93) EffectIve 1 year alter the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the placement
of any liquid which is not a hazardous waste
in a landfill for which a permit is required
under section 300 5 (c) or which Is operating
H 8135
porsuant to hiterhn status granted under
sectIon 3 005(e) Is prohibited unless the
owner or operator of such landfill demon-
strafes to the Administrator, or the Admin-
iat’stor determines, that-
“(A) the only reasonably available alterna-
the to the placement in such landfill is
plscement In a landfill or unlined surface
Impoundment, whethcr or not permitted
under section 3005 (c) or operating pursuant
to Interim status under sectIon 3005(e).
which contains, ormay reasonably he antici-
pated to contain, hazardous waste. sad
“(B) piaeement in such owner or opera-
te? a landfill will not present a risk of con-
tamination of any underground source of
drinking water. As used In this subpara-
graph, the term ‘underground source of
drinking water’ has the same meaning as
provided in regu iatlons under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (Title XIV of the
Public Health Service Act).
“(4) No determination made by the Ad-
inlnlstrstor under subsection Cd) or C o of
this section regarding any hazardous esste
to which such subsection (d) or (ci applies
shall affect the prohibition contained In
paragraph (1) of this subsection.
Page 12, lIne I , strike out “ Cc)” and substi-
tute “ter.
Page 14. line 19, strike out “(dr and sub-
stitute 9eY’.
Psge l t,Une 25, strIke out”Cb) or (c )’ and
substitute “Cd)”.
Page 13, line 5, strIke out “subsection
cdxl ?’ and substitute “this paragraph”,
Page 15. line 21, strike out “Ce) Drxcrivz
Dams Thins teXt) an (d i.—” and substi-
tote “U) Enawa Dana; Specea ltvLza.—
Page 16, line 23, strIke out “(cR2)” and
substitute ‘1dM zr
Page 17, line 1, strIke out “Cd)” and substi-
tute “Ce).
Page 17. line 6, strIke out ‘1cX2) or Cd )”
said substitute “(dM3) or (e)”.
Page 17. line 10. strIke out “of prornulga-
tina.” and substitute the following “ . except
that In the case of disposal of a specific haz-
ardous waste by agencies or Instrumental-
ities of the Federal government, no such
other effective date established by the Ad-
ministrator may be later than 18 months
after the effective date specified In aubpara-
graph CA) unless the Administrator deter-
mines at that time that alternative available
capacity Is still unavailable or Inadequate
for the management of such hazardous
waste. If the Administrator makes such a
determination concerning disposal by an
agency or instrumentality of the waste con-
cerned, he may establish another effective
date which may not be later than 30 months
after the effective date specified in subpara-
graph (A),”.
Page 17, line 23. strIke out “(f) Iupoarnox
or ConiTioiia.—” and substitute “(4)”.
Page 17, line 36, strIke out “this section”
and substitute “subsectiona (b) through (f)
of this section”.
Page 18, line 2. strike out the closing quo-
tation marks.
page 15. line 2, insert.
“(5) In the case of any hazardous waste
which is prohibited from one or more meth-
ods of land disposal under aubaectloo Cd) or
(e) of this section (or under regulations pro-
mulgated by the Administrator under such
subsection Cd) or (e)) the storage of such
hsnrdous waste is prohibited unless such
storage I a solely fcr the purpose of the accu-
mulation of such quantities of hazardous
waste as are neceasary to facilitate proper
recovery, treatment or disposal.
‘16) For the purposes of subsections (d)
and Ce) of this section, the term ‘land dis-
posal’, when used with respect to a specified
ca/c
-------
H 8136
hazardoiis waste, shall be deemed to In-
elude, but not be limited to. any placement
of such hawdoua waste In a landfill, sur-
ace impoundment, waste pile, Injection
‘eU, land treatment facility, salt dome for-
tlon, or underground mine or cave.”.
.) IiIT UU STATUs Sunracz I ouiw-
.. s.—SectIon 3005 Is amended by adding
Jie following after subsection (g):
“U i) IJITWIS STATUS Suspaca I owin-
MEwrs.—(1) Except In the case of a surface
impoundment which meets the require-
ments of subparagraph CA) or (B) of para-
graph (3), no hazardous waste listed or Iden-
tilled under sectIon 3001 as of the date of
enactment of this subsection may be placed
or maintained In a surface Impoundment
which has been granted Interim status
under subsection Ce) unless the Athnlnictra-
tor has Issued a permit for such surface im-
poundment under subsection (C). The re-
quirement set forth In the preceding sen-
tence shall take effect on the date 4 years
alter the date of the enactment of this sub-
section. In the case of any surface impound-
ment which Is granted Interim status after
the date of the enactment of this subsection
and which receives hawdoua waste which
Is Hated or Identified under section 3001
after such date of enactznen t, the require-
ment set forth In the first sentence of this
paragraph shall take effect on the date 4
years after the date on which such hazard-
ous waste Is listed or Identified.
“(2) Except In the case of a surface im-
poundment which meets the requirements
of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (3),
any permit issued under subsection Cc) for a
surface Impoundment which Is operating
under interim status pursuant to subsection
(e) shall require such impoundment to
comply with the requirements which are ap-
nlicable to new surface impoundments
‘uler section 3004(kXl). Any such permit
allow the surface impoundment to
Into compliance with such require-
_s In accordance with a compliance
ihedule If such schedule requires compli-
ance as rapidly as practicable but not later
than 2 years after the Issuance of the
permit.
‘(3) The prohibition set forth In para-
graph (1) and the requirement set forth In
paragraph (2) may be waived by the Admin-
istrator for any surface impoundment U the
owner or operator of the surface impound-
ment demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that, as of the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the impound-
ment—
“(A) was not within 4 mile of under.
ground source of drinking water, and—
“(I) had a liner designed, constructed, In-
stalled and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from passIng Into the liner at any
time during the active life of the facifity; or
“(ii) had a ilner designed, constructed, In-
stalled and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from migrating beyond the liner to
adjacent subsurface soil, groundwater, or
surface water at any time during the active
life of the facility; or
“(B) was designed, operated, and located
so as to prevent the migration of any haz-
ardous constituent Into the groundwater or
surface water at any future time.
The exemption provided under subpara-
graph (A) of this paragraph for any surface
impoundment shall cepse to apply at any
time that the Administrator determines
that the finer of the surface Impoundment
has failed to meet the requirements of
e1 use CI) or Cii) of subparagraph CA) and re-
ra acceptable to the Mn ,Inh ,trator have
been made to Insure that such require-
La are met. The exemption provided
Jer subparagraph (B) of this paragraph
COj 4GRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
for any surface impoundment shall cease to
apply at any time that the Adminktrator
determines that the surface impoundment
has tailed to prevent the migration of any
hazardous constituent into the groundwater
or surface water. In the case of any surface
Impoundment which has been granted inter-
im status and which baa been determined
under this paragraph to meet the require-
ments of subparagraph (AXII). at the clo-
sure of such impoundment the Administra-
tor shall require the owner or operator of
such Impoundment to remove or decontami-
nate all waste residues, all contaminated
liner material, and contamlnsnted soIl to
the extent practicable. If all contArnln..nted
soil Is not removed or decontaminated, the
owner or operator of such Impoundment
shall be required to comply with appropri-
ate post- clcsure requirements, Including but
not limited to groundwater monitoring and
corrective action.
“(4)11 the Administrator allows a hazard-
ous waste which Is prohibited from one or
more methods of land disposal under sub-
section Cd) or Ce) of section 3004 (or under
regulations promulgated by the Administra-
tor znder such subsection (dl or (e)) to be
placed In a surface impoundment (which is
operating pursuant to Interim status) for
storage or treatment, such impoundment
shall meet the requirements that are appli-
cable to new surface impoundments under
section 3004(kXl) as of the effective date of
such prohibition, unless such impoundment
meets the exemptions contained In para-
graph (3) of this subsection, Where neces-
sary to protect human health or the envi-
ronment, taking Into account the factors re-
ferred to In section 3004CdX1), the Adminis-
trator may Impose additional requirements
to any surface impoundment operating pur-
suant to Interim status under section
3005(e) or for which a permit baa been
lamed pursuant to section 3005(c).
“(5) In the case of any hazardous waste
which is prohibited from one or more meth-
ods of land disposal under subsection Cd) or
Ce) of section 3004 (or under regulations pro-
mulgated by the Administrator under such
subsection (dl or Ce)) the placement oq
maintenance of such hazardous waste In a
surface Impoundment for treatment Is pro-
hibited as of the effective date of such pro-
hibition unless the treatment residues
which are hazardous are, at a minimum, re-
moved for subsequent ?n nAgement within
one year of the entry of the waste into the
surface impoundment.
“(6) In the case of cacti surface impound-
ment which has been granted interim status
under subsection Ce) before the date of the
enactment of this subsection, Interim status
shall terminate on the date 12 months after _____
the date of the enactment of this subsection
unless the owner or operator of such Im-
poundment—
“(A) applies for a final determination re-
garding the issuance of a permit under sub-
section Cc) for such facility before the date
12 months after the date of the enactment
of this subsection; and
“(B) demonstrates that such impound-
ment is in compliance with all applicable
groundwater monitorIng and financial re-
sponsibility requirements.
“(7) Before the date 3 years after the date
of the enactment of this subsection the Ad-
ministrator shall make a determination re-
gaMing the issuance of a permit under sec-
tion Cc) for all surface Impoundments which
have been granted interim status under sub-
section Ce) and which are located within ‘4
mile of an underground source 01 drinkIng
water. -
“(8) As used In this subsection, the term
‘underground source of drinking water’ has
the same meaning as provided In regulations
October 6’, 1988
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (Title
X IV of the Public Beslth Service Act).
Cc) Aix EMISSIONS Psow LAND DasPos*i.
FAcn.Ims.—Sect(on 3004 Is amended by
adding the following new subsection after
subsection (k):
(1) Am neissnows floM uses D!SPOSM.
pAcxLzTras.—Not later than 24 months after
the date of the enactment of this subsec-
tion, the Administrator shall promulgate
regulations for such monitoring and control
of air emissions at hazardous waste storage,
treatment, and land disposal facilities (In-
cluding but not limited to open tanks, sur-
face Impoundments, and landfills) as may be
necessary to protect human health and the
environment.”.
Cd) FDUAL FAcILITY Issrzcrzows; Rzroxr
To Cowoiwss.—Section 3007 of such Act is
amended by adding the following new sub-
sections alter subsection Cd):
“Ce) Fcnzxss, FaciliTY Ixspzcrzoss.—Be-
ginning one year after the date of enact-
ment of this subsectIon, the Administrator
shall, or In the case of a State with an au-
thorized hazardous waste program the State
shall, undertake no less often than every
year a thorough Inspection of each facility
for the treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste which is operated by an
agency or Instrumentality of the Federal
government to enforce its compliance with
this subtitle and the regulations promulgat-
ed thereunder. The records of such inspec-
tions shall be available, consistent with sec.
tJon 1006, to the public as provided In sec-
tIon 3007(b).
‘(f) Fmw.z. Aczacr Razsuwous Wasra
Facn.rry IXVzNTORT.—Each Federal agency
shall undertake a continuing program to
compile, publish, and submit to the Admin-
istrator (and to the State In the case of sites
In States having an authorized hazardous
waste program) an Inventory of each site
which the Federal agency owns or operates
or has owned or operated at which hazard-
ous waste Is stored, treated, or disposed of
or has been disposed of at any Lime. The In-
ventory shall be submitted every two years
beginning January 31. 1986. auth Inventory
shall be available, consIstent with section
1008, to the public as provided In section
3007(b). Information previously submitted
by an agency under sectIon 103 of the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act of 19B0, or
under sectIon 3005 or 3010 of this Act, or
under this section need not be resubmitted
except that the agency shall update any
previous -submission to reflect the latest
available data and Information. The Inven-
tory shall contain each of the following, at a
minimum:
“(1) The location of each site, and where
hazardous waste has been disposed, a de-
scription of hydrogeology of the site and
the locatIon of withdrawal wells ar,J surface
water within one mile of the site.
“C2) Such Information relating to the
amount, nature, arid toxicity of the hazard-
ous waste In each site as may be necessary
to determine the extent of any health
hazard which may be associated with any
site.
“CS) Information on the known nature and
extent of environmental contamination at
each site, Including a description of the
monitoring data obtained.
“(4) A list of sites at which hazardous
waste has been disposed and environmental
monitoring data has not been obtained, and
the reasons for the lack of monitoring data
at each site.
“(5) A description of response actions un-
dertaken or contemplated at contaminated
sites.
-------
October 6, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
“(0) An Identification of the types of tech. The question Is often asked: Is this
plques of waste treatment or dl cosl which
have been ‘toIng to cost us 5Ofl1ethiflg
‘(1) LiS answer Is, of course ft Is going to cost
ble agency for each site, determined us something. It Is going to cost some.
e date of preparation of the . thing to clean up the environment.
The next question Is: Is It going to
01430 be too expensive? Can we afford this?
£r. BREAUX (during the reading). Am I going to be put out of business If
r. chairman. I ask unanimous . I have to follow these new standards?
nt that the amendment be conald. I would suggest to those who take
ered as read and printed In the that line of thought that they ask the
Racoan. person who is lying in a hospital bed,
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection dying of stomach cancer, is the Cost
to the request of the gentleman from
Loutsiana. . I would suggest that those who
There was no objection, think It may cost too much that they
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman. I want ask who pulls out an-
to first of all thank the chairman of other fish from his favorite fishing
the subcommittee, the gentleman river or stream or lake and finds that
from New Jersey (Mr. Fz.oaso) and yet again this particular fish Is filled
also the ranking Republican member with carcinogenic tumors caused by
from New York (Mr. Lmn ) for their somebody’s mistake somewhere. Is the
cooperation and also, partlcualrly, the cost too great.
cooperation we have had between I suggest that if you think It Is going
their staffs and my staff on helping to cost too much that you ask a citizen
to develop this amendment over the who has been uprooted from his
literally several months that we have hometown after living there for 30
h3d an opportuntly to work on it since years and being required to be moved
we last considered this legislation. - by the Federal Government because
My amendment Is basically fairly his town Is Infested with toxic chemi.
simple. It Is simple In the sense that It cals that we did not treat correctly In
deals with two major areas that we are the first place, Is the coat too great.
concerned with. I say ask those people If they think
First, It deals with how we handle the cost of cleaning up a country Is too
liquid hazardous waste In salt domes much. And I think that the answer
and in mines and In underground that you will get Is, no, It Is not. It Is In
caves. We set certain standards, we iist fact a very cheap price to pay for a
certain prohibitions. we also mandate healthy environment, balanced with a
that the Euvironmental Protection healthy IndUstrial climate.
y undertake a study that should During the consideration and the de.
mpleted wIthin 2 years to deter- velopseent of this amendment, we
whether It Is proper to dispose of have learned a number of things. And
I hazardous waste In these type f some of the things that we have
iles. learned have been absolutely frighten-
The second thing In general that my 111g.
amendment does Is to deal with su . We have learned that there are 770
face impoundments. Suliace Impound- facilities In this country of ours that
inents are really Iandlll]s in the sense operate what we call surface Impound.
that they are areas In which individ. inents. A beautiful phrase that means
uals. companies, or operators place we are putting It on top of the ground
substances that are liquid, hazardous, aiid we are hoping that It does not
toxic. In which they either treat these leak. Those ‘170 facilities have some-
substances or they leave them untreat- where—we do not even know how
ed. many—between 1,712 and 1,775 sur-
We deal with those uyf Im- face Ipipoundments that are individ-
poundments by setting out certain ually being operated in this country.
standards and requiring certain steps EPA tells us further that 684 of them
to be taken before you can use a stir- have at least a single liner on the
face impoundment that Is going to bottom and that 374 are doubled lined
contain these hazardous wastes. and thank goodness they are. That Is
I would say to the Members that 62 percent. But EPA further tells us
what we are dealing with today is most that 655 of these surface Impound-
serious. We are dealing with the menU around the country have no
health of every citizen In every con- lining. They are just surface Impound-
gresslonal district In the United States ments placed on top of the ground and
of America. we hope that they will not leak.
What we are dealing with Ia the The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
health of our entire country. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
question today Is really: Are we. as a Bazaux) has expired.
society, Intelligent enough to protect (By unanimous consent. Mr. Bazaux
our own human health and our own whs allowed to proceed for 5 additIonal
environment? The question Is: Are we. minutes.)
as a society really IntellIgent enough Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, what
tobalancetheneedsOiahlghhYte ch wehavetr ledtodolscolfle uPW lthafl
nical and In4ustrial society with the amendment that addresses these prob-
- if providing a healthy environ- le!ns In a forthright way, In a manner
r lisa dt1w of our country? that we can accomplish with existing
H 8137
technology and science in this coun-
try.
Basically with regard to the salt
domes and the mines and the caves
that I first Indicated, what we say
quite simply Is. look, do not put liquid
hazardous wastes Into these areas
until we know whether It Is safe or
not. One company has a proposal to
put liquid hazardous waste In a salt
dome In Louisiana. In my congression-
al district, and I asked them, “What Is
your experience In other parts of the
country?”
They said. “We don’t know, we have
never done ft before In the United
States.”
I said, “Oh, OK. What Is your expe-
rience with doing this In Europe where
you are from?”
They said. “Oh, we have never done
it there either. They don’t let us do It
there.”
But yet they wanted to do It In the
United States as a first test on a com-
mercial scale. And I say we should not
do that until such time as we have a
study to show that It can be done
safely. -
This amendment mandates that.
Second, with regard to surface Im-
poundments that I have just talked
about, my amendment would start off
with a clear general rule that says
simply that hazardous wastes that are
now being put In surface Impound-
ments around the country operating
under Interim status permits are going
to be prohibited, unless that Impound-
ment gets a final permit.
We are giving them 4 years under
this amendment to get their final
permit In order. Mid that final permit
has to say that these surface impound-
ments have to be retrofitted: and re-
trofItting requires they be double
lined and that they establish a moni-
toring system to see that It Is not leak-
ing Into the environment.
Some say, “Well, we should not have
to do this.” So we provide-exemptions.
We provide specific exemptions that
say as follows: U the owner or the op-
erator has a surface Impoundment
that has only one liner, we say, all
right, if It has only one liner you are
not going to have retrofit, but you are
going to have to show us something.
And I do not think that Is too much to
ask. You are going to have to show us
that the liner Is desIgned, constructed,
Installed, and operated In a manner to
prevent the hazardous waste from
leaking through. That Is not too much
toask.
We also want it not to be located
within one-quarter of a mile of a
source of derground drinking water.
That Is not too much to asi c.
We even go further than that, and
say, look, whether or not it Is lined, If
you have a surface Impoundment that
has no Uning at all, we are still going
to give you an exemption If you can
show that your surface impoundnient
was designed and operated and located
so as to prevent the migration of any
-------
H 8138
hazardous constituents into he
ground water or the surf ace water at
any future time.
I think that that Is not too much to
ask. The only thing we are saying Is.
look, come in and show that It is not
leaking. Come in and show that it Is
not leaking hawdous constituents.
Do my colleagues know what hazard-
ous constituents are defined as In this
bill? Hazardous constituents: the Ad.
mlnlstrator shall identify those wastes
that contain hazardous constituents
such as identified carcinogens, muta-
gens, or tetragens at concentration
levels that may harm human health
and the environient. We are tAlking
about a lot of waste, not just a drop in
the Atlantic Ocean. but a waste at con-
centration levels in excess of levels
which adversely affect the human
health and the environment.
The only thing we are asking a corn.
pany to do that has an unlined surface
impoundment is to prove that what Is
leaking Is not a hazardous constituent
and thus not likely to have an adverse
consequence and effect on the human
health and the environment.
And if they cannot meet those three
exemptions, they should and must
take action to clean up their act.
—Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAIIX. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Briefly, and not desiring to repeat,
Mr. Chairman the amendment would:
First, ban, not later than February
1, 1984, the placement of container-
ized. noncontainerized or bulk liquid
hazardous waste thto salt dome forma-
tions. underground mines or caves. Ef-
fective on the date of enactment of
this subsection, the placement of
other hazardous waste Into these
types of land formations would also be
prohibited until such time as the Ad-
ministrator of EPA has promulgated
performance and permitting standards
for such placement and a final permit
has been Issued pursuant to section
3005(c) of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA);
Second, ban, effective 8 months
after the date of enactment, the place-
ment of bulk or noncontainerized
liquid hazardous waste into any land-
fill. EPA has admitted that all land-
fills leak. This provision would allow
generators and/or dlsposers of these
waste 6 months to find alternative
waste management practices. Current
EPA policy is already minimizing such
disposal in recognition of the human
health and environmental risks associ-
ated with this practice. The committee
bill already requires EPA to develop
regulations, in 6 months, to proscribe
the practice. My amendment merely
codifies the committees Intent;
Third, require the Administrator of
EPA to develop regulations, within 8
months of enactment, which miruinize,
to the extent teci nologically feasible.
the disposal of containerized liquid
hazardous waste in landfills. This pro-
‘isbn is intended to allow the contin-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
ued landfllllng, until such time as al-
ternative management capacity is
available, of n&U containers, com-
monly referred to as lab packs, that
result from ongoing research at medi-
cal and other educational Institutions;
Fourth, ban, effectIve 1 year after
enactment, the placement of any
liquid waste, whether hazardous or
not, into a landfill containing hazard-
ous waste. It makes no sense for EPA
or the Congress to determine that the
placement of liquid hazardous waste
into landfills is a bad practice because
of the problems associated with the
migration of such wastes and not to
proscribe practices which could lead to
the comingllng of solid hazardous
waste with . other liquids. An exception
has been provided that will prevent
the shifting of nonhazardous liquid
waste from regulated landfills to mu-
nicipal landfills and unlined surface
Impoundments that contain or might
contain hazardous wastes due to prior
disposal practices: and
Filth, establish a tlmefraine for the
Issuance of final permits to existing in-
terim status surface impoundments.
Such final permits must, with three
exceptions, contain a compliance
schedule for the retrofitting of those
Impoundments that do not meet the
double liner, leachate detection and
ground water monitoring requirements
established for new surface impound-
ments by sectIon 21 of the bill. I
should emphasize that this section on
impoundments requires retrofitting to
meet the minimum containment tech-
nology standards of section 21—two
liners, a leak detection system In be-
tween—plus ground water monitoring.
Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, the
committee reported bW also contains a
mechanism by which the Admlnistra’
tor of EPA can decide to allow specific
liquid hazardous waste to be placed In
certain land disposal facilities. It is my
understanding that the Intent of the
committee was not to allow the Ad-
ministrator to overturn or modify the
prohibitions contained in section 5 of
the bW (new subsection 3004(b) of
RCRA, I certainly share that belief
and have included In my amendment a
provision that would so restrict the
Administrator’s discretion under the
remaining provisions of section 5 of
the bill. I would note that this restric-
tion now applies to the prohibitions
contained In new sectIon 3004 (b) and
Cc) of RCRA as added by my amend-
ment.
Mr. Chalnnan, there are four other
significant provisions contained in my
amendment to section 5 of the bill.
These provisions:
First, restrict the ability of Govern-
ment agencies to obtain the so-called
capacity waiver for alternative waste
management once a particular waste Is
prohibited from one or more methods
of land disposal. This provision re-
quires the Administrator to conduct
an alternative capacity review to de-
termine if Federal waste can be placed
in alternative waste management fad]-
October 1988
Ities wIthin 18 months of the Imposi-
tion of a prohibition with respect to a
particular waste. If there Is still inad-
equate alternative management capac-
ity, the Federal waiver may be contin-
ued for only another 12 months, that
Is to a total of 30 months after a pro-
hibition determination, rather than
the 42 months allowed private indus-
try. The justification for reducing the
time for the Federal Government’s
variance from land disposal prohibi-
tions is twofold. First, capacity Is avail-
able for treatment and recovery right
noa, and even if It is not enough for
all of this country’s waste, its exist-
ence should not be ignored while addi-
tional, sufficient capacity is built. The
Federal Government could be and
should be using better waste manage-
ment methocs. and the amendment
will encourage the Federal agencies to
use existing capacity. Second, the Fed-
eral Government should be out In
front encouraging a market for better
technologies. The amendment wlU en-
courage Federal agencies to plan now
for prohibitions which will be imposed
over the course of section S’s imple-
mentatlon
Second. require EPA to promulgate
a ir inis- IOfl monitoring and control
regulations within 2 years of enact
izent for land storage, treatment and
disposal facilities as necessary to pro-
tect human health and the environ-
ment;
Third, require Federal agencies and
authorized States, within 1 year, to
undertake annual Inspections of feder-
ally owned or operated land storage,
treatment and disposal facilities; and
Fourth, require Federal agencies to
undertake a continuing Inventory of
their present storage, and past and
present disposal facilities. The amend-
ment stipulates that information pre-
viously submitted pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Re-
source, Compensation, and Liability
Act (Superfund) need not be resubmit-
ted, but It should be updated.
This provision has been carefully
drafted to fill in the remaining gaps of
a generally comprehensive bill that
will, as I have previously indicated, go
a very long way to Insuring the long-
term health of the American people
and their environment. I would reiter-
ate that my amendment does not, In
any way, conflict with the intent of
section 5 to minimize the continued
use of land disposal for hazardous
waste. Rather, the amendment corn•
plements section 5 of the bill by fur.
ther restricting certain land disposal
practices and requiring better manage.
ment practices for those wastes which
are still permitted to be placed In the
land by the Administrator of EPA.
I have worked very closely with Mr.
FoRsYTHE In developing both the lan-
guage and intent of this amendment
and knowing that he will shortly
ipeak in favor of these provisions
would note my full concurrence in his
remarks. I have also prepared and
-------
October 6, 198S
would include In these remarks a ec-
tion-by-section analysis of the ameend-
ment which provides greater detail on
the scope of the amendment and our
intent.
TZO 4T- ’lOP AflALYSIS 0 ? N1ZADI
soaszc’rios ibiw
This paragraph establishes a prohibition
on the placement of containerized, non-con-
tainerized. or bulk liquid hazardous waste In
salt dome formations, underground mifles or
eaves after February 1. 1984. ThIs para-
graph also prohibits, upon enactment, the
placement of other waste Into these land
formations until such time as EPA promul-
gates performance and permitting stand-
ards, and imues a final permit, for such
placement. The use of the term “place-
ment’- Is intended to cover all types of haz-
ardous waste handling and management.
While there is no current placement of hat.-
szdous waste into these types of formations.
the prohibition on liquids is scheduled so
that EPA can complete its current promul-
gation of regulauons defining the term
“liquid hazardous waste.” The agency has
Indicated that such regulations will be final
by February 1. 1984. When EPA defines
what a liquid Is—it should do so for both
bulk md containerized waste and the defini-
tion and operational test should apply to
both.
508 51Cr 1 0 5 ( 5 1 12 1
This paragraph requires EPA to conduct a
study of the effects of human health and
the environment associated with the place-
ment of liquid hazardous waste in salt dome
formations, underground mines or caves.
The report, to be concluded within 2 years
of enactment., shall be submitted to the
Congress and may contain recommenda-
tions for a modification of the statutory
prohibition on the placement of liquid hex-
rdous waste into these types of land forma-
ma
sussarrios is, si
This paragraph makes clear thRt the Ad-
ministration may not, in reviewing the suit-
ability of land disposal for specified waste
arid other listed or Identified waste under
Section 5 (c) and Cd) of the bill, overturn or
otherwise modify the statutory prohibitions
set forth in paragraph 1, described previous-
ly.
sUBSeCTION (CHi)
This paragraph prohibits, within six
months of enactment, the placement o(
bulk or noncontainertzed liquid hazardous
waste in any landiW. Prior to the effective
date of this prohibition, regulations promul-
gated by EPA on April 30. 1983 shall remain
in effect. —
suassc’rios ic’iai
This paragraph, like the provision in, the
Committee reported bilL directs the Admin-
istrator of EPA to promulgate final regula-
tions minimizing the du.posal of container-
ized liquid hazardous waste into landfills
within six months of the date of enactment.
While current EPA policy generally prohib-
its the disposal of containerized liquid waste
Into landfills, the policy and ainelidinent
allow the Administrator sufficient discre-
tion to permit the disposal of containerized
waste, such as lab packs which contain
small ainpules of laboratory wastes, and yet
maintain the existing prohibition on drums
and other unsuitable containers Moreover.
the use of the phrase “to the extent. techno-
logically feasible” is intended, as stated in
the CommlUee report ‘to discourage land-
filling of containerized liquid hazardous
• to the extent technology can provide
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
118139
a to discontinue the practice.” As in SUP rOB if) (I )
the previous provision, prior to the effective
The purpose of this amendment Is to
date of the final regulations required by avoid the potential problem of waste gener.
this paragraph. EPA regulations in effect on atom, hanalers or disposers utilizing “sham”
April 30,1983 shall remain In effect. ‘ storage to avoid a prohibition on the dlspos-
sussacriox (Cl(S) *1 of a particular waste from one or more
This paragraph prohibits the placement methods of land dlsposo,l. Thus, the amend-
of sap non-homrdous liquid into a landfill meat provides that the storage of a hazard-
operating under either Section 3005(c) or otis waste that has been prohibited from
3005(e). The purpose of this provison is to one or more methods of land disriosal is also
prevent the placement of any liquid waste prohibited unless such storage Is solely for
Into a landfill containing hazardous waste. the purpose of accumulating such quantities
The placement of such liquids into landfills of the waste as necessary to facilitate
containing hazardous waste contributes to proper recovery, treatment or disposal. This
the likelihood of migration of hazardous requirement should be imposed by EPA as
materials out of the facility. EPA should of the effective date of a prohibition, at the
ensure that the definition of liquids is the latest.
same for liquid hazardous and non-hazard-
suss -zots ifusi
otis liquid waste.
An exception has been provided to this This paragraph clarifies the intent of
general rule where the owner or operators Congress that the types of “land disposal”
of a per dtted landfw demonstrates to the subject to review by the Administrator pur-
Administrator, or the Administrator deter- suant to subsections (5) (di and Ce) of the
mines, that the imposition of the prohibi- Committee reported bill, or amended by this
Uon with respect to a particular permitted amendment. include all forms of hazardous
landfill would cause the non-hazardous waste placement In or on the land, Thus, It
liquid to be placed (1) in a landfW or un- is clear that the Administration shall review
lined surface impoundment, whether or not the appropriateness of placing hazardous
regulated by RCRA. (2) such laadIW or im. waste into not only traditional land disposal
poundment contains, or may reasonably be facilities, but land treatment and storage
anticipated to contain hazardous wastes, facilities as well,
and (3) the placement of the non-hazardous guissciiox 5005(X)
liquid waste in the permitted landfW will
This subsection describes the require-
not present a risk of contamination ments for the retrofitting of existing inter.
underground source of drinking water. im status surface impoundments.
- 5VP5 T1OF (Ci (4) Paragraph (hX l) states the general rule
As in the provision contained in subsec- that the placement or maintenance of a
tion (bX3). this provision limits the abWty ha’ardous waste listed or identified as of
of the Administrator, when reviewing the the date of enactment in an interim status
options for land disposal of various waste surface impoundment is prohibited unless
pursuant to subsections Cd) and (e) of the such impoundment has been granted a final
Committee reported bW as amended by this permit pursuant. to SectIon 3005(c) of
amendment, to modify the prohibition on RCRA within 4 years of the date of enact-
the disposal of bulk or non’contalnerized merit of this subsection. For those surface
liquid hazardous waste in landfills. Impoundments which receive interim status
- susssc’rzox f ,uiisi alter the date of enactment because a waste
This amendment modifies the availability which it Is receiving is listed or identified
bf the so-called “alternative management after the date of enactment, the require-
capacity waiver” set forth in the Committee lizent for obtaining a final permit pursuant
reported bill, as that waiver relates to has- to Section 3005(c) pertains 4-years alter the
ai’dous waste disposed of by agencies or in. date o which such waste is listed or identi-
strumentalities of the Federal government. • fled.
The general rule of subparagraph (f)(l)(A) Paragraph (hX2) states the general rule
Is that the effective date for a prohibition requiring such final permits to contain a
from one or more forms of land disposal for compliance schedule mandating-the retrofit.
the so-called “California wastes” Is 12 ting of each such surface Impoundment so
months after enactment. The effective date that they meet the requirements applicable
for the prohibition on one or more foi-ms of to new surface Impoundments established
land disposal for all other waste reviewed by pursuant to Section 3004(k)(1) of RCRA (as
the Adrninlstralor is the date on which the added by Section 21 of the bill). The compli-
prohibition is promulgated. Subparagraph vice schedule shall require the retrofitting
(fXl)(B) allows the Administrator to estab- to be accomplished as rapidly as practicable.
lsh a different effective date, so long as it is but not later than 2 yeArs alter the issuance
no longer than 42 months after the effective of the permit,
date specified in subparagraph (f)(1)(A), if, Paragraph ChXS) provides certain exemp-
with respect to a specified waste, such a tions to the prohibition contained In par-a-
date Is established “on the basis of the earli- graph (hXl) and the requirement of par-a-
eat date on which adequate capacity for ai- graph (hX2). Thus, the prohibition and re-
ternative management will be available.” qulremeflt may be waived by the Admin!s-
The amendment restricts the availability tralor if the owner or operator demon-
of this waiver for a prohibited hazardous strates that as of the date of enactment the
waste disposed of by Federal agencies to a impoundment was not within one-quarter
period no longer than 30 months after the mile of an underground source of drinking
effective date specified in subparagraph water and had a liner that was designed.
(fXlXA). Furthermore, the amendment re- constructed, installed and operated in such
quires the Administrator to examine the ca- a manner as to either prevent hazardous
pacity of alternative management as It re- waste from passing into the liner, or beyond
lates to a prohibited waste disposed of by the liner into adjacent subsurface soils.
Federal agencies withIn 18 months of the ef- groundwater or surface water, at any time
fecuve date set forth In subparagraph during the active life of the facility Similar.
( 1) 11 M M, Only If ills determined that a lack l , if the owner or operator demonstrates
of capacity for alternative management still that the impoundment was desIgned, oper-
exists may the waiver be extended for an ated and located so as to prevent the nilgra-
additional 12 months, that is, for a total of tion of any hazardous constituent into
30 months alter the otherwise effective date groundwater or 5urface water at any future
of a prohibition. time, the Administrator may waive the pro-
-------
H8140
hlbltion and requirements af paragraphs £h)
(1) and (2).
An exemption granted pussuant to the
above described provisions ceases to apply at
any time that the Administrator determines
that the liner falls to meet the requirements
of the exemption and acceptable repairs
have not been made or where the Adminis-
trator determines that the Impoundment is
no longer preventing the migration of any
hazardous constituent into groundwater or
surface water.
With respect to those Impoundments that
are exempted from the prohibition and re-
quirement of (f)(1) and (11(2) because It has
a liner that has been designed, constructed,
installed and operated so as to prevent haz-
ardous waste from migrating beyond the
liner, at closure, the owner or operator must
remove or decontaminate all waste residues,
all contaminated liner material, and con-
taminated soil, to the extent practicable. If
this can not be accomplished, the owner or
operator must comply with appropriate
post-closure requirements.
Subsection (fX4) prohibits the storage or
treatment of any hazardous waste prohibit-
ed from one or more method. of land dis-
posal In an interim status surface Impound-
ment unIon that impoundment meets the
requirements applicable to new impound-
ments pursuant to 3004(kXl) tm added by
SectIon 21 of the bill) or ft meets the ex-
emptions described above. The Administra-
tor Is granted the authority to impose addi-
tional requirements on any surface Im-
poundment receiving such a prohibited
waste, where such requirements are neces-
sary to protect human health and the envi-
ronment. The statutory requirements for
storage and treatment of restricted wastes
in impoundments are mtesmvm require-
ments, The Administrator Is authorized to
set more stringent requirements or to pro-
‘ IbIt any placement of restricted waste in
mpoundmenta altogether if he deems It ap-
propriate taklng’lnto account the factor, In
Sections 5 (dl and Ce) of the Committee re-
ported bill, as amended by this amendment,
Again, the purpose of the amendment is not
to carve out an exception to the land dispos-
al restrictions of Section 5. but rather to set
minimum standards for the surface im-
poundments which the Administrator
allows to continue receiving a prohibited
waste land disposal should still be viewed as
a last resort option by the Administrator,
and land disposal Includes the use of surface
impoundments for storage or treatment.
Subsection If t5) requires surface bn.
poundments receiving hazardous waste that
have been prolublied from one or more
methods of land disposal for treatment, to
remove treatment residues that are hazard-
ous within at least one year of the entry of
the a sate Into such impoundment.
Subsection (fk6) requires all surface Im-
poundments tt at have been granted interIm
status prior to the dice of enactment of this
section to apply for a final permit and show
compliance with groundwater monitoring
and financial responsibility requirements
within 12 months of the date of enactment,
If this requirement Is not complied with,
that surface Impoundment shall lcse Its In-
terim status, until such time as It can meet
these requirements.
Subsection (0(7) requires the Mrnin(.tra.
tor to make a determination regarding the
Issuance of final permits to those interim
status surface impoundments that are locat-
ed within one-quarter mile of an under-
ground source of drinking water wlU )ln 3
‘fears of enactment.
Finally, subsection Cf 1(8) clarifies that the
res underground source of drinking water,
used in this subsection, has the same
neanlng as that term is defined in regula-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
tions pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water
. u m OI $004 ib—am sszoIss raoM
WID DI5P08IL ramLrTme”
This subsection directs A to promul-
gate regulations, within two years of the
dote of enactment, for the monitoring and
control of air omissions from bazardoue
waste disposal, treatment and storage facili-
ties as may be necessary $0 protect human
health and the environment. Under current
regulations, there is no requirement for
land disposal facilities to identify or meas-
ure the air pollution they cause, Many of
these laclifties contain hazardous waste
which can and do evaporate Into the air,
subjecting local neighborhoods to potential- -
ly unsafe levels of hazardous air pollutants.
tThSZCTION $007 ie —Ymust P ,iTY
orrioiis
This subsection requires the Adininistra-
tar, or a state which has an authorized haz-
ardous waste program, to undertake within
one year of enactment a thorough annual
Inspection of each hazardou, waste treat-
ment. storage or disposal facility which is
operated by a federal agency for compliance
with RCRA, The record of these Inspections
are to be made available to the public con-
sistent with both Section 3007(b) and 1006
(providing for integration and consistency
with other laws).
sossaci-zox see, if,—rmmAL aceacv
szAanous w*zrz PAC!Li?T u ,vza uRY
This provision specifically requires the
federal government to keep track of the lo-
cation and disposition of their hazardous
wastes In as detailed and thorough a
manner as poazible. The Initial report Is due
to be compiled, published and submitted to
the Administrator by January 31, 1981, with
updated reports due every two years there-
after, This inventory Is to contain, among
other things, a description of the location of
the facility, the amount and type of hazard-
ous waste disposed of an a description of
how these waste have been stored, treated
- or disposed of. The amendment Is designed
to elicit information on each current storage
and treatment facWty as well as past and
present disposal facilities containing a haz-
ardous waste regulated pursuant to RCRA.
Information previously submitted pursuant
to Superfund need not be resubmitted but
should be updated.
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr Chairman, I strongly support
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Louisiana. The use of sur-
face impoundment for the storage and
disposal of hazardous wastes has been
the Nation’s leading cause of toxic
contamination. Almost one third of
the Federal Superfund sites were
caused by leaking surface impound-
ments. Eight of California’s top 10
dumpsites were contaminated by un-
lined impoundments which were in-
capable of containing hazardous liq-
uids.
Yet today, millions of tons of haz-
ardous waste continue to be legally
dumped in unlined Impoundments.
The EPA’s Office of Solid Waste now
estimates that in 1981 almost 40 per-
cent of the country’s hazardous wastes
were disposed of in surface Impound-
.ments and a high percentage of these
are unlined.
Recent studies on surface Impound-
ments provides overwhelming evidence
that:
October 6, 198,?
First, surface Impoundments have
en responsible for extensive environ-
mental contamination.
Second, the continued use of thou-
sands of unlined pits for the disposal
of hazardous wastes poses an unprec-
edented risk to public health.
Third, ekisting laws and EPA regula-
tions affecting hazardous waste sur-
face impoundments are totally inad-
equate to halt the widespread con-
tainMation of our air, land, and water.
For these reasons, I strongly support
the Breaux amendment and urge 9 ay
colleagues to vote for Its adoption.
1440
Mr. BRZAtIX. We have seen exam-
ples, and I have seen statements by
companies that they are willing to
spend $500 million to fix up a refinery,
but are they not willing to spend
enough money to Insure a clean envi-
ronnient?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Bnzatix) has expired.
(On request of Mr. EcXART arid by
unanimous consent, Mr. Bnzaux was
allowed to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.)
Mr. FOR$ u a . Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey .
(Mr. FORSrnta asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FORSYTHE. I thank the gentle’
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Louisiana (Mr. BREAUX) to
R. 2867. I have been working with
him on this amendment and concur
completely with his remarks and ex-
planations of our intent In developing
each section.
I believe that this amendment,
which we have been developing for the
past 6 months, is necessary and will, in
conjunction with the excellent provi-
sions of H.R. 2867, provIde a compre-
hensive mechanism for controU
hazardous waste. The gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Fz.onxo) and the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. Lmc’r) and
their staffs, have worked with us and
have been very helpful in the refine-
ment of our proposal.
We have attempted to ensure that
the timetables included In the amend-
ment are ambitious, but reasonable
and achievable: arid we are Convinced
that technologies to attain those
schedules are available.
The amendment provides that not
later than February 1, 1984, the place-
ment of liquid hazardous wastes in salt
dome formatIons, underground mines,
or caves Is prohibited. To the best of
my knowledge, none of these disposal
locations are currently being used, and
I do not believe that they are appro-
priate locations for the disposal of
liquid hazardous wastes which may
leak and be irretrievably lost to the
-------
October 6, 1983
surrounding environment The use of
the term “placement” is to Insure that
these types of locations are not used
‘en f or the temporary storage of ma-
-IS while awaiting further treat-.
cit or disposal prooe or as treat-
dnt chambers.
The effective date of Feburary 1.
1994, for the prohibitions on liquid
- hazardous wastes in salt domes, mines,
and eaves is Intended Only to give suf-
ficient time to the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) to formalize the
testing procedures to be used to deter-
mine whether or not a hazardous
waste is in liquid fornior contains free
liquids, not to give time to utilize
those practices. EPA should Insure
that the same definition of “liquid
hazardous waste and free liquids con-
tained In hazardous waste” Is used re-
gardless of whether the waste is con-
tainerized or not, and regardless of the
method of placement proposecL
Legitimate concerns have been
raised that this prohibition would for-
ever foreclose the opportunity to uti-
lize these hybrid facilIties when, In
fact, the use of these facilities for dis-
posal of certain wastes might be found
to be acceptable or preferable at some
time in the future. Therefore, we have
Included a provision which requires
the Administration to conduct a 2.yesr
study regarding the effects on human
health and the environment which are
associated with the placement of has-
ardous wastes in salt dome formations,
underground mines, and caves. The
irt may include recommendatipns
‘ongress for the modification of
prohibitions contained In this
,,an,ndment. -
The placement of hazardous wastes
other than liquids Is prohibited In salt
dome formations, underground mines,
or caves until such a time as the Ad-
ministrator has issued permit stand-
ards for such facilities and a permit
has been issued pursuant to section
3005(eL While the risks associated
with nonliquld hazardous waste dis-
posal would, Intuitively, seem to be
less and it Is conceivable that these
hybrid locations for disposal of haz-
ardous wastes may prove to be an ac-
ceptable alternative, those risks and
the restrictions which must be placed
on such use have not been fully de-
cribeci or developed. Therefore, it is
the intent of this section to Insure
that such practices do not take place
until the Aihnlnlctratór has carried
out the necessary regulatory process
to issue standards and permits, in ac-
cordance with this act.
The amendment provides that 6
months after date of enactment the
placement of bulk or noncontalnerized
liquid hazardous wastes in any landfill
is prohibited, even If that landfill has
liners and ground water monitoring.
The practice of disposal of liquid haz-
ardous wastes Into landfills presents a
s ubstantial risk to the environment
ractice. which Is currentiy only
I by about 10 disposal facilities
ilidy a practice which should be
flopped Immediately. All of the wit-
- - - testified at the hearing held by
the Subcommittee on Fisheries and
WUdlIf( C naenatlon and the Envi-
ronment on these issues stated that all -
liners will eventually leak.
The amendment provides that until
the effective dates, EPA ’s present re-
striction on the dispozal Into landfills
or liquid hazardous wastes and free
liquids contained in hazardous wastes
w 11 _l r nain In effect.
The prohibition also applies to liquid
hazardous wastes to which absorbenta
have been added which runs counter
to existing EPA practice. I am not op-
posed—but rather, strongly support—
the stabilimtlon of liquid hazsrilous
wastes in a msnner which renders
them permanently unavailable to the
environment, such as some of the
chemical stabilization processes which
have proven to be effectivs. flowerer.
absorbent, such as kitty Utter, may act
like sponges when squeezed—u might
ocour when additional material is
placed on top In a landfill—and yield
back the liquid,
Not later than 8 months after date
of enactment, EPA Is required to pro-
mulgate final regulations which mini-
mise, to the extent technologically
feasible, the disposal of contatnerizod
liquid hazardous wastes In any landfilL
WA a present practice Is that, In gen-
eral, containerized liquid hazardous
wastes are already prohibited from dis-
posal in landfills because of the sig-
nificant risk of container failure and
resultant contnn’inntion of the sur-
rounding environment When we were
denloping this amendment, we gave
serious consideration to prohibiting
outright the disposal of all containers
of liquid hazardous wastes into any
landfilL However, we learned that
there are some cases In which the dis-
posal of specifically designed contain-
en for very omall quantities of labora-
tory wastes, called lab packs, are nec-
essary, relatively safe, and there are
not available alternatives. These lab
packs are drums in which s mall con-
talners of laboratory wastes are placed
along with sufficient absorbent mate-
rial to Insure that if Inner containers
rupture, the wastes Care cositalnet
Therefore, we have chosen to retain
the mini rnfrstion criteria of U.K 2867
with the requirement that the general
restrictions on la,nd disposal of con-
tainerized liquid hazardous wastes will
remain in effect, and that the effective
date for finding alternatives for the
disposal of restricted wastes in these
lab packs cannot be later than a total
of 54 months after enactment of this
act This sectIon also requires that the
presence of free liquids will be mini-
mized in containerized hazardous
wastes by means other than the addi-
tion of absorbent material, where
technologically feasible.
The amendment also prohibits. ef-
fectIve 1 year after the date of enact-
ment, the placement of any liquid
which Is not a hazardous waste in a
landfill for which a hazardous waste
08141
permit Is required, unless the owner/
operator demonstrates, or EPA deter-
mines, that the only reasonably avalla-
We alternative Is placement in a land-
fill or unlined surface Impoundments
which contains hazardous wastes, and
the placement,in the permitted land-
fill will not risk contamination of any
source of ground water. As used in this
context, the term “unlined’ means a
unit which does not meet the require-
ments of 40 CSS., part 284, subpart
K, as promulgated on July 26, 1982.
EPA In Its present regulations has
taken into account the risk which the
placement of even water on existing
hazardous wastes will cause. Leaching
of the hazardous waste and the subse-
quent hydraulic pressure on the liner
structure, If one exists, can be every
bit as serious as the risk posed by the
disposal of liquid hazardous wastes,
The prohibitions established in this
amendment may not be modifIed by
EPA during the review of land disposal
prohibitions required in sectIon 5 of
U,R. 2867.
The storage of any hazardous waste
which Is prohibited from one or more
methods of land disposal under section
5 of ER. 2867 is prohibited, except for
storage which is solely for the purpose
of accumulating the necessary amount
to facilitate proper recovery, treat-
ment, or disposaL it Is intended that
this language will case E PA’s burden
In defining “sham storage,” a problem
of recognized importance. Storage
based only on some vague hope for a.
future development of appropriate
treatment Is no longer acceptable.
Hazardous waste generators must tin-
derstand that if there Is no ultimate,
aeceptable, disposal technique availa-
ble for the hazardous wastes which
they g perate, they should not gener-
ate them. -
Our amendment also clarifies that
EPA, In ink ing the reviews tailed
für prohibition of land dIsposal (hr
certain wastes in sectIon 5 of R.R.
2867, must consider at least placement
of hazardous wastes In landfills, star-
face Impoundments- waste piles, injec-
tion well, land treatment facilities, salt
dnm.s , and undergound mines or
caves. This does not mean that In all
cases these types of activities must be
prohibited, but rather. must be sub-
jected to the rigorous review and ans i-
ysis required to determine the accept-
ability of each method of land disposal
for restricted wastes.
One of the most serious environmen-
tal problems that we hare today is the
seepage of Industrial wastes, Including
hazardous materials, into the ground
water from unlined or ineffectively
lined surface Impoundments.
The record Is clear that a large
number of the present Euperfund sItes
have resulted from the use of unlined
surface Impoundments—including
some of those used In Industrial
wastewater treatment facilities. A cur-
rent EPA.draft report assessing the
niagnitude and potential effects of sur-
CO GRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
-------
H 8142
face impoundments on ground water
quality states that nearly half of the
existing Industrial Impoundments are
located over unsaturated sones that
afford little or no protecuon to ground
water supplies. Seventy percent of
these industrial sites ar unlined. Two
hundred and fifty cases of ground
water conthinination from industrial
surface impoundments have been doc-
umented and 45 percent of these con-
taminated sites were not discovered
until after water quality had been ad-
versely affected. We can no longer run
the risks involved In allowing unlined.
or inadequately lined, surface Im-
poundments to be used for the dispos-
al of hazardous wastes.
Therefore, this amendment contains
a requirement that, not later than 4
years after date of enactment, hazard-
o t is wastes cannot be place In a surface
impoundment which is operating
under interim status, unless the Ad-
ministration has Issued a final permit
for that facility. For hazardous wastes
listed after the, date of enactment, the
schedule for permitting and retrofit
requirements would run from the date
on which such hazardous waste is
listed. The permits must contain a
compliance schedule for retrofitting
those Impoundments to meet the re-
quirements established in section 21-of
the bill for new Impoundments as rap-
idly as possible, but In no event later
than 2 years after the permit Issuance
date. Exceptions are allowed for sur-
face impoundthents which already
have a properly designed, constructed,
Installed, and operated liner and are
located farther than one-quarter mile
from any ground water source of
drinking water, or can demonstrate
that they will prevent the migration
of any hazardous constituent into the
ground water or surface water at any
future time. It Is intended that, when
making the determinations regarding
the exception of a particular unit,
EPA will apply similar standards to
those they now use In determining
compliance with the requirements of
40 CFR 264. subpart K as currently In
effect. In order to Insure continued
proper operation, the exceptions shall
terminate at such a time as the Ad-
calnistrator determines that the liner
has failed in operation, unless the Ad-
ministrator also determines that ac-
ceptable repairs have been made. The
exemptions are Intended to recognize
the decreased risks which may be asso-
ciated with those facilities which have
shown good faith In operating proper.
ly installed liners and are not in close
proximity to underground water
sources, or which are located in such a
manner as to preclude, for all time,
the migration of hazardous constitu-
ents to surface or ground waters. The
prohibitions and exemptions are not
intended to preclude the Administra-
tor of EPA from Instituting more
stringent requirements or prohibitions
should he consider them necessary or
appropriate.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
The term “underground source of
drinking water” Ii used as provided for
In regulations developed under the
Safe Drinking Water Act and exempts
the same aquifers which are, or will
be, exempted In those regulations.
For surface Impoundments which
are used to treat the most hazardous
of wastes, those prohibited from one
or more forms of land disposal, and
the treatment residues remain hazard-
ous, those residues must be removed
withIn 1 year of their entry Into the
Impoundment. If the removal process
Is continuous In nature, the 1-year
period would be applicable to an esti-
mated average retention time.
The requirements for surface ha-
poundments, operating under interim
status or a final permit, used to store
or treat hazardous wastes which have
been prohibited from one or more
forms of land disposal, shall become
effective on the same date as those
prohibitions become effective.
For surface Impoundments which
are operating under interim status at
the date of enactment, completed ap-
plications (part B’s) for final permits
under section 3005(c) must be received
wIthin 12 months and the owner or op-
erator must demonstrate compliance
at that time with ground water moni-
toring requirements or interim status
shall terminate. EPA’s ground water
monitoring requirements have been In
effect since November 1981 and
there is no excuse for noncompliance
at this late date. Prompt receipt of the
completed applications for final per-
mits should allow EPA to undertake
the permitting process without fur-
ther delay.
WIthin 3 years, the Administrator
shall make final permit determina-
tions for all surface Impoundments
which are located within one-quarter
mile of an underground source of
drinking water. This provision is in-
tended to give the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency guidance In setting pri-
orities for permit Issuance.
Air emissions from land disposal
facilities have long been recognized as
a serious source of risk to human
health and the envlronment. The
amendment would require that EPA
promulgate regulations for monitoring
and control of air emissions at hazard-
ous waste facilities not later than 2
years after enactment. I believe that
years Is ample time for EPA to develop
such regulations. -
Finally, I believe that the Federal
Government should take a lead role in
developing and implementing accept-
able hazardous waste disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the amendment con-
tains three provisions which deal with
Federal facilities.
First. Federal facilities are allowed
an initial waiver, by the Administra-
tor, of only 18 months for waste pro-
hibited In accordance with H.R. 2867
for which adequate capacity is tin-
available. The waiver may be extended
to 30 months for Instances in which
capacity Is found to be still unavalj-
October 6, 1983
able at 18 months, but for no longer
than a total of 30 months. The bill.
HR. 2867, contains an allowable
waiver of 42 months for other facili-
ties faced with the same problem. I be-
lieve that the Federal Government
can, and should develop Its own alter-
natives on an accelerated schedule if
so required. -
Second, the Inspection frequency for
some Federal facilities Is reduced from
2 years, applicable to all sources, to
not less often than every year for
facilities operated by a Federal
agency.
And, third, each Federal agency Is
required to compile and publish an In-
ventory describing the location of each
hazardous waste site which the Feder-
al agency Is responsible for, and
update that report no less frequently
than every 2 years. The Federal Gov-
ernment Is a major source of hazard-
ous waste, and I believe that such an
inventory Is vital In order to Insure
that the Federal agencies are acting in
a manner which sets an example for
the rest of the country.
Mr. ChaIrman, obviously I strongly
support this amendment to HR. 2867
and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
I believe that In combination with
other provisions of H.R. 2867, which I
cosponsored and fully support, this
amendment will offer a truly compre-
hensive protection program far human
health and our land, air, and water en-
vironments. Thank you.
Mr. ECKART. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. ECKART. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I ‘want to commend
the gentleman for hIs amendment. It
raises several Issues that are of criti-
cial Importance to my constituency
and I think to the Nation at large.
The definition of “land disposal”
was not broad enough In the existing
legislation. The gentleman’s Inclusion
In his amendment of dealing with nat-
ural formations, such as caves, salt
domes, and underground mines, of
which I find several in my particular
constituency, is of particular linpor-
tance to me.
We witnessed attempts to dispose of
hazardous wastes in very large salt
caverns that occur naturally beneath
my constituency and beneath Lake
Erie. which Is a source of fresh drink-
ing water for tens of millions of people
In the Northeastern part of the United
States. Including this In the definicion
section of “land disposal” Is a very im-
portant additional safeguard.
The second thing that is of great sig-
nificance Is for the first time including
the question of air emissions from
these sites. Clearly, people who live
nearby are plagued not only by poten-
tial contamination of their ground
water, but the noxious fumes that can
result from the disposal at these waste
sites of these wastes In the ground.
-------
October 6’, 1983
Of course, the last thing Is to Inclucte
the Federal Government In the pe-
numbrabf our protections. Therele no
reason to derive a lower standard of
,rotectlon for Individuals who happen
o lIve near Federal lands than Indivld-
dais who may happen to live near
other, private-owned lands. To Include
Federal facilities, to add air quality
protection and to include natural for-
mations I think makes sense both en-
vironmentally and economically.
I commend the gentleman for his
amendment.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. I .O’IT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I yield to my friend,
the gentleman from MlsslsslppL
(Mr. LOTT asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LOTT. I th ik the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask
the gentleman a couple of questions
about his amendment, but first I
would like to say once again that the
gentleman has been a leader In trying
to deal with - problems that concern
people In his district and State. and In
our country, and I know that Is what
be Is trying to do here.
But I do have some questions about
the extremes. perhaps, to which this
amendment goes.
Let me just ask, as one who Is not
that knowledgeable In this area, why
necessary to have two liners? If
have a liner of clay or synthetic
erlal. or whatever, that would pre-
any leakage, why have two’ It
seems to me that you are calling for
an unnecessary expenditure of funds.
If the liner Is going to work, you do
not need two—one will do the job.
Mr.- BREAUX. I absolutely agree
with the gentleman. This Is why we
have contained, In this legislation, cer-
tain exemptions. We have exemptions
that say, ‘company. If you have a sur-
face Impoundment that has one liner,
you can be exempted. The only thing
you have to show us Is that the single
liner Is In fact working.”
The second point Is that we go even
further than that. We say, “OK, com-
pany. if you have no liner at all, and
you have a surface Impoundment sit-
ting on top of the ground and you
- have no liner, you can still come In
and get an exemption If the operator
can demonstrate that the Impound-
ment was designed, operated, and lo-
cated so as to prevent the migration of
any hazardou constituents Into the
ground water.”
So what we are saying Is that even If
you have no liner, the only thing we
need you to do Is to come In and show
that It Is designed not to leak and It In
fact Is not going to leak any hazardous
Constituents Into the ground water.
If they can show that, they do not
have any liner. Or If they have
liner, as I pointed out, the ex-
also Is available In that case.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
Mr. LOTI’. I would like to ask a
couple more specific questions, and
then I will comment, on my own time,
about the amendment In general.
What If a company Is able to show
that they may not have the type of
liner the gentleman Is looking for but
can show clearly that there Is no leak-
age In their Impoundment area. Do
they still have to retrofit?
Mr. BREAUX. Under the second
part of the exemption, if a company
has absolutely no liner and that com-
pany can come in and show that their
Impoundment where they are keeping
the hazardous waste Is In fact designed
and Is being operated and Is located In
an area as to prevent the migration of
any of these hazardous constituents
Into the ground water, the Administra-
tor can waive the prohIbitiOn. They do
not have to do anything more. So
whether they have one liner or no
finer or a different type of liner, If
they can show what we are saying, and
that Is, basically, “Do not mess up the
human health and environment,” they
do not have to take these actions.
Mr. LOT1’. So If they can show that
there Is not that leakage, then they
could get an exemption; Is that right?
Mr. BREAUX. I would say that from
the point of being technically correct,
we need to look at the exact exemp-
tion. But the exact exemption, basical-
ly, in summary, says: If a company has
a single liner and that Is Installed—
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Bazaux) has again expired.
(By Itnanimous consent, Mi-. BaxAux
was allowed to proceed for 2 addItional
minutes.)
Mr. BREAUX. The first exemption
Is If the owner or the operator of the
surface Impoundment can demon-
strate that, first of all, his Impound-
ment Is not within a quarter of a mile
of a source of underground drinking
water and that It has one liner that is
designed to prevent the hazardous
waste from going through the liner,
they are all zight, they are out.
The second category Is If the surface
Impoundment has no liner at all. I
mean Just hazardous waste on top of
the ground In a surface Impoundment,
the company can still get out of
having to retrofit If they can show
that their operation is operated and
located so as to prevent the migration
of any hazardous constituents Into the
ground water or the surface water at
any future time. That Is all they have
to do.
Mr. LOTI ’. I would like to address
one additional question to the gentle-
man, If this company has a liner and
can also show that there Is not any mi-
gration, but they are located within a
quarter df a mile of an underground
source of drinking water, then they
are still out of the ball park; they still
have to retrofit with two liners?
Mr. BREAUX. I would say to the
gentleman that they would be com-
pletely eliminated from any require-
ment if they can meet the second test,
H8143
which Is the test that I just repeated,
that they could be within a quarter of
a mile, they could be on top of a
source of drinking water and they
could have no liner, If they can only
show that their operation Is designed
to prevent the migration of any haz-
ardous constituents into the ground
water.
Mr. LOp , Well, what needs to be
pointed out, Is that the showing which
must be made to qualify that for the
second exemption Is that there will be
no migration Into the ground water at
any future time. This Is almost Impos-
sible to show.
Mr. BREAUX. I will say to my
friend, the gentleman from Mlsslssip-
p1, that the second part of the amend-
ment lets that operator out • even
though he Is on top of a source of
drinking water If he can show that his
operation Is designed to prevent the
migration of any hazardous constitu-
ents.
Mr. PWRIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I yield to the gentle’
man from New Jersey.
Mr FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman. I would just observe,
with regard to the gentleman’s first
question, the definitive study on this
whole matter was conducted by Pro-
fessor Montague at Princeton, who
looked at four state-of-the-art double
liners and found that all four of them
were operating In an effective way.
That reinforces the point the gentle-
man from Louisiana Is making, that
this almost has to be a site-specific
evaluation to see what It Is that Is
being put Into these facilities, because
the liners are effectively plastic. There
Is a substantial difference between the
nature of the toxic wastes that are
being put In. So even double liners,
under certain circumstances, put In a
state-of-the-art fashion, may not be
appropriate, That Is the beauty of the
gentleman’s amendment, He spells out
that capability of dealing with It In an
appropriate site-specific way.
The CRAmMAN. The time of the
gentleman from LouIsIana (Mr.
Bazaux) has agaIn expired.
(On request of Mr. Ri-i-rex and by
unanimous consent, Mr. BRZAUx was
allowed to proceed for 3 additIonal
minutes.)_____
Mr. Rrm . Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I yield to the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania.
Mr. RITrER. Mr. Chairman, Item 3,
part (A), where they talk about the
characterization of the Impoundment,
they talk about that the Impoundment
(a) was not within one-quarter of a
mile of an underground source of
drinking water and first had a liner de-
signed and constructed, and second
had a liner designed and constructed.
So there are three features, and It
sounds as If either of those features
would, 11 not fulfilled, disqualify the
-------
118144
Impoundment, and the conversation
between the gentleman from Louisi-
ana and the gentleman from Mississip-
pi Indicated that ii the liner was de-
signed so as to prevent migration was
80 deemed effective, then the drinking
water source could be on top of the
impoundment, but the language does
not say that. ‘
Perhaps the gent1ema wishes to
adapt the language to accommodate
what he has spoken about to the gen-
tleman from Mississippi.
Mr. BREAUX. Let me try and ex-
plain the situation to the gentleman
as Intended In the written language.
We basically say that we have three
categories of exemptions so that you
do not have to retrofit. First of all you
have to not be within a quarter of a
mile of a source of underground drink-
ing water. And then. if you fit that,
you either have to have the first liner,
which is a synthetic liner, like a plastic
vinyl liner, or the second liner, which
Is generally a clay liner.
So if you are not within a quarter of
a mile of a source of drinking water
and you have either a plastic liner or a
clay liner that Is designed to prevent
hazardous wastes from going through
those liners, you are out. That Is your
exemption.
Then we have the third category.
The third category does not talk about
the quarter of a mile. You could be
within a quarter of a mile of a source
of drinking water and you do not have
to have any liner, you do not have to
have a single liner In that category, or
you could have a liner, but you do not
have to. In the third category, the.
standard Is that your operation Is de-
signed and operated and located so as
to prevent the migration of any haz-
ardous constituents into the ground
water or surface water at any future
time.
0 1450
If you can meet that standard, then
you are also out. I would also offer to
the Members at this time that that
standard Is current EPA regulations as
far as surface impoundments are con-
cerned.
So they have three exemptions, Is
what I am saying, to get out of It.
-Mr. LENT Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAUX. I would be happy to
yield to the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say
that I was happy to work with the
gentleman from Louisiana and with
his staff In developing the language of
this amendment. It does address a
very serious environmental problem
Involving surface impoundments.
The EPA has taken a position oppos-
ing passage of this particular amend-
,ent, and one of the points that EPA
akea is—
Mr. BREAUX. I am more concerned
about the gentleman’s position as op-
posed to EPA’s position.
Mr. LENT. The EPA makes the
point that they cannot make the nec-
essary regulatory amendments, they
do not have time within the stringent
framework and timetable provided by
this amendment to Issue final permits
to all the surface Impoundments that
exist. -
Could the gentleman comment on
that?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Bazaux) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Lxxv and by
unanimous consent, Mr. Bamux was
allowed to proceed for 2 addItional
minutes.)
Mr. BREAUX Let me comment on
that point.
Here Is what we are giving them,
folks. We are giving them 4 years to go
out and look at the 1,700 surface Im-
poundments In the United States: 4
years to go out and look at those that
have an Interim permit right now, and
say, “Hey, guys, you have to get your
final permit.”
Then after they get the final permit,
we give them an addItional 2 years to
have in place a program that meets
these new requirements.
We are giving them 6 years to reach
the goal that we are trying to accom-
plish, which Is only, “Hey, do not leak
that Junk into the surface ground
water that we are drinking.” If they
tell you that they cannot do It within
6 years, then we better get an entirely
new EPA; 6 years is plenty of time.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAtJX. I would be glad to
yield to the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO, I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, a very Important
point is the amendment that was Just
passed with the self-certification pro-
visions In It will be able to target
EPA’s resources and energies to those
facilities that do not certify that they
are In compliance with ground water,
with fiscal requirements, with regard
to postclosure, so tbe argument that
you have this broad scope, we can very
much refine that because we have just
changed the law to be able to target In
on those land surface impoundments
that are most In need of scrutiny early
on.
So what It Is we have done here
today with this amendment and the
previous amendment will enable us to
deal with EPA’s problem of scarce re-
sources.
Mr. LOT’r. Mr. Chairman, I rise In
opposition to the amendment,
(Mr. LOT asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LOT’I’. Mr. Chairman, this is an
unusual experience for me. The gen-
tleman from Louisiana and I usually
are together on most bills and amend-
Oc?ober 6’. 198.?
ments that come to the floor of the
House of Representatives, and while I
do not have, admittedly, the expertise
on this Issue that the members of the
committees and the gentleman from
Louisiana have, I do have some basic
concerns that come into my mind on
this amendment, and I would like to
address some of those concerns.
First, I wonder If the gentleman
from New Jersey would advise me as
to why this is being done in the form
of an amendment, on a bill that has
been In the works for many, many
months, a bill I thought had been very
thoroughly developed. It. seems to me
that an amendment of this Impact
would have been considered and In-
cluded In the bill if, In fact, there was
really a great need for this particular
approach.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LOTT. I yield to the gentleman
from New- Jersey for a response to
that question.
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number
of reasons for this amendment. The
fact of the matter Is, this subject was
addressed In our basic bill, but the
gentleman from Louisiana came for-
ward with a number of very creative
suggestions as to how to perfect sec-
tion 5.
We have taken a long time trying to
perfect this provision. As the gentle-
man knows, I suspect there has been
some controversy as to how to go
about getting the final language. All
those involved In this Issue have really
contributed, and I think there Is, with
certain limited exceptIons, the gentle-
man being one, a large consensus that
has evolved that this Is the most mod-
erate, cost-effective way to dealing
with this problem.
Over and above that, almost on a
daily basis there Is new Information
coming out on surface Impoundments.
The gentleman from New York and I
yesterday released a GAO study that
came forward with some devastating
Information concluding that the cur-
rent state of the law is not serving our
basic environmental needs,
So this is an evolving problem, and
that Is why this proposal is appropri-
ate and timely at this point.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LOT1’. I yield to the gentleman
from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAtJX. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman. just for a brief com-
ment, I guess more to a point than
anything else, we only have EPA’s
study on surface impoundments, In-
dustrial surface Impoundments, In this
country In July of this year. This
amendment Is largely based on the
problem that they pointed out existed
In their July report.
Mr. LOTT. I thank the gentleman.
- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
-------
October 6’ , 1983
Mr. Chairman. I would like to make
just a few points. First of all, It has al-
ready been stated that the Environ-
‘nental Protection Agency oppose th15
mendznent, and at the proper time,
Ar Chairman. I will ask that a letter
to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Baoyma .) from Mr. Thomas, the
Assistant Administrator of for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
stating the reasons for their opposl•
tion, be made a part of the Racoan so
that all Members will have access to It
The letter follows:
U.S. 5 vzaos mirn PaoTwrzolt
£ozacv.
Waslsirwtmu, D C. October 5 1983
Congr an Jaxss Bsoynzu..
Rsnklnp Minority Membe, House Zneuvv
md Commerce C ’omin Wee, Raybwn
Menu Buildinit Washington, D.C
D ma Co sur Baovnn.i. When Floor
sossideration of HR 2881 resumes, the
Rouse will take up the Breaux .mendment.
I want to take this oppr?rtunlty to state
EPA ’s concerns with that amendment..
I share the goal of Congressman Breaux
In wanting to prevent future cont, ,,,ilnstlon
of our ground water by providing tougher
liner requirements for surface Impound-
ments. Through his e wIm,flt Congre .
man Breaux attempts to prevent leakage
from Ineffective or poorly constructed sur-
face Impoundments. However, because of
the stringent timeframes and the “hammer
provision”. this amendment will cause
severe strain on EPA’s permitting resources
and bring harsh sanctions on the surface
Impoundment operators.
This amendment requires that most guj.
face Impoundments receive a final permit In
— or cezas operation. These permits
require that double liners be installed
i 2 years after Issuance. Although one
e provisions at the amendment gives an
_ption from the double-liner regulation
for certain surface Impoundments. It does
not apply to any surface Impoundment lo-
cated within a quarter mile of an under-
ground source of drinking water. An osti-
mated 95 percent of all currently operating
sites are located within a quarter mile of a
drinking water supply. The second exemp-
tion Is also narrow and we expect that only
a small percentage of surface Impoundment
operators will be able to make the required
demonstration. Therefore the exemptions
offered by Congressmen Breaux are so
alight that they offer little relief from this
amendment..
EPA cannot make the necessary regula-
tory amendments and Issue final permits to
all surface Impoundments within the strin-
gent timeframe provided by this amend-
ment. Yet, under the “bazrimer” ,rovlslon
In the amendment, inSflY currently operat-
ing surface Impoundments will be forced to
close as a result of not receiving a permit.
This will be particularly problematic for on-
site surface impoundments ’ associated di-
rectly with a manufacturing process. Be-
cause auth Impoundments are frequently
used on a continuing basis for waste treat-
ment, storage, or diaposal, closure of the Im-
poundment Is likely to disrupt the manufac-
turing process Itself until alternative man-
agement capacity Is found and necessary
changes are made to accommodate off-site
shipment of waste. Thus, the amendment
Places a severe burden on the surface Im-
poundment owner/operator who has no con-
trolp” r EPA’s ability to Imue permits.
eadment also bans the d pcstl of
contalnerised lIquid hazardous
salt domes, underground mines.
a .. It tempor*rlly ba is the place-
ment of other hazardous waste In mit
domes, underground mines, and caves until
the EPA promulgates permitting standards
and permits ale Issued, EPA Is not aware of
any technical basis for this ban, and there-
fore opposes It,
I would appreciate your efforts In brtng•
lag to the Members’ attention the severe
Implications of the Breaux amendment to
both the EPA and the regulated conamunl-
ty.
The Office of Management and Budget
COMB) advises that there Is no objection to
the submission of this Letter from the stand-
point of the President’s program.
8 .
Lss If. Thomas,
Assistant AdmInistrator.
Mr LOTr. Now, as I understand
this amendment, It requires that most
surface Impoundments receive a final
permit in 4 yearn or cease operation.
These permits must require double
liners wIthin 2 years after Issuance. Al-
though one of the provisions of the
amendment gives an exemption for
double-liner regulation for certain stu’-
face impoundments, It does not apply.
as I understand the language In the
bill, to any surface Impoundment lo-
cated within a quarter mile of an un-
derground source of drinking water.
So there semps to be some confusion
on that. Maybe our colloquy here has
helped to clear It up, but this Is a
point that was raised by EPA.
An estImated 95 percent of all the
currently operating surface Impound’
menta are located within a quarter of
a. mile of underground drinking water.
The second exemption is also
narrow, and we expect that, as I un-
derstand, only small percentages of
surface Impoundment operators will
be ible to make the required demon-
stration.
Clearly, we do not want hazardous
materials leakIng Into ground water.
But I am also worried about us going
overboard In the other direction and
requiring very expensive retrofitting
that may not be necessary. In my
hometown we have a refinery, one of
the most modem In the world, that
Just completed an extensive expan-
sion. They utilize surface Impound-
ments In their operations. These im-
poundments are within a QUarter of a
mile of drinking water. The operator
can show very clear proof that there Is
no leakage, but according to the lan-
guage of this amendment, they still
might be unable’ to qualify for one of
these exemptions. If this happens the
facWty may have to shut down and/or
spend $27 million to comply with this
amendment.
The last exemption In the amend-
ment would waive retrofit require-
ments for Impoundments “designed.
operated, and located so as to preyent
the migration or any hazardous con-
taminants Into the ground water or stir-
face water at any future time. EPA of-
ficials say that a showing of no migra-
tion at any future time Is Impossible in
most circumstances.’ Therefore, this
exemption has little applicability.
While we do not want these hazard-
ous substances leaking into the drink’
H 8145
lug water or the soil unnecessarily, we
also have to be concerned about
whether or not this goes too far In re-
quiring a finding now that there will
be no migration at any future time.
We must consider what this could do
to that facility, which means a great
deal to our Nation from an energy
standpoint and a lot to my hometown
as far as the opportunity for people to
have jobs.
So I am just not sure that we are
granting reasonable exemptions where
there Is not a leakage, even If they are
close La ground water, or If they have
adequate protection so that they do
not have to go In and, In effect, shut
down such a facility.
1 DKLfT onmm HI’ . miict TO T1
£ D T OFVUW ST 3I . aBZAu’Z
Mr. HANCE, Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Eaxce to the
imendment offered by Mr. BIIzAUZ Insert
“salt bed formations.” after “salt dome for-
mations” wherever It appears.
Mr. EANCE. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment Is very brief said sell-ex-
planatory. It just inserts the words
“salt beds.” In the drafting of the
original amendment, salt beds were
left out. They are almost the same as
salt domes,
I wanted to make sure that this
clarification was made. The amend-
ment, I believe. Is agreeable with the
author of the original amendment.
Mr. PLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HANCE. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, with the concurrence
of the author of the basic amendment.
I have no difficulty with It.
Mr. BREAtIX. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HANCE. I yield to the gentle-
man from LouisIana,
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the gentle-.
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I agree that the gen-
tlems.n’s amendment to the amend-
ment is necessary and needed, and I
support It.
The CHAIRMAN. The question Is n
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. ffsxcx) to the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Loulslana,(Mr. Bamux).
The amendment to the amendment
was agreed to,
0 1500
Mr. Ri’ri,rit. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that I do
not oppose the Breaux amendment.
what lamtry lngtodo lsengagelna
collotiuy that clarifies that the amend-
ment does not do what the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Lorr) fears,
which Is close of f things and close
down things that are basically not
troublesome. I think that is what we
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
-------
__ S 3l
have to look at when we look at the
Breaux amendment.
In my colloquy with the bentleman
from Louisiana, he did point out a part
of the amendment which talked about
the Impoundment being all right If It
was deslg ed, operated, and located so
as to prevent the migration of any—
that Is zero—hazardous constituent
Into the ground water or surface water
at any future time. What that Is
saying Is zero amounts, scm migration
off Into perpetuity.
I submit that there may be no facili-
ties that meet that kind of a rigorous
test. It Is simply a test which leaves
zero room for difference.
Mr. BREAtIX. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman_yield?
Mr. Rrrra rt. I yield to my ccl-
league, the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAtIX. Mr. Chairman, the
third exemption that Is listed Is basl-
cally existing law In the regulations
with regard to an exemption that an
operator can In fact get from having
to have a surface Impoundment with a
single liner.
Let me say something .else. As to
hazardous constituents, In the bill of-
fered by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. FLoIuo), on page 43 of
that bill, It talks about “hazardous
constituents,” and It says: -
The Administrator shall also Identify or
list those hazardous wastes which shall be
subject to the provisions of this subtitle
solely because they contain hazardous con-
stltuents. —
And they identify some of them, and
then they go further and say—
At concentration levels in excess which
adversely affect human health and the envi-
ronment.
So what this exemption says, when
It talks of “hazardous constituents,” or
the migration of any hazardous con-
stituents, is that we are concerned
about the migration of any hazardous
constituents that are of such a concen-
tration which adversely affects human
health and the environment. That Is a
qualifying phrase on any hazardous
constituent. It would have to be suit I.
dent enough to adversely affect
human health and the environment.
If U can be shown that a hazardous
constituent that Is leaking through
does not ach’ersely affect human
health and the environment because it
was of such a low concentration, then
It would be all right as far as the retro-
fit requirement is concerned.
Mr. RrrrER. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for that clarify-
ing statement.
Mr. LOT1’. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman_yield?
Mr. RIrTatt. I yield to the gentle-
man from Mississippi.
Mr. WTL Mr. Chairman. I would
like to express my concern one more
time In a very direct question to the
gentleman from Louisiana.
If a facility can show that there Is
no migration from its Impoundment,
even though they are within one-quar-
ter of a mile of an underground drink-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
lag water source, can they be exempt-
ed?
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, the
answer to the gentleman’s question Is
yes, and qualifying to that, as opposed
to the way he asked the question, is
the statement that if they have no
liner and they are In fact located
within one-quarter of a mile of an un-
derground source of drinking water, 11
they can show that that facility was
designed, and operated, and located so
as to prevent the migration of any
hazardous constituents Into the envi-
ronment, they are out.
Mr. I.OTI’. Mr. Chairman, I am
afraid I got lost somewhere In there
Mr. BREAt )X. In layman’s language,
what they would have to show, If they
have no liner, Is that their facility Is
nct allowing the migration of any haz-
ardous constituent into the environ-
ment And the definition of “hazard-
ous constituent” talks in terms of the
concentration of that hazardous toxic
chemicaL
Mr. LOT I’. Mr. Chairman, let me try
this one more time.
Regardless of what they can show or
how they would construct It, U they
can show there Is no leakage, will they
be exempted?
Mr. BREAUX. Well, that question
mandates an additional phrase In
front of It. U they can show that there
is no migration of any hazardous con-
stituents Into the ground water, the
answer is, yea, they can get out of the
retrofit requirement.
Mr. LOTr. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. RITTER. Mr. Chairman. If I
might reclaim my time, Is the gentle-
man saying that this Item (B) Is de-
pendent on a previous definition of
“hazardous constituents” which takes
Into account the level of hazard to
human health?
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman. If the
gentleman will yield, the gentleman Is
absolutely correct.
I ’or those who say we can never
show any, I would say “hazardous con-
stituents” mea s constituents at a con-
centration level which will adversely
affect human health and the environ-
ment. It does take into consideration
concentration levels.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Rn’rm) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. RITER
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, they
would not be prohibited If what was
leaking through their surface Im-
poundment Is not at a concentration
level that is likely to adversely affect
human health and the environment.
That Is part of the definition on page
43 of the bill.
Mr. RITI’ER. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman. -
I would like to return again to this
part referring to one-quarter of a mile
October 6, 1988
from an underground source of drink-
•hig water. It has two provisions;
a liner designed, constructed, .
Stalled, and operated to prevent harardous
waste from pissing Into the liner at any
time during the active life of the facility; or
•s had a liner designed, constructed. in-
Stalled, and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from migrating beyond the liner to
adjacent subsurface soil, ground water, or
surface water at any time during the active
life of the facility.
Do the same definitions of “hazard
to human health and concentrations”
apply to part (Axixil) as the gentle-
man has defined It In part (B)? ..
Mr. BREAUX. I am sorry. I would
ask the gentleman to repeat the ques-
tion. ____
Mr. Rirra tt. I am referring to part
(A) which defines this one-quarter of a
mile distance from a source of under-
ground drinking water. And I might
add that as the Safe Drinking Water
Act def Inca “drinking water.” It Is not
only a drinking water source at the
present time but It Is a drinking water
source which, while not potable pres-
entiy, can be treated to become pota-
ble at acme point In the future, So It Is
a fairly rigorous definition.
Andinpart(1)itsaysthls:
- - . bad a liner designed, constructed. In-
stalled and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from passing Into the liner at any
time during the active ilie of the facthty or
(ii) had a liner designed, constructed. In-
stalled and operated to prevent hazardous
waste from migrating beyond the liner to
adjacent subsurface soil. ground water, or
surface water at any time during the active
life of the facility.
That indicates again a kind of per-
fect operation, a kind of an attempt to
achieve a zero risk.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
RITrER) has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Rzvm
was allowed to proceed for 2 additIonal
minutes.)
Mr. R i r a . Mr. Chairman, with
reference to the kind of definition
that the gentleman described In part
(B) which talked about the relative
level of hazard to human health and
hazardous constituents. Is that opera-
tive In part (AXi) and (ii)?
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman, If the
gentleman will yield, and If I under-
stand the gentleman’s question, j
would respond with the following
answer: That when we are talking
about the hazardous constituents
under part (B), we are talking about a
definition that follows the definition
on page 43 of the bill itself which talks
about wastes that are In such a con-
centrated form that they have an ad.
verse effect on human health and the
environment.
Mr. RITI’ER. That Is part (B)?
Mr. BREAUX. That Is part (B).
In part (A), subsection (I) and (ii). we
are talking about hazardous wastes
that are In fact on the EPA RCRA list.
They are listed because of their con-
centrations or because of the particu-
lar characteristics they have.
21S
-------
0 1510
*MKxDI T Ofl PT . TAU7.II( TO Tm’
LMmeDManT OT U PT am. amauL U
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman. I offer
an amendment to the amendment. snd
I ask Unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read and
printed In the Racoan.
The CIIAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment to the
amendment Is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. T*uzIs to the
amendment offered by Mr. Baud. as
amended, in section 3005(hX2) as added by
the Breaux amendment Insert and except
I c the case of a surface Impoundment which
is used only for the placement of any waste
described in sectIon 8002 (f), (n), Or (p)’
&fter the phrase “8 cept in the ease of
surface Impoundment which meets the re
Qqhiements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of
h(S)”.
end of section 3005thX2) as added
cans amendment Insert:
“In the case of any surface Impound-
ment-
“IA) which Is operating under interim
status pursuant to subsection (e), and
“(B) which Is used only for the placement
of any waste described In sectIon 8002 (f).
(a). or (p) which has become subject to rca-
uktlon under this subtitle,
the Administrator may Impose such require-
meats (by regulation or on a case by case
basis) as neoemary to protect human health
and the environment.”.
In section 3005(hK4) as added by the
Breaux amendment, at the end of the first
lsentence, strike out “unlem such Impound-
meni insets the exemptions contained in
paragraph (3) of this subsection” and substi-
tote “unlem such Impoundment meets the
requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (3) or unleas such Impoundment
Is a surface impoundment which Is used
only for the placement of any waste de-
scribed In sect Ion 8002(1), (a). or (p)”.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the
amendment I am offering to my col-
league’s amendment is a clarifying one
and is consistent with a second amend.
ment I will be offering later on section
21.
The amendment focuses on those
wastes currenUy under study as man-
dated by sectIon 8002 (f), (n), and (p1
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Those
studies will lead to determinations by
the Administrator as to which of those
wastes, if any, are hazardous and how•
those wastes should be managed to
protect human health and the envi-
ronment.
My amendment Is designed to guard
against the premature and inappropri-
ate capturing of those sectIon 8002 (f),
(n), and (p) wastes In the Interim
Status Surface Impoundment Provi-
sions being offered by my colleague.
My amendment does not establish any
permanent exemptions from regula-
tion for these wastes, nor does it de-
prive the administrator of any discre- -
tionary authority that he presently
has. The amendment makes It clear
that the wastes i nder the mandated
studies of sectIon 8002 CD, (n), and Cp)
are to be examined c i their own
merits and are not to be automatically
captured in any broad reaching provi-
sions that could be Inappropriate to
these wastes.
I ask the support of my colleagues
for this very reasonable approach.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
M . TAUZDI. 1 am glad to yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, I
would just say that I have no particu-
lar difficulties with the gentleman’s
ameildinent to the amendment and
would agree that mining waste exeinp-
tions should not be interpreted as a
reason for not listing smelting wastes.
which does not meet the high volume.
low toxicity criteria through spproprl-
ate rulemaking.
For example. EPA did list several
smelting wastes prior to the 1080
amendments to the Solid Wastes Dis-
posal Act, including pot liners for alu-
minum production.
118147
With the understanding that that Is
the approach the gentleman Is taking,
I would accept the gentleman’s
amendment.
Mr. TAUZIN. Well, the gentleman’s
understanding Is correct.
Mr. BREAUX Mr. Chairman. I rise
In support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I do rise In support of
the amendment of my colleague, the
gentleman from Louisiana. I under-
stand it really Is consistent with what
the basic thrust of the original amend-
ment does.
As I understand, and I would ask the
gentleman’s attention, as I understand
the amendment of the gentleman
from Louisiana, It would postpone the
requirements for altering the existing
design and construction criteria ap
plied to the placement in surface im-
poundments of wastes currently being
studied by EPA.
The amendment would require im-
poundments receiving such wastes to
meet design and construction criteria
developed by EPA if after the ongoing
studies that are now being done or
completed, EPA decides that such
waste should be covered by RCRA.
Furthermore, if as a result of on-
going studies, these wastes are covered
by RCRA and become a prohibited
waste pursuant to the provisions of
section 5 of the bifi, then Impound-
ments used to treat these wastes shall
be constructed and designed so as to
prevent a risk to human health and
environment.
While this might result In a require-
ment such as those set forth in section
21 of the bill, this determination
should await the completion of the on-
going study.
With that understanding, if I may
have the attention of the gentleman
from Louisiana, with that understand-
big which is I think the Intent of the
gentleman’s amendment, I certainly
support it and It Is consistent with
debate on the previous amendment.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for his support and his
understanding is correct.
The CHA IBMAN. The question Is on
the amendment offered by the gentle.
man from Louisiana (Mr. TAurus) to
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Louisiana (Mr. BREAUX > as
amended.
The amendment to the amendment,
as amended. was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any
other amendments to section 5?
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word. I rise to enter
Into a colloquy on this section.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to share
with the Members concerns that I and
several of my colleagues have with cei—
tam provisions of this section of the
bill. Specifically, I will address section
5(c) whIch requires the Administrator
of EPA to determine wIthin 12 months
whether any form of land disposal is
protective of human and the envIron-
ment for several specific categories of
October 1983 ‘ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
Mr. R1TTER. Mr. Chairman, I thlnk
this is an Important one, and It Is one
n which I do not think we are In dis-
greement. But we have the chemical
cstrumentatlon to detect conceivably
this day and age parts per trillion,
1 thIs says: “ ‘S to prevent hazard-
.is waste from migrating beyond the
bier to adjacent subsurface soil,
ground water, or surface water at any
time .“ So what we a le getting
into again Is a kind of a zero risk de-
scription, and I do not think that Is
what the gentleman Intends with his
language.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr n,’1f the
gentleman will yield further. I would
say to the gentleman that “hazardous
waste” in this context is the same defi-
nition of “hazardous waste” that Is in
fact used by RCRA and EPA to decide
whether a waste Is in fact hazardous.
That takes Into consideration concen-
trated amounts, So if it Is not hazard-
otis because it Is only one drop in the
ocean, it would not apply here.
Mr. RL-1-rr rc. I think the definitIon
of “hazardous waste” does not neces-
sarily take Into account concentra-
tions. The definition Is “flammable,
toxic, reactive, or corrosive,” and ft
has nothing to do with the amount of
concentration. That Is my concern
with thIs.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman. if the
gentleman will yield further, I will say
to the gentleman that if a substance,
because of Its limited amount or con-
tent, loses the charactei’Istics of being
irdous. then, of course, it would
U within this definition.
RITTER. Well, the substance
L could be hazardous, but in parts
•._. billIon or trillion it may well not
be hazardous. That is the problem
that I think the language In (A)(1) and
(II) brings up.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Rrrran) has expired.
-------
H 8148
hazardous wastes. U the 54l IMI tra.
tor does not make such a determina-
tion by this deadline, Ibesi land dispos-
al of these wastes Is automatically
banned at least until EPA makes a de-
termination that such wastes are safe
for land disposal.
When the Energy and Commerce
Committee dealt with this section
H.R. 2867, It was our desire to provide
a mechanism that would force EPA to
look at these wastes and decide if ear•
tam methods of disposal were appro-
priate. My concern today Is that we
may not have fully appreciated the
nearly Impossible burden that a 12-
- month deadline will place upon EPA—
a deadline they have said they cannot
meet—and upon generators of hazard-
ous wastes who may be left without
access to any appropriate means of
disposal or treatment when the ban
comes Into effect.
- Mr. HUC ABY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAtJZIN. I am happy to yield to
my colleague, the gentleman from
Louisiana.
Mr. HUCKABY. Mr. Chairman, I
join In an expression of concern over
this provision, because in studying It
several queètlons have arisen in my
mind.
One, why have we forced 12-month
deadline on, EPA when In comments
before the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee they Indicat-
ed that 32 to 36 months would be the
very shortest possible time In which
they could make these findings?
I might add that the Senate commit-
tee was sympathetic on this matter
and has given the EPA 32 months.
Second, what do we know about the
available capacity of existing hazard-
ous waste treatment and incineration
facilities to handle the increased
volume of waste that will, of necessity,
be directed to them when the land dis-
posal law Is imposed’ That volume
will. incidentally, be further increased
by our lowering of the small generator
exclusion.
Third. ft seems that this section can
only act to delay the cleanup of prior-
ity existing disposal sites, either under
Superfund or by Independent action, If
alternative treatment capacity Is
either strained or unavailable.
And finally, this bill does nothing to
help solve the problems Involved In
siting additional hazardous waste
treatment and incineration facilities.
While we would greatly increase the
volume of wastes going to such facili-
ties. we have done nothing here to
insure new capacity.
Mr. DOWDY of Mississippi. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I am happy to yield to
the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. DOWDY of Mississippi-I thank
the gentleman.
The wood preserving industry pro-
vides a good example of the dilemma.
Mr. Chairman, that many will face
should this provison be Implemented.
Many wood preserving sludges fall
mider one of the categories of hazard-
ous wastes that would be banned from
land disposal If EPA cannot, as It says
it cannot, meet the 12-month deadline.
I em refei-rlng to halogetiated organic
compounds. Many of these wood pre-
ser lng facilities are — “s-” . independ-
ent businesses, but apart from the
extra money it will llkelj cost the 295
plants In the Industry to Incinerate
these sludges, there is already a back-
log of wastes for one of the hazardous
waste incineration facilities In the
southern part of the United States. To
further compound this problem It has
been estimated that it would require
the total capacity of every Inciner-
ation facility in the country 3 years to
treat the contaminated soils from
Times Beach, Mo., alone. Incineration
Is the only known alternative to land
disposal for all of these wastes.
Under these circumstances, even
with a 42-month extension, there Is no
assuranci that adequate capacity will
be available, and In that case, how
does he legally handle his waste? I do
not think this section of the bill now
provides a good answer. The Senate
Environment and Public Works Com-
mittee recognized this problem and
provided for continued land disposal In
a facility with double liner and lea-
chate collection system.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, my col-
leagues and I share the concern of the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
FLoalo) sod the committee about safe
disposal and treatment of the wastes
listed In section 5 (c). We are, however,
raising legitimate questions about the
way the section will work. Faced with
similar concerns, the State of Califor-
nia, where this list originated, pro-
vided for extensions of the land dis-
posal ban If alternate treatment capac-
ity were, in fact, unavailable. The
Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, in Its version of the bill.
provided for similar extensions, in ad-
dition to providing EPA with more
time to examine the list.
In lieu of offering amendments
which would provide for $1m112r flexi-
bility to this section, I would ask at
this time for the agreement of the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
PLoazo) to address these concerns
when the bill Is before the conference
committee and to view with sympathy
the approach taken by the Senate
committee on this provision.
0 1520
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mi-. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that the
gentleman baa my sympathy, and to
also indicate that section 6 as the gen-
Ueman correctly indicated, permits
the Administrator to allow generators
of wastes (which would be banned
from land disposal) up to 42 months to
develop an alternative to land disposal.
October 6”, 1983
This is a very Important element of
the provision.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
(On request of Mi-. PLoiuo. and by
unanimous consent, Mr. TAVzXZ1 was
allowed to proceed for 1 additIonal
minute.)
Mr. FLOEXO. Mr. Chairman. will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentle.
man from New Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding further. -
I believe this provision will provide
for an orderly transition from land dis-
posal to more appropriate technology.
I will, however, take Into account
the concerns expressed by the Mem-
bers who have spoken on this subject
when we go to conference. I suspect
the gentleman will be a conferee and
we will have the opportunity then to
address those legitimate concerns.
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman
for his statement and his sympathy
and concern.
Mr. Chairman. I yield back the bal-
ance of my time,
Mi-. BROWN of California. Mr.
Chairman. I move to strike the requi-
site number of words.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr.
Chairman. I rise in support of H.R.
2867, the bill to amend the Solid
Waste Disposal Act.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin
by congratulating my good friend
from New Jersey. the chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. FLoiuo, for the ex-
cellent work he has done on the legis-
lation before us. In fact, I would like
to take this opportunity to congratu-
late him for the years of diligent work
he has performed on the hazardous
waste problem in this country.
My colleagues are aware of the great
humber of abandoned and dangerous
hazardous waste sites around the
country that need to be cleaned up.
The gentleman from New Jersey did a
fine Job several years ago for passage
of the Superftmd law to help in the
effort to clean up these sites. But
cleanup is an expansive option for ad-
dressing the hazardous waste problem.
In my own district I have a site, fa-
miliar to many of i -ny colleagues,
called the Stringfellow acid pits. Esti-
mates of the cost for total cleanup at
Strlngfellow are about $70 million. Un-
fortunately. Strlngfellow Is not
unique. The number of sites around
the country like Stririgfellow, and the
high cost of clearing up these sites, is
going to require Congress to authorize
more funds, and extend the time
beyond that which Superfund was
originally envisioned.
We are here today, perfecting the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, because we
don’t want any more Stringfellows. We
do not want to have to spend billions
and billions of dollars to clean up
- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
-------
October 6”, 1988
chemical messe& The bill before us Is
an attempt to strengthen current Pro-
visions, and move us toward the day
we can hope to control the hazardous
waste problem—not 1e It control our
lives, and the lives of millions of
people across the country.
• Mr. Chairman, having mid this, I
would like to discuss the provisions re-
lating to the land disposal of hazard-
ous liquid wastes. The legislation re-
quires the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to promulgate regula-
tions withIn 6 months to prohibit the
disposal of hazardous liquid wastes in
landfills, and n 1nIm1,p disposal of con-
tainerized liquid wastes In landfills.
Mr. Chairman, lapplaud the intent
-of this provision of the legislation
before us. I am concerned, however.
because this provision only addresses
less than 25 percent of the land dispos-
al problem. A recent Office of Tech-
nolgy Assessment report, entitled
‘Technologies and Management Strat-
egies for Hazardous Wa.5te Control.”
which I highly commend to my col-
leagues, found that the various forms
of land disposal, landfills do not con-
stitute the major use. In fact, the use
of injection wells, surface Impound-
ments, and waste piles account for
larger amounts of hazardous waste—
each individually—than do land! ills. It
Is Important to clarify here that a
landfill Is only one kind of land dispos-
al technique.
While the bill before us addresses
The problem of disposal of hazardous
‘uid waste disposal In landfills, it
‘a not address the serious problem
disposal In surface impoundments.
rough estimate of the volume of liq-
uids we are talking about indicates
that there are 8 million tons of haz-
ardous wastes being deposited yearly
In landfills. 14 million tons in injection
wells. 10 million tons in surface im-
poundment-s. and 10 mIllion tons in
waste piles, with another 3 million tin-
dergoing land treatment, incineration
and other methods. So we are clearly
addressing only a fraction of the prob
1cm by phasing out landfilung as an
option for disposal of liquid hazardous
wastes. The existing language there-
fore does little toi’educe the serious
health and environmental risks of sur-
face Impoundments and other forms
of land disposal.
The Environmental Protection
Agency Is now completing a 5.year, $5
million assessment of the magnitude
and potential effects of surface im-
poundments on ground water quality.
The draft report reveals that there are
at least 8.000 active surface impound-
ments used for the storage and dispos-
al of hazardous wastes; 6,500 of these
Impoundments are unlined. Roughly
3.500 are estimated to have a high po-
tential to contaminate ground water.
The EPA found that close to 90 per-
cent of all the impoundment sites are
located over aquifers currently or po-
tx.— ‘ly used for drinking water.
‘Thalrinan, I urge adoption pf
zaux amendment, but I do have
CONGRESSIONAL R!CORD — HOUSE
a concern remaining which I would
like to dlscus& The Breaux amend-
nient does not seek to address sites in
any order of priority, from most
threatening to least threatening. I
considered offering an amendment
seeking to identify a class of surface
Impoundments which requires our
urgent attention, those unlined sur-
face impoundments receiving hazard-
ous wastes which pose a threat of con-
taminating ground water. The amend-
ment would have required the Admin-
istrator to use available data to com-
pose, within a year, a list of those sites
which are unlined surface impound-
ments receiving hazardous wastes and
located withIn 1 mile of an aquifer
supplying water for human use.
I have chosen not to offer such an
amendment, because I think this In-
formation Is readily available and It
should not be difficult for the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency to iden-
tify and act on these priority sites.
The definition of these sites Is the
same definition which the agency has
used in drafting the surface Impound-
ment assessment required under the
Safe Drinking Water Act It is also in-
formation which the Administrator
will need in any event if the Agency Is
to proceed In a rational manner in
dealing with high risk unlined surface
Impoundments under the existing per-
mitting process.
While the provisions of the Breaux
amendment dealing with surface Im-
poundments are a major Improvement
upon current law, they do not set a
priority on those hazardous waste sur-
face impoundments which pose the
greatest health hazard, those unlined
impoundments above groundwater res-
ervoirs. These conditions are also the
ones which prove to be the most ex-
pensive to deal with, as communities
In my district are unfortunately find-
ing out. Each delay, no matter how
small, increases the potential health
hazard since over half of our drinking
water comes from - groundwater
sources, Each delay also increases the
expense of the eventual cleanup. To
delay dealing with these sites is fool-
ish.
There are at least 8,000 active sur-
face impoundments used for the stor-
age and disposal of hazardous wastes,
according to the draft of the Surface
Impoundment Assessment National
Report.” Seventy percent of these un-
poundments are unlined and at least
20 percent have a high potential to
contaminate groundwater. There are
416 cases of groundwater contamina-
tion from surface impoundments
which were documented from State
surveys, the primary source of which—
in 79 percent of the cases—was seep-
age. Unfortunately, 49 percent of
these sites were not discovered until
they had adversely affected water
quality in supply wells. One case re-
sulted in the closure of 50 domestic
wells.
The Environmental Protection
Agency ought to begin the process of
11,8149
Identifying high priority sites for
action. It Is a reasonable approach and
one that will generate the information
which the Agency, the public, and the
Congress need in order to make In-
formed decisions under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
Mr. Chairman, the OTA report
found that the cost of cleaning up a
contaminated site Is 10 to 100 times
the cost of preventing the release of
hazardous substances. The Breaux
amendment Is a move In this direction.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of
the bill and the amendment.
Mr. RI-r i azt. Mr. Chairman. I move
to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I found the preceding
colloquy Interesting. I certainly sym-
pathize with the gentlemen who par-
ticipate in It. That was to take care of
an Impending problem In section 5(e),
dealing with smafl business problems
with hazardous waste containing halo-
genated organic compounds in total
concentration greater than or equal to
1,000 millIgrams per kilogram. I would
like to say we are talking about sol-
vents like TCE (trlchlorethylene),
talking about these kinds of wastes.
Make no mistake about It. Whereas
these gentlemen have been able to
predict particular problem on the ho-
rizon. It is quite conceivable that what
we have regulated here on the floor.
yes we have actually set regulatory
standards, as opposed to setting legis-
lative guidelines, that Items Cd). (C),
(b), and (a) will all have their own
small business problems in due time. 1
say this as a note of caution, because
what we have done with this bill is to
go very far toward setting specific reg-
ulatory standards In legislation as op.
posed to setting up guidelines for ad-
ministratIve agencies to set those regu-
latory standards with the normal give
and take. This Is a first. I hope we do
not live to regret it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
S Mr. SUNDQUIST. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in sUpPOrt of H.R. 2867, however,
I am opposed to the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from Louisi-
ana, (Mr. BREAUX). I share the gentle-
man’s objective which Is to dramatical.
ly limit our use of landilUing as a
method of disposal. And although this
amendment prohibits new landfills
and requires lIners in existing ones, it
does not provide any incentives for al.
ternative methods of disposal. Unless
we provide those Incentives, we stand
to create havoc in those impacted In-
dustries and the end result Is wide-
spread economIc disruption.
Specifically, this amendment could
significantly affect at least one major
plant In my district which has used
fully permitted deep wells for disposal
of Its wastes for the past 26 years. And
even though they have the facilities to
recycle their wastes they alt Idle be.
cause use of that equipment Is not eco-
nomically feasible under current con-
ditions. Other businesses will be In the
same predicament. They will have
-------
118150
great difficulty complying with this
legislation. For this reason. I advise
my colleagues to look closely at the
long-term effects of this amendment.
If you vote in favor of this amendment
realize that we will soon have to begin
considering how to make alternative
methods of disposal cost effective and
affordable to those affected, particu-
larly small businesaes.s
The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
the amendment offered by the gentie-
man from Louisiana (Mr. Bassux). as
amended.
The amendment, as amended was
agreed to.
£MmIDMmI? Orruza B? ML TAULIP
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer
art amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. TAurn .: Page
1 5. alter line 3, Insert:
SARI.? LIAK uarzcrios SYSTDI
Sec. 5*. Section 3004 Is asnended by
adding the following new subsection at the
end thereof;
“(1) Not later than thirty months alter
the date of enactment of the Hazardous
Waste and Control Enforcement Act of
1983. the Administrator shall promulgate
standards requiring that new landfill units.
surface impoundment units. waste piles, un-
derground tanks and land treatment units
for the storage. treatment or disposal of
hazardous waste dentlfled or listed under
sectIon 3001 shall be reqwred to utilize ap-
proved leak detection systems. For the pur-
poses 01 thIs paragraph, the term approved
leak detectIon system’ means a system 0?
technology which the Administrator deter-
mines to be capable of detecting leaks of
hazardous c onstituents at the earliest prac-
ticable time and the term new units’ means
units on which construction commences
after the date of promulgation of regula-
tions under this paragraph.
Mr. ECKART (during the reading),
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid.
ered as read and printed in the
Rnco R D.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio’
There was no objection.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am
certain that Members of the House
were as alarmed as I was by the Gen-
eral Accounting Office report that
toxic wastes are leaking Into our
ground water supplies, Into the soil,
and that the EPA State regulators and
dump site operators are not monitor.
Ing for leaks.
How serious is the problem? EPA
calls toxic pollution of ground water
the most serious potential threat to
human health Yet both EPA and the
GAO discovered that there Is substan-
tial noncompliance with existing re-
quirements.
The chairman of our subcommittee
yesterday In a press statement which
was carried today In the Washington
Post indicawd:that the OAO study i-e-
ported that some 78 percent of the
current systems for Impoundment
were not in compliance with the leak
detection requirements In ground
water monltoring—78 percent out of
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
compUance as of June 30 of thIs year.
The problem of noncompliance can be
and should be Immediately addressed
by the EPA and State agencies respon-
sible for enforcing existing law.
Under existing law, site operators
are required to monitor groundwater
supplies for contamination. In other
words, they are supposed to check the
water to see If It Is already polluted.
And that Is done through a system of
monitoring devices placed In an under-
ground water supply which is then
sampled and analyzed.
My amendment would require that
the EPA develop new detection stand-
ards that allow us to discover toxic
waste leaks before they get Into the
water supply. New waste disposal sites
would be required to Install such new
equipment. -
The law must keep up with develop-
ments in technology, particularly In
the toxic waste area.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr.. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentle.
man from New Jersey.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, I
strongly support the amendment by
the gentleman from Louisiana. As the
gentleman pointed out, there is an Ian-
portant new technology developing
which will allow land disposal facilities
to detect leaks before contamination
of groundwater. This will, potentially,
prove to be a method protection which
will save millions of dollars in cleanup
costs.
Wherever feasible this technology
should be utilized and become a regu-
lar feature of storage, treatment, and
disposal facilities. I commend my col-
league for his effort to Incorporate
state-of-the-art technology for RCRA
facilities.
I urge the adoption of this amend-
ment.
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the chairman
for that support. As the chairman well
knows, new technologies In leak detec-
tion are presently available. Over 15
patents are on thç market today. And
folks who want to put hazardous waste
In ground Impoundments ought to use
that technology to Insure that leaks
do not occur in the groundwater
supply.
Mr. ECKART. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentle.
man from Ohio.
- Mr. ECKART. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding. -
The amendment Is indeed wise, par-
ticularly as a result of hearings con-
ducted by our friend from Oklahoma
(Mr. 6yx4u1). our Energy and Com-
merce Committee and Public Works
Committee. The revelations of what Is
being transported into our water sys-
terns is indeed startling. This testing
and assessment program that the gen-
tleman seeks to offer is an ounce of
prevention which saves the taxpayers
that pound of cure that could result if
we allow these toxic substances to
enter our water system. The amend-
October 6, 1983
ment Is good, fully compatible with
the balance of the bilL I would urge its
adoption as well.
Mr. Rrri st. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania.
Mr. R.trrsz . I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I rise in support of my colleague’s
amendment. I think It Is a wise amend-
ment. I think we are witnessing the
kind of technologies that can monitor
or protect prior to finding these kinds
of disasters where the water has a]-
ready been contaminated. In most in-
stances, RCRA regulations are strin-
gent and will provide a substantial
degree of protection. But there is
room for improvement. And the
ECRA regulations require that all new
landfills and surface Impoundments
behind that groundwater be moni-
tored. While this approach will be
helpful In preventing facilities from
leaking, liners may not last and
groundwater monitoring will pick up
leakage only after It reaches the
groundwater.
So, I think It Is wise to look at ways
to determine leaks and leak detection
and this amendment Is a step In the
right direction. I commend my col-
league from Louisiana for hIs amend-
ment.
Mr. TAIYZIN. I thank the gentle-’
The gentleman is well aware, par-
ticularly with his scientific back-
ground, once an underground water
supply Is contaminated that Is prob-
ably forever. Helping to prevent that
from occurring with .a leak detection
system that catches It before It
reaches the water Is Important to us.
Mr. Rrris x. It Is no easy task, but
It Is a task that we should pursue and
It is a worthwhile amendment.
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I would like to join with my col-
league from Pennsylvania In com-
mending the gentleman for his leader-
ship on this amendment. It Is a good
amendment. I understand that the
EPA opposes the amendment, not on
the merits necessarily, but because
they feel that again the time limit set
within the amendment, 30 months of
enactment mandating the Installation
of leak detection systems at new land-
fills, surface Impoundments, waste
piles, land treatment units, and under-’
ground tanks is too short. They fear
the fact they have too many deadlines
that they are trying to meet, we are
piling one after another on top of
them, and they may not be able to
meet all of the requirements.
-------
October 6’, 1983
D 1530
The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzm).
The amendment was agreed to.
£ DW!T o,rnn, 37153.
Mr. VOLK). R. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows
Amendment offered by Mr. Voz. On
page 18. line 2, before the Quotation marks.
insert the Zoilowlng
“15) M.?usarivl bIsPosM..—Notwlth-
iing any other provision of this Act, if
the Administrator st any time determines
that a technologically feasible means of
treatment, recovery or disposal of hazardous
waste other than land disposal exists, the
Administrator shall prohibit the disposal of
such hazardous waste by any means of land
disposal. For purposes of this section land
disposal -- ‘
“(1) the disposal on or Into the land. in.
eluding disposal In a salt dome. landitU. y.
face Impoundment, waste pile, injection
well, land aprndlng method, or co-burial
with municipal waste;
“(21 treatment on or In the land (Including
neutralization and evaporation ponds and
land fanning) where the trsa ent residues
are hazardous wastes and t ie not removed
for suinequent processing and disposal
within six months; and
“(3) storage of hazardous waste on or In
the land (other than by treatment referred
to In psrsgraph (2)) for longer than six
months.”.
Mr. VOLKMER (during the read-
trig). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be
sidered as read and printed In the
RicoaD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objechon
o the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, first
I would like to congratulate the com-
mittee and the gentleman from New
Jersey and the gentleman from New
York and others who have worked so
diligently on this piece of legislation
and for the directIon ft baa taken.
I also wish to commend the previous
sponsor of the amendment, the gentle-
man from Louisiana for making some
stricter requirements and strengthen-
ing the bill as far as land disposal Is
concerned. -
The amendment I am offering ap-
plies a little bit different direction
than the commiLtee and others have
taken. As you will note, under the bill,
as the way I see It, the committee
working is trying to assure that any-
thing that does go in the ground will
not contaminate the soil nor the
waters, our water supplies. That, how-
ever. after a period of years. would
permit chemicals that EPA finds that
would not still pei4nit them to be dis-
posed of in the ground, and the gentle-
man from Louisiana (Mr. Bamux) and
his amendment has strengthened the
essity for requirements for our
hills, which I wholly support, be-
se It Is necessary to make sure that
we, If we are going to hive landfills,
that we are operating them properly,
they are properly coatructed, and
that they do not provMe “ age into
the ground water supplies,
This amendment I am offering goes
ane step further and sa w that In the
event that the Administrator finds a
technologically feasible means of
treatment other than land disposal.
however it Is. on a given chemical or
hazardous wastes of any kind, then ft
must be treated in that fashion and
not disposed of In the ground.
If you take my provision and add it
to what we have done In the bill and
what the gentleman from Louisiana
has done as far as land disposal Is con-
cerned. I think you will find essenUal-
]y that we will end In the position, we
will have very little placed in our
ground that could be treated in other
fashions.
I feel we must in the future at least
go to this provision so that we do not
have our ground waters contaminated
with hazardous wastes. I think It Is
necessary to prevent In any way pond-
bin contAnhlnatlon for generations to
come In the use of our soils arid the
use of our waters so that they can be
used properly.
Therefore. I feel that this amend-
ment just adds to what the committee
is trying to do and I ask the committee
to support the amendment.
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In opposition to the amemdment.
(Mr. FLORID asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Chairman. I rise
In opposition, reluctantly, because I
know the gentleman is sincere and has
made a good faith effort to address
what be perceives as a problem, and I
think we all perceive the problem of
land-based disposal. But all I am sug-
gesting Is that the amendment the
gentleman has offered, notwithstand-
ing the sincerity of his intentions, Is a
i t of a simplistic answer to a very
complex problem that we think we
have addressed In a very thorough way
In the various amendments that have
already been passed today dealing
with section 5.
Unfortunately, the passage of this
amendment will disrupt much of what
has been done to this point and will
have the unintended consequence, I
am sure, of not enabling us to address
these problems in a thoughtful way,
So I am reluctant, but I am required,
to oppose the amendment,
Mr. Chairman, although well-inten-
tioned, It Is a complete rewrite of sec-
tIon 5, the land disposal provision. The
amendment would completely under-
mine and destroy months of very hard
work by my subcommittee and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce
to develop effective, workable legisla-
tion to restrict inappropriate land dis-
posal of hazardous waste,
Mr. V0UCMER’s amendment does not
establish clear guidance to EPA or the
regulated community. If adopted, It
will only result in confusion.
H 8151
I urge my colleagues to preserve the
substantial coesensus developed
around section 5 and to defeat this In-
appropriate attempt to overhaul this
legislation.
Mr. ECKART. Mr. Chairman. I
move to strike the requisite number of
words and rise In opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment keys
on one phrase In the first sentence In
which any exemption would be made
under the bill would only deal with
“technological feasibility.”
Despite the well-intentioned and
great motivation of the sponsor of the
amendment, the consequences of it
could be to undo. wIth one very short
sentence, everytblng that has been put
together In a very carefully crafted
way by both the committee and the
amendments of the gentlemen from
Louisiana (Mr. Bassux and Mr.
T*vzm).
Something could get an exemption
simply because It Is technologically
feasible and thus could leave open
ocean dumping, open dumping Into
streams, and open dumping into lakes.
LimitIng the test simply to technologi-
es] feasibility removes from the proc.
em the three major criteria that we
use to test for whether or riot there
should be disposal of certain toxic
wastes, The main test should not be
technological feasibthty but their tox-
icity, their mobility. and their tend-
ency to bloaccumulate.
Those three health tests, those
three health standards ought to be the
criteria by which we decide to make
these decisions, and not technolog lchl
feasibility which could encourage the
random, clear open dumping policies
that we have tried to close in previous
legislation.
I think while the motivation is cer-
tainly great, the consequences of put-
ting this one sentence In this particu-
lar section would wreak havoc on the
balance of the bill.
I submit to you it would potentially
open up greater sources of pollution
and greatly jeopardize the fresh a-ater
supplies so Important to tha Nation
and I would urge the rejection of the
amendment.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ECKART. I am happy to yield
to my friend from Missouri.
Mr. VOLlC? . In other words, as I
understand, which was not the Intent
of the sponsor of the amendment, that
the means of treatment recovery or
disposal of the land disposal, that your
feeling then Is that It would permit
ocean dumping?
Mr.. ECKART. Because the predica-
tion of the sentence Is surrounded
with the phrase ‘ technologlcally feasi-
ble” that leaves any assessment—It Is
technologically feasible to do a lot of
things, including the prospect of open
stream, open lake, and ocean dumping.
because those are not methods of land
disposal. So clearly what happens in a
cONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
-------
118152
back-door loophole Ia a whole ‘tea
that I am sure the gentleman did not
Intend.
Mr. VOT WM . There Is no Inten-
tion of doing that, and I do not believe
that it does what the gentleman says.
Mr. ECKABT. It would wreak havoc
with the section and perhaps we can
do some work with the gentleman on
It in the future. I understand that the
gentleman Is well Intentioned and weil
motivated.
Mr. LENT. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. ECKART I yield to the gentle.
man from New York.
Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman -
for yielding and I want to thank him
for his statement and support It. I
• want to join with the gentleman In op.
• posing this ban because, as the gentle-
man knows, as a member of the com-
mittee, after months of legislative con-
alderatlon, the Energy and Commerce
Committee carefully crafted these pro-
visions that are In the bill before us to
address the problem of disposing of
hazardous wastes into the ground.
SectIon 5. whIch we are now discuss-
ing. outlines a very precise schedule of
• review whereby land disposal of haz-
ardous wastes Will be banned within a
reasonable period of time unless the
Administrator makes an aflrmative de-
termination that one or more methods
of land disposal should be allowed for
certain wastes.
I feel that this method makes sense
end there Is no reason why this very
carefully thought-out plan should be
completely disregarded by passage of
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Missouri.
I can appreciate the spirit in which
the amendment Is offered but I must
regrettably rise in opposition to it.
Mr. ECKART. I thank the gentle-
man for his remarks.
Clearly we all wish that this problem
would go away ‘and we could just make
It go away with the stroke of pen. But
clearly the language proferred today is
not consistent toward that end and I
would urge Its rejection .
Mr. Rr ra zt. Mr. Chairman. I rise
In opposition to the Volkiner amend-
ment. This amendment would ban all
placement of hazardous waste Into the
ground U such waste may be “effec-
tively disposed of through Inciner-
etion. recycling, or any other method.’
I oppose this amendment for a
number of reasons, which I will dis-
cuss, but they, are all related to one
Issue: The Subcommittee on Com-
merce. Transportation, and Tourism
of the Energy and Commerce Commit-
tee, on which I serve, literally spent
weeks formulating the phased-tn land
disposal ban contained in sectIon 5 of
HR. 2887. The Volkmer amendment
would wipe out all of this work with
one ffladvlsed, ‘Inadequate provision.
Looking at my specific objections,
first. I do not know what it means If
wastes can be “effectively disposed of”
by Incineration or recycling. Does that
mean that any waste that can, techni-
tONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
cally. be Incinerated will be required to
be, regardless of cost or availability of
Incineration capacity? This certainly
makes no sense. What U the nearest
facility Is 1,000 mIles from the gener-
ator? Or 2,000 miles? This amendment
does not address this problem. What If
a certain method of land disposal is ac-
tually the preferred disposal tech-
nique for a certain waste? Again, the
amendment contains no flexibility to
address this situation.
Second. what about the cost of alter-
native disposal? Should there be any
concern whether shipping the waste
the l,000io 2,000 miles will put a com-
pany out of business? What if It Is
simply not feasible to go to an alterna-
tive disposal method? This problem Is
not addressed by the amendment.
Third, what does “or any other
method” of alternative disposal mean?
Does this ‘other method” have to
have been commercially demonstrated,
or can it be one that someone merely
claims will work? Who determines the
state of the art In alternative disposal?
The Adnilnietrator? The disposal In-
dustry? The generator? The amend-
ment does not address this problem.
Section 5 of H.R 2887 is the result
of a well-thought out, bipartisan
agreement reached by the subcommit-
tee. It contains many of the safe-
guards which are missing from the
Volkiner amendment Under section 5.
several wastes are listed for which
land disposal will be banned In 12
months. Others are Identified for
which land disposal will be banned on
a staggered schedule, with all bans
being effective no later than 54
months. In each Instance, however.
the Administrator may determine that
the prohibition of one or more meth-
ods of land disposal for a certain waste
Is not necessary to protect human
health and the environment. Congress
should not absolutely declare that all
hazardous wastes are unfit for any
form of land disposal. The expert
agency must have the flexibility to de-
termine if some methods are safe.
A further safeguard is provided by
sectIon 5 In the case of alternative Ca-
pacity. What if there is no inciner-
ation or other alternative disposal
method reasonably available or feasi-
ble to use? SectIon 5 recognizes this
possibility and allows the AdmiTlistra.
tor to grant up to a 42-month reprieve
from a land disposal ban for lack of al-
ternative capacity.
As my colleagues can see, It makes
absolutely no sense to substitute the
phased-in land disposal prohibiton of
SeCtion 5 wIth the rigid, vague, ill-ad-
vised approach contained In the
Volkmer amendment.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this
amemdrnent.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Missouri (Mr. Vouiatza).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to sectIon 5?
October 6’, 1982
If not, the Clerk will designate see-
Ucu 6.
The text of section 6 Is as follows:
$ 5 50 ai m asLmzpo rOR zazacy Rscovsa
Sac. 6(a) Novca—(I) Section 3010 is
amended by Inserting the following after
the first sentence thereof: ‘Not later than
twelve months after the date of the enact-
ment 6f this sentence—
“(1) the owner or operator of any facility
which produces a fuel (A) from any hazard-
ous waste Identified or listed under section
3001. (B) from such hazardous waste identi.
fled or listed under section 300 1 and any
other material. (C) from used oil, or CD)
from used oil and any other aatcrtal
“(2) the owner or operator of any facility
which burns for purposes of energy recov-
ery any fuel produced as provided In put.
graph (1.) or any fuel which otherwise con-
tabs used oil or any hazardous waste identi-
fied or listed under sectIon 3001; and
“(3) any person who distributes or mar-
kets any fuel which is produced as provided
In paragraph (1) or any, fuel which other-
wise contains used oil or any, hazardous
waste Identified or listed under section 3001;
shall file with the Administrator (and the
State in the ease of a State with an author-
fred hazardous wast. program) a notifica-
tion stating the location and general de-
scription of the facility, together with a de-
acription of the Identified or listed hazard-
ous waste Involved and. In the ease of a (a-
dilly referred to In paragraph (1) or (2), a
description of the production or energy re-
covery activity carried out at the facility
and such other Information as the Adminis-
trator deems necessary. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, the term ‘hazardous
waste listed under section 3001’ also In-
cludes any commercial chemical product
which is listed under sectIon 3001 and
which. In lieu of Its original intended use. Is
(I) produced for use as (or as a component.
of) a fuel, (U) distributed for use as a fuel,
or (Ill) burned as a fuel. Not more than one
notification shall be required under this
subsection In the case 61 a facility which
burns for purposes of energy recovery any
fuel which Is generated at the site of such
facility unless the burning practices to
which such notice applies changes following
such notification, Notification shall not be
required under this subsection in the case of
facWties (such as residential boilers) there
the Administrator determines that such no-
tification is not necessary In order for the
Administrator to obtain sufficient Informa-
lion respecting current practices of facilities
using hazardous waste for energy recovery.
Nothing In thIs subsection shall be con-
strued to affect or Impair the provisions of
section 300lCb)(3). Nothing In this subsec-
tion shall affect regulatory determinations
under sectIon 3012 (as amended by the Used
Oil Recycling Act of 1080).”.
(2) SectIon 3010 Is amended by striking
Out “the preceding sentenc&’ and substitut-
ing “the precedmg provisions”.
(b) Smimiuws —(1) SectIon 3004 is amend.
ed by adding the following at the end there.
of:
‘(g) HALaRDous Warts Usm as Fun..—Not
later than two years after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, and after
notice and opportunity for public hearing.
the Administrator shall promulgate regula.
lions establishing such—
“(1) standards applicable to the owners
and operators of fcililles which produce a
fuel (A) from any hazardous waste Identi-
fied or listed under sectIon 3001, or (B) from
any hazardous waste identifed or listed
under section 3001 and any other material.
-------
7óuember.T 2933
out] fsetors could esese thC waste te be a
‘.srdous waste. The Administrator sMU
ilde notice and opportunity for comment
these additional tM i before vanung
denying such peUtlon.
‘(21 Paragraph (1) shall apply to petitions
filed before, on, or alter the dale of the en-
actment of this w uon. In the mm of
petitions submitted at ter, such date of enact
mont. the AdminIstrator shall make a fisal
decision on each such petition within twelve
months after auth date of enactinenL In the
ease of petitions submitted before such date
of entetinent, the Administrator shall make
a final decision on each such peLu.ion within
eighteen months after granting a tempowy
exclusion from egulation for such waste. In
the case of any waste for which a petition
has been submitted under this section, no
temporary exclusion may be granted from
Iistln under this section unless thcre has
been notice and oppcrtunft i ’ for comment
prior to the Iasua of such temporary ei-
clusion. ”.
Mr. FLORIO (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous con-
sent that section 13 be considered as
read and printed in the Rrcoan.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection. -
i t7rfli IT O,mi ST ax
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Chairman. I offer
an amendment. . -.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment of I esed by Mr. Bxzani Page
IA after line 19 Inseit
BATAt000S m im - .
c. 13A. Section 3005(hX3). as added by
don 5 of this Act. th amended by Insert-
...,j the following Immediately alter subpar-
agraph (B) thereof: For the purpose of
making any demonstration under subpara-
graph (B. the term basurdoim constituent’
does not Include those’ hazardous constitu-
ents which the owner or operator demon-
strates to the satisfaction of the Adminis-
litter and the Administrator determines at
the thee of permitting wW not migrate Into
groimd or surface water in concentrations
which may adversely affeec human health
or the ens,jonmtttt. ”.
Make the necemazy formIng ebangas
b the table of conte . -
(Mr. BREAUX asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BREAIJX. Mr. Chalnnan. I have
discussed my amendment with both
the chairman of the subcommittee and
also the ranking minonty member.
The amendment Is simple, In that It
is a clarifying amendment As Mem-
bers may remember the last time we
were at this secti on. I offered an
amendment which was adopted by a
voice vote which dealt with surface im-
poundments. My amendment simply
said that all surface Impoundments.
that have an lntenm permit, that
‘when they ‘went to EPA to get their
final permit, that they had to be retro-
fitted, and retrofitting would require
at these surface impoundments be
ible4ined and also have monitoring
s to monitor what was In the stir-
e impoundments.
Mr. }tQRIO. I . Chsh man. wili
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAIJX. I yield to the gent le-
man from New Jersey.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
Mr. FLO}UO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding. - - —
Mr. Chairman. I support the amend-
ment of fermi by the gentl t hors
Louisiana. -
This amendment clarifies which con-
stituents are of concern in. a permit
proceeding where the.owner or opera-
tor seeks to avoid the retrofit require-
ment on the basis of no migration of
hazardous constituents Into ground or
urlsee water. The amendment menmis
the migration of concern Is related to
those constituents which may adverse-
ly affect human health and the envi-
ronment. The term “may’ Is Intention-
ally chosen to avoid the neressity of
quantifying precise effects. The poten-
tisI or actual presence of constituents
in certain eoncentmtlous in round or
surface water ‘would be sufficient for
the Administrator to conclude an ad-
verse effect may occur.
The full burden of demonstrating
the concentrations of waste which Is
migrating—or will migrate in the
future—Is on the owner or operator at
the time of permitting. Simllarjy. the
Sufl burden of proving no adver e
human health or envlrozunental effect
Is on the owner or operator. Thus. scI-
entific uncertainties are to be resolved
against the attempt to demonstrate no
adverse effect on human health and
the ezwlroninent - -
.1 urge my colleagues to adopt this
amendment - -
Mr. BROTILILL. Mr. Chaninan. will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BREAtYX. I yield to the gentle-
man from North Carolina.
Mr. BROYILILL. thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there has been con-
siderable consultation on this amend-
ment, and we ‘will agree ‘with the
amendment as presented.
Mr. BR.EAUX. I thank both sides for
agreeing to the amendment.
As I said. It is basically a clarifying
amendment which tends to track what
I Indicated in my initial words on the
floor as to what my first amendment
was Intended to do. This clarifies it.
and I think the language Is an appro-
pilate matter, and I urge adoption of
the amendment. -
The ChAIRMAN pro tempore. The
question Is on the axnendment offered
by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Bazaux).
‘The smnendmnent was agiwed to.
Mr. RODUJO. Mr. Chairman, the
Committee on the Judiciary also ap-
proved an amendment of a technical
nature to an Energy and Commerce
Committee amendment to section
3008(d) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act. The purpose of the Judiciary
Committee’s amendment is to make it
clear that there Is no congressional in-
tention to change the culpability re-
quirement of present law. -
Section 3008(dX21 presently makes ft
a criminal offense “knowingly” to
beat, stoie, or dispose of hazardous
waste th biowing violation” of any
material condition of’ a permit issued
‘H 9155
smde sectIon 3005 or 3006 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act or under title I of
the Marine Protection and Sanctuaries
Let ‘The Energy and C ierve Com-
mittee amendment revises section
3008(d)(2) and, in so doing, does not
r ’ forward the phrase “in knowing
violation..”
Prom a. drafting standpoint, that
phrase Is redundant. U this legislation
were the Initial enactment of section
3008dX2), there would be no harm in
dropping the phrase, for the use of the
term “tIlowingI” at the gi ’g of
section 30( ld.2) would modify all
that fo1lo’a , so that any violation of a
material condlt on would have to be
done knowingly. However, in the
present situation, where there is al-
ieady language on the books, the
dropping of the phrase might be seen
by sonic as an expression of congres-
sional intent to change present law.
Those who see it that way would
argue that there must have been a.
purpose behind dropping the phrase.
Since the Energy and Commerce Com-
mittee’s report does not indicate what
that purpose Is, they would be able to
argue that the purpose was to change
the culpability requirement of section
3008(d)(2). If their argument were ac-
cepted, the result could be a substan-
tial change from present law, for there
could be the imposition of strict crüni-
nal liability. Whether there would be
strict criminal liability In any particu-
lar instance would depend upon how
the condition was drafted.
The Judiciary Committee amend-
ment restores the phrase “in knowing
violation” to section 3008dX21. The
use of this phrase from present law
will insure that the culpability pi-ovi-
sions of current law are carried for-
ward unchanged.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
Clerk will reaL
The Clerk read as follows:
aseoveay ars rs.rsc or oum on,
&c, It Section 3012 (relatIng to restric-
tions on recycled oil) Is amended by striking
out the period at the end thereof arid substi-
tuting “. consistent with the protection of
human health and the envlronmenL”.
The CHAIRMAN pro tenipore. Are
there any amendments to section 14’
IfnoLtheC lerkwlUread,
The Clerk read as follows:
graTe apraoanensw
Sec. 15 Section 3006b1 snien ed ,
adding the following at the end thereof. “En
authorizing a State program, the Adnunis-
*Jat.or may base his findings on the Fedemi
program In effect one year prior to subnus-
sin of a State’s application or In of feet en
Jamfary 26. 1983. whichever Is later?’.
Mr. FLORIO (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman. I ask unamurnous con-
sent that section 15 be considered as
read, printed In the RKcoRzi and open
to amendment at mi7 point
The CHAIRMAN pro teanpore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
These waz j lo”
-------