104th
Congress: Democratic Perspectives 103rd-107th
Congress Committee Activity We can all support the goal of eliminating unnecessary or duplicative environmental regulations, provided the remaining regulations are sufficient to protect public health and the environment. H.R. 2036 would exempt surface impoundments managing hazardous waste from regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) without first assuring that other environmental regulations are sufficient to do the job.
Currently, there are no federal regulations at all that address risks to groundwater from the surface impoundments exempted from RCRA regulation by this legislation. In many instances these impoundments are nothing more than unlined, unmonitored pits. While releases to surface water from these impoundments are covered by the Clean Water Act, leaks to groundwater from impoundments are entirely beyond the scope of the Clean Water Act.
Despite EPA's belief that this is a low-risk situation, their preliminary analysis of the available data tells a very different story. Specifically, EPA found `potentially significant health risks' for several industrial sectors. In one particular industrial sector, half of EPA's wastewater samples would pose cancer risks in the 1-in-1,000 to 1-in-100,000 risk range if they leaked from a surface impoundment. Similarly, in another sector, 40% of the wastewater samples posed cancer risks of this magnitude. EPA has never satisfactorily explained the substantial disparity between these data and its conclusion that this is a low priority problem.
We are aware that EPA regards the current data as limited in scope and potentially outdated. We do not oppose providing the agency with a reasonable period of time to collect and assess additional data. However, we believe that the five year period adopted by the Committee is unreasonably long. Based upon our discussions with EPA officials, it is not clear why the Agency could not complete this task within three years. Clearly, EPA already possesses the rudimentary data and analytical framework necessary to undertake this study. EPA now simply needs to obtain updated readings--data that should already be in industry's possession--and revise its existing analysis accordingly. No new models are needed. Accordingly EPA should be able to meet a three year deadline without having to turn the study into a rushed project that interferes with other EPA priorities.
At the very least, it should be made clear to the Agency that the five year period described in the bill extends no further than five years from the date of enactment of the legislation. Given EPA's support for the study enumerated in this legislation, the Agency should begin its study immediately and complete its investigations as soon as possible.
As part of its investigations, EPA should also determine whether the releases of hazardous constituents from any of these surface impoundments into the air or groundwater or discharge from these impoundments poses a threat to public health and the environment sufficient to warrant additional regulation under RCRA or other environmental laws.
In addition to moving swiftly forward to investigate potential risks, we believe that the Agency should finally decide, on the weight on this scientific study, whether or not to proceed with new regulation of any of these surface impoundments. It is troubling that the bill's proponents, who assume that these impoundments do not present a significant risk, lack the courage of their convictions. Why shouldn't EPA have to inform the public, and Congress, of the conclusions it draws from the study? And, if risks are found, why shouldn't there be a time frame for addressing them? If industry and EPA are correct and there are no such risks, then they should be indifferent to whether there is a deadline for final rules, since such rules will be shown to be unnecessary.
In truth, no one knows for certain whether surface impoundments pose a danger. The only way anyone will know the answer is if the Agency is directed to perform the study proposed in this legislation in a timely fashion and then make a determination based on its findings. It is imperative that the Agency expeditiously reach a sound conclusion based on the weight of the scientific evidence and not conjecture. Are these surface impoundments a danger that require regulation: yes or no?
In short, we believe that the amendment offered by Mr. Pallone would have greatly strengthened this bill by requiring EPA to reach a decision within three years. Without its inclusion, the legislation lacks not only a reasonable time period for EPA to complete its study, but also a sensible requirement that EPA reach a decision to act--or not act--based upon any risks identified in the study. We, therefore, find the bill to be unacceptable in its current form.
EDWARD J. MARKEY.
RON WYDEN.
FRANK PALLONE, JR.
ELIZABETH FURSE.
BOBBY L. RUSH.
104th
Congress: Democratic Perspectives
103rd-107th
Congress Committee Activity