2.04 Solid and Hazardous Waste

A. Problems

The disposal of wastes and the conservation of resources are two of the most challenging problems to be solved by this nation. With almost half of our cities running out of current disposal capacity in the next two to three years, America's urban areas face an immediate disposal crisis.

Additionally, the improper disposal of hazardous waste and the spills of chemicals, oils, and other hazardous substances as the result of highway, rail and waterway accidents are national problems which can endanger public health and pollute our nation's air, water and land resources. A solution to the hazardous waste and materials problem will require the cooperation of federal, state and local governments as well as the hazardous waste generating industries and materials transporting industries.

B. Goals

The crisis of solid waste management must be solved through an aggressive program of source reduction, volume reduction, resource recovery, and ultimate disposal all of which must be compatible with the environment.

A national hazardous wastes and materials management strategy must be developed in order to protect human health and the environment. The strategy should encompass the entire life of the waste and material, from reproduction to transportation and temporary storage to final disposition.

C. National Solid Waste Policy

A national policy for solid waste management should take an integrated approach to effectively mix and match management options to best meet local needs.

To assist city officials' efforts to effectively address this crisis, the federal government must support the following management options.

1. Source Reduction

The federal government should support public education programs to enhance a better understanding of the crisis and to promote public participation in options to reduce the volume of solid waste. Federal packaging standards to limit excess packaging or to require reuse of packaging should be established for manufacturers, distributors and retailers to achieve maximum feasible reduction. Congress should enact legislation which will identify and remove from the waste stream packaging and products which are toxic and not recyclable. Federal regulations should require that all new disposable products and all "advertising mail" be non-toxic, and recyclable. Federal resources should support research and development on packaging materials, biodegradability and techniques to minimize solid waste.

2. Recycling

While municipalities strongly support recycling initiatives, we oppose the imposition of mandatory percent recycling requirements or the imposition of mandatory diversion rates on local governments by the federal government unless there are federal minimum content standards. National recycling goals must take into account economic and regional market variations. To facilitate local recycling programs and attainment of national recycling goals, Congress should define municipal solid waste assuring recognition of the different types of waste, i.e., residential, commercial and industrial.

Congress must recognize that municipal recycling programs will not succeed without well-developed, long-term stable markets. Commodities such as batteries, tires, beverage containers and newspapers represent either significant disposal problems or are uniquely amenable to recycling. NLC supports federal requirements for mandatory deposits on batteries, tires and beverage containers as well as minimum recycled content requirements for such items such as newsprint, glass and plastic.

Federal funding should support research and development and pilot programs to assist localities in the demonstration of new recycling techniques. In addition, federal and state governments should provide tax incentives and technical assistance in order to identify and develop both domestic and international markets for recycled materials, as well as encourage the use of recycled and recyclable materials. To assure a level playing field, the federal and state governments should insure that unfair and inappropriate tax incentives for the use of virgin materials are eliminated and favorable tax policies for recycling processing centers must be restored.

The federal government must initiate and implement a recycling and reuse program for all federal agencies and government contractors as well as procurement policies requiring agencies, their contractors and subcontractors, to purchase recycled goods.

 3. Environmental Labeling

NLC supports development of a national program to assure that environmental labels are based on a set of clear and verifiable definitions and standards.

4. Resource Recovery

Federal legislation and regulatory action must address environmental concerns about resource recovery and the disposal of incinerator ash.

Specifically, the federal government must provide that the term of permits for new incinerators be for an adequate duration, or at least 20 years with periodic monitoring to ensure compliance with permit conditions. EPA should promptly promulgate regulations for municipal incinerators under the Clean Air Act, including new source performance standards under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act. In addition, retrofitting should be limited to significant pollution problems unknown at the time the permit was issued, and should be determined on a site specific basis as provided in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. Reasonable time frames for retrofitting should be established and emission control requirements should be established which are achievable given the diverse nature of the municipal solid waste stream. The federal government must restore favorable tax policies for the financing of resource recovery facilities and support the avoided costs mandate of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). The federal government should also assist in the development of appropriate sitting criteria and develop training and certification programs for operators of municipal incinerators. The federal government should exempt resource recovery facilities from any construction ban under the Clean Air Act. Federal regulations should establish reasonable emissions monitoring requirements.

5. Incinerator Ash

The federal government should designate incinerator ash as a "special" waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and establish new and appropriate testing and treatment requirements. No federal law or regulation which presumes that ash from resource recovery plants is toxic should be adopted or become effective unless and until Congress and EPA have scientific evidence of such toxicity. Federal regulations should provide for flexibility in disposal practices for ash which passes the new test or which is treated in accordance with new federal regulations. The federal government should also establish minimum design criteria for ash monofills, which protect human health and the environment, for disposal of ash which is not treated or tested or which fails toxicity or other applicable tests. Federal legislation is needed to support and encourage the beneficial use of ash which has inherent characteristics for its utilization through recycling and materials recovery, once appropriate scientific testing has been completed.

6. Landfills

The federal government must restore favorable tax policies for financing landfills. The federal government should also assist in the development of appropriate sitting criteria and provide assistance to local governments in developing community outreach programs to explain the necessity for landfills.

New federal or state mandates reclassifying specific segments of waste retroactively, thus requiring new and more costly disposal methods and/or retrofitting of existing and closed disposal facilities, must be accompanied by financing to comply with these new requirements.

7. Waste Flow Control

Recent federal court decisions have ignored the long recognized responsibility of local government to protect the public welfare by managing municipal solid waste within their boundaries by finding local flow control ordinances to be an unconstitutional restraint on interstate commerce. The legal status of waste flow control must be settled by Congress to assure that local governments can lawfully and effectively finance and implement municipal solid waste management plans.

Congress should specifically authorize local governments to direct or otherwise regulate the movement of municipal solid waste generated within or imported into their boundaries. In addition, Congress must uphold local authority to designate the facilities at which municipal solid waste will be managed.

To achieve this objective Congress should adopt legislation declaring such local action, if consistent with state approved solid waste management plans, is not an unlawful interference with or an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

8. Interstate Transport of Municipal Solid Waste

Congress should authorize states that develop approvable comprehensive solid waste management plans, which include long-term capacity assurance for disposal of waste generated in-state, to restrict out-of-state use of their facilities unless there is planned capacity for out-of-state wastes. Municipal or Regional authorities within states with approved plans must have the right to accept or reject solid waste from out-of-state. Congress should also authorize the imposition of phased-in differential, i.e., higher, disposal fees which must be equal for out-of-state solid waste at facilities in states with approved plans.

Municipalities accepting out-of-jurisdiction waste shall be authorized to impose their standards on the importing jurisdiction. These standards must be accepted whether residential/commercial or industrial.

States that fail to develop comprehensive plans should be subject to fines and penalties, but must also be precluded from passing such costs back to municipalities. In addition to fines and penalties, the federal government shall assess the state the excess cost of trash disposal to all the affected municipalities within the state for redistribution to these effected communities.

9. Backhauling

Congress should prohibit the hauling of solid and/or hazardous waste in vehicles used for the transportation of food.

D. Nuclear Waste Management Policies

1. Local Participation in Site Selection

Federal policy related to nuclear waste disposal should be amended to give local governments authority to directly participate in the site selection process for high level nuclear waste repositories. Further, sufficient technical assistance funding from the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund should be provided to localities to enable them to conduct technical studies of potential repository sites, to provide technical comments on federal siting-related documents, and to monitor the site selection process.

2. High Level Nuclear Waste Storage

Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 to codify the responsibility of the Department of Energy to provide for the safe and timely acceptance of commercially-generated spent nuclear fuel by 1998, in exchange for payments by electric utility ratepayers into the Federal Nuclear Waste Fund. Since 1983, $10 billion has been committed into the fund, and the federal government is still not prepared to live up to Congress' directive to accept spent nuclear fuel.

Since the Department of Energy believes the earliest date for the operation of a permanent geologic repository is the year 2010, it is imperative that the federal government fulfill its obligation to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel. Congress should adopt legislation to establish an integrated spent nuclear fuel management program to: i. Construct and operate a safe national interim spent fuel storage facility capable of allowing the DOE to begin accepting spent fuel in 1998, or as soon thereafter as possible;

ii. Develop multipurpose canisters for transportation, storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel;

iii. Construct and operate a safe, permanent geologic disposal facility; and

iv. Create a federal budget mechanism to allow the Nuclear Waste Fund to be used for the purpose for which the funds were contractually paid for by users of nuclear generated electricity. 3. Cask Testing

Full scale testing of any prototype containers and equipment used for the transportation of high level radioactive waste should be required by the federal government.

4. Routing

Local governments should be consulted in the designation of routes for the transportation of high level radioactive waste and spent fuel through their jurisdictions. Where state governments seek the designation of alternative routing to the Interstate system, they should be required by federal law to create a review and comment process that provides affected local jurisdictions with the opportunity to participate in the alternative routing decision.

Guidelines for the routing of high level radioactive waste, such as are contained in HM-164 for truck transportation, should also be established for the movement of such waste by all modes of transportation. The guidelines should include requirements that local governments be consulted in the designation of routes through their jurisdictions.

5. Notification

The federal government should be required to give general, not shipment by shipment, notification to affected local governments of the routes used and approximate frequency of shipments of high level radioactive waste through their jurisdictions. Cities receiving routing information from the federal government must treat such information with the confidentiality necessary to protect national security and eliminate any risk to the public health and safety from disclosure of such information.

6. Inspection and Enforcement

Inspection of vehicles carrying high level radioactive wastes and enforcement of high level radioactive waste regulations should continue to be the primary responsibility of state governments. However, local governments should be allowed to assist in enforcement efforts where they have the capacity and resources to do so.

7. Emergency Response

Prevention is a major key to avoiding the need for emergency response. NLC's position on emergency response is contained in Section 6.05, "Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Response" of the Public Safety and Crime Prevention Chapter and Section 5.02, H "Transportation of hazardous Materials" of the Transportation and Communications Chapter.

8. Liability

The total financial pool which provides compensation for losses in case of a nuclear accident must be increased by raising the ceiling on each nuclear power plant's liability. Furthermore, Congress should guarantee that compensation will be provided by the federal government if costs to victims exceed the available financial pool. Compensation for losses resulting from accidents at nuclear waste repositories and those involving the transportation of nuclear waste should be provided in a manner similar to compensation for losses at nuclear power generation facilities. Furthermore, state and local governments should be compensated for the costs which they incur in preparing for and responding to a nuclear accident.

In order to encourage state and local participation in emergency response efforts, and to minimize the potential for lawsuits against these governments, state and local governmental liability should, under the Price-Anderson Act, be explicitly waived in the event of a nuclear accident.

Further, Congress should give consideration to amending the Price-Anderson Act so as to create a federal tort system for nuclear accidents. This approach would allow a victim to recover for damages without having to prove that the defendant (the nuclear power plant, waste repository, waste transporter, etc.) was responsible for causing the damage. In the short-term, state governments should review and revise state tort law to make the laws more uniform and provide better coverage for any potential claim resulting from a high level waste accident.

9. Federal Compliance

Federal facilities should continue to comply with federal and state environmental, health and safety laws and should be subject to their enforcement provisions.

E. Hazardous Waste Management Policies

1. Landfill Regulations

The federal government should provide state and local governments with financial and technical assistance to evaluate potential new sites for hazardous waste disposal facilities.

Hazardous waste landfill regulations should be a combination of technology based design and operating standards and should include minimum landfill location standards.

Class 4 injection wells, if found to pose a potential human health or environmental threat, should be banned.

EPA should require liners and leachate collection systems for existing hazardous waste land disposal facilities, with exemptions granted in those cases found not to pose a threat to human health or the environment, or where alternatives for preventing groundwater contamination can be demonstrated by the facility.

The federal government should also develop and implement techniques for assuring local governments that prompt and responsible emergency and long term action will be taken to protect public health and the environment in the case of spills or leakage at newly sited disposal facilities and in the transportation of hazardous materials to and from newly sited facilities.

2. Reporting Requirements

All record keeping by generators, handlers, and disposers of hazardous wastes should be publicly available to local officials and to the press, as long as trade secrets are not compromised.

The currently required annual report and quarterly groundwater reports should be replaced by an appropriate annual survey of the hazardous waste generators, handlers, and disposers involved. The Groundwater Assessment outline requirement should be retained.

3. Incinerator and Impoundment Requirements

EPA should retain existing incinerator and impoundment rules and enforce them. EPA should begin final permitting as soon as possible.

Incinerators whose primary purpose is the "beneficial recovery of heat" should not be exempt from RCRA regulations. Additionally, facilities which burn or blend hazardous materials for fuel or energy recovery purposes should be required to report these activities to EPA and authorized states. These facilities should also be required to label such fuel as containing hazardous wastes before marketing and distributing the fuel product.

EPA has proposed to incinerate hazardous wastes at sea. There are many unanswered questions relating to the impact of such incineration upon the marine environment and ecological systems. NLC opposes the incineration of hazardous materials at sea until it is demonstrated through a pilot project that the safety and efficiency of this method causes less harm to human health and the environment than other practical alternative means of disposal.

4. Kilns, Boilers and Industrial Furnaces

Increasingly, it is becoming a practice for operators of boilers and industrial furnaces, especially kilns, to burn liquid hazardous waste as fuel.

In order for these facilities to continue such practices, they must first obtain a use change permit to assure they are sited appropriately and in an environmentally protective manner to proceed with the burning of hazardous waste. Second, any facility burning hazardous waste must be a permitted facility in full compliance with both federal air emission control standards and monitoring requirements for the incineration of hazardous waste and with the requirements of Subtitle C (hazardous waste) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In addition, operators of facilities using hazardous waste as a fuel must be trained and certified to insure proper operation of the facility.

5. Permit Requirements

All major expansions or additions to existing hazardous waste facilities should be treated as "new" facilities for permitting purposes. Once permitted, they should be allowed to expand according to their final permit requirements.

EPA issued permits should be effective for a fixed term.

EPA should propose a modified permit procedure for those facility modifications that the regional EPA Administrator deems to be minor. The modified permit procedure should not, however, eliminate notice to local officials and the public, and if sufficient interest is generated, the modification should go through normal permit procedures.

6. Small Generator Exemption

Congress has enacted legislation which would substantially reduce the existing exemption for small generators of hazardous waste from the level of 1000 kilograms of waste per month. EPA should develop and promulgate regulations governing the hazardous waste management practices of small generators as soon after enactment as possible.

EPA should require small quantity generators who ship their wastes off-site to: obtain an EPA identification number; fill out the EPA Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest in its entirety; provide the transporter and disposal facility with multiple copies of the manifest, one of which is returned to the generator; keep copies of the manifest for three years and make exception reports when a manifested waste fails to reach a designated facility; and offer their wastes only to permitted transporters.

For on-site storage, treatment and disposal, EPA should permit small quantity generators to store up to 6,000 kilograms of hazardous waste for 180 days (270 days if the wastes are to be shipped by a distance greater than 200 miles); satisfy facility preparedness and accident prevention requirements; and comply with on-site storage requirements for tanks and containers. Small quantity generators who store their tanks on site for longer than 180/270 days should not be required to obtain an EPA permit, nor should small quantity generators be required to demonstrate the need for shipment to facilities further than 200 miles.

EPA should establish an immediate and comprehensive public education program to inform small quantity generators of hazardous wastes, including local governments of their responsibilities for managing those wastes under the law. EPA should work with NLC, other public interest groups, and other trade associations to disseminate information about the regulations as quickly as possible.

7. Underground Injection

Underground injection of hazardous wastes into or above an aquifer which is a potential source of drinking water should be prohibited.

8. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Congress has enacted legislation which would regulate the storage of petroleum and chemical products in underground tanks. EPA should expeditiously promulgate guidelines or regulations governing such areas as: leak detection, cleanup of spills, financial responsibility, and performance standards for new tanks.

EPA should establish a public education program to inform owners and/or operators of underground storage tanks, including governments, of responsibilities for identifying underground tanks, for replacing leaking tanks, for cleaning up any leaks or spills, and for properly installing new tanks. EPA should work with NLC, other public interest groups and other trade associations to disseminate information about the underground tanks regulations as soon after promulgation as possible.

9. Research

The federal government should expand its research and development program in hazardous waste and materials management to: a. develop industrial process modifications and raw materials substitution in order to reduce hazardous waste generation;

b. develop processes to recover resources from hazardous wastes and materials and improve existing treatment, long-term storage and disposal techniques; and

c. prepare a comprehensive evaluation of the role of federal, state and local governments in the prevention of hazardous materials accidents. The study should identify the mechanisms for integrating existing governmental programs and activities into a single, integrated national prevention program. A national clearinghouse for hazardous waste and materials information should be established as a repository for research results.

 10. Insurance

Congress should assure that owners and operators of hazardous waste disposal facilities permitted under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act are financially insured to provide for the safe operation and closure of those facilities as well as any emergency response and liability that may occur as a result of a leak or spill.

11. Closure of Facilities

Upon the opening of a new hazardous waste or materials disposal facility permitted by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the federal government should require that a covenant restrict the use of each site for a period of 20 years after closure. Further, the covenant should require all future owners of each property to take the property subject to such restrictions including the continued, regular monitoring, inspection, and maintenance of the property as well as responsibility for any remedial action that may be necessary due to the hazardous wastes or materials disposed on such property.

12. Brownfields

Brownfields are abandoned or defunct industrial and commercial sites. In many of the nation's cities brownfields are, because of past practices, frequently impaired by environmental contamination. In many instances these areas - but for their environmental condition -- have the potential to contribute to the economic revitalization of the area or the city of which they are a part.

The National League of Cities calls on the federal government to develop a program of economic revitalization and environmental restoration in coordination with states and local governments to assure that these currently unused resources can again serve a viable economic purpose, while ensuring that the public's health is protected.

Congress should enact legislation addressing and resolving the disincentives created by potential liability to facilitate reuse of those properties. Such legislation should provide for a waiver or a definitive limitation or elimination of liability for non-contributing current or future owners, developers, lenders, operators and tenants of previously contaminated sites which have been certified as "clean". In addition, Congress should provide financial assistance for environmental cleanup of these areas. Cleanup standards for these areas should be based on the level and type of contamination and the purposes for which the area is intended to be reused, as outlined in the local land use plan.

NLC's concerns about the economic impact of brownfields are contained in Section 3.01 of the Community and Economic Development chapter. Municipal Liability is addressed in Section 1.05 of the Finance, Administration, and Intergovernmental Relations chapter.

13. Federal Facility/Site Conversion

With the downsizing of the nation's military structure and its conversion to civilian use, NLC believes Congress and the administration should adopt the following environmental cleanup policies: a. standards sufficiently stringent to permit reuse of the facility or site in accordance with locally generated land use plans and to obviate the need for additional cleanup costs by the affected local governments or the private sector. Cleanup standards for these areas should be based on the level and type of contamination and the purposes for which the area is intended to be reused;

b. ensuring the active involvement of local government officials in all phases of the environmental cleanup, including site evaluation and selection and implementation of cleanup remedies;

c. allowing parcelization of federal facilities or sites, where feasible, to permit prompt redevelopment of uncontaminated portions of the property;

4. coordination of timetables for environmental impact statement, parcelization, and prioritization with civilian reuse plans; and

5. provide full and timely funding and appropriation for the cleanup of federally owned or operated contaminated facilities and sites.

1. Superfund Trust Fund

Congress should reauthorize the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (also known as Superfund) for at least five years so that existing hazardous waste disposal sites can continue to be identified, evaluated and controlled. Congress should increase the size of the Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund which supports the Superfund program to one that is $9 to $12 billion so that it will be adequate to clean up the sites already on the National Priority List (NPL) as well as any additional sites added to the list. Trust Fund revenues should be derived from the following sources: by doubling the fees imposed on feedstocks used in the production of hazardous materials and used by hazardous waste generating industries or importers of hazardous materials; by eliminating some of the current exemptions from the fee; by levying feedstock fees on some of the new chemicals deemed by EPA to be hazardous; by establishing a broad based tax (such as an ad valorem tax, an excise tax, or corporate surcharge); and by maintaining the current contribution of general revenue to the Trust Fund.

2. Standards and Deadlines

EPA, the states, and responsible parties have been hampered in site cleanup decisions by the lack of site cleanup standards. To rectify this problem, the federal government should mandate that Superfund sites be cleaned up to standards sufficiently stringent to permit reuse of the facility or site in accordance with locally generated land use plans and to obviate the need for additional cleanup costs by the affected local governments or the private sector.

In order to ensure expeditious cleanup of Superfund sites, Congress should statutorily establish timetables for cleanup of sites already on the National Priority List and separate deadlines for the identification, evaluation and cleanup of new sites added to the NPL.

The EPA and other federal agencies involved in hazardous waste site cleanup should increase their economic and administrative commitments to the problem, and make better and more rapid use of the money already available for cleanup. NLC should work with appropriate federal agencies to support improved hazardous waste cleanup.

3. State and Local Roles in Superfund

The Superfund program can be made more efficient if states and localities are given greater decision-making responsibilities under the program than they have currently. States and localities should have the option to assume full responsibility for planning and implementing Superfund response actions. Such responsibilities should include undertaking preliminary assessments, remedial investigations, feasibility studies, preliminary engineering, selecting contractors, performing removal, remedial and cost recovery actions.

Furthermore, local and state governments that are engaged in Superfund site cleanup should be exempted from oversight cost responsibilities to the EPA. Such costs are more properly borne by those parties who are liable at a site but have chosen not to participate in remediation.

In order to further the efficiencies and increased effectiveness attainable through local management of site remediation efforts, CERCLA should require that EPA enter into agreements with local governments that give lead responsibility for site remediation and for cost recovery and other enforcement activities to qualified and willing local governments. Such agreements should recognize the local government's unique qualifications to effectively administer longer term land use restrictions and other institutional controls.

Furthermore, the definition of the term "state" in the Act should be amended to include local governments. Superfund affords the federal government, states and Indian tribes a special status in remediation cost recovery. The law is not clear whether local governments engaged in the same type of cleanup work have the same special cost recovery status. Local governments engaged in Superfund site cleanup should be given the same status and rights as the states, EPA and Indian tribes for cost recovery and related purposes under Superfund.

4. Liability

Municipal liability for cleanup costs under the federal Superfund statute must be clarified. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognizes that municipal solid waste (including both garbage and sewage sludge) contains only insignificant amounts of hazardous constituents and in its Interim Municipal Settlements Policy provides that EPA will identify local governments as potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at hazardous waste sites only in exceptional circumstances.

The Interim Municipal Settlements Policy, while a laudable first step, is an inadequate response to the concerns of municipalities. First, the Policy applies only to (public and private) transporters and generators of municipal solid waste, but not to municipal owners and operators of Superfund sites. Second, the Settlements Policy does not protect transporters and generators of municipal solid waste from lawsuits by private parties for cost recovery and contribution to the clean up costs at these sites.

To assure that municipalities will not be held responsible, through private party litigation or otherwise, to assume full financial responsibility for clean up costs, NLC supports enactment of legislation which would: a. eliminate local government liability under Superfund for the disposal of ordinary municipal waste, both garbage and sewage sludge;

b. provide expedited de minimis settlements for hazardous materials generated by local government operations;

c. exempt municipalities (as defined in the Clean Water Act) from cleanup liability resulting from ownership and/or operation of a facility in fulfillment of a public responsibility;

d. cap cleanup liability for municipal transporters and generators of municipal solid waste;

e. strengthen local governments' ability to protect and restore the environment by enabling them to recover response costs and costs for damages to natural resources; and

f. reauthorize Superfund at an adequate funding level so that cleanup of existing hazardous waste sites can continue. While NLC policy reflects the need to expedite the cleanup process, reduce transaction costs, and increase funds for cleanup while maintaining a level of fairness, any effort to limit the retroactivity of those standards and to relieve responsible parties from liability for past activities would be closely examined by NLC. Such a change in liability could leave the cleanup of older hazardous waste sites funded at state and municipal expenses, funded through substantially increased Superfund taxes, or unfunded (and therefore not cleaned up) entirely.

5. State Response Funds

In order to ensure that states have adequate resources to both respond to hazardous waste emergencies and to execute their broad responsibilities under Superfund, states should have the authority to establish state-level hazardous waste response funds. Congress should amend CERCLA to repeal the current preemption of state authority to develop state hazardous response funds.

6. State and Local Matching Share

Currently, CERCLA requires that states entering into cleanup agreements with the federal government, local government owned and/or operated sites are subject to a 50 percent cost sharing requirement. The current state matching requirements under CERCLA are too burdensome, hampering intergovernmental agreements and cooperative efforts which would speed up and improve cleanup efforts. Congress should require states to pay only 10 percent of total cleanup costs at publicly owned and/or operated Superfund sites. Additionally, Congress should liberalize conditions under which states may generate credits which can be used to offset the state matching requirements. This could be accomplished by crediting states for past cleanup actions, reimbursing states that have already expended more than 10 percent of costs at Superfund sites they owned and/or operated, or crediting a state's administrative expenses toward its matching share.

7. Maintenance and Operating Costs

Funds from the Hazardous Response Trust Fund should be used to support long-term operation and maintenance activities, such as cleanup of groundwater contamination at Superfund sites, after cleanup actions have been taken. This could be accomplished by requiring that states and localities pay a matching share for maintenance and operating expenditures that is comparable to the matching share required for cleanup actions.

8. Post-Closure Liability

The Post-Closure Liability Fund which was established to provide assistance for monitoring, maintenance and long-term care at RCRA-permitted hazardous waste sites, should be reauthorized. The fund should continue to be supported by a tax on hazardous wastes that are disposed of in RCRA-permitted facilities. However, in order to adequately finance post-closure activities, Congress should remove the $200 million ceiling on the Fund's unobligated balance so that more revenues can accrue in the Fund. Additionally, Congress should amend current law to extend the liability period for owners or operators from five to fifteen years after closure in order to ensure that RCRA sites are properly maintained in the post-closure period.

9. Environmental Impairment Liability Insurance

Congress should continue to examine the nature, scope and causes of the problem of scarce environmental impairment liability insurance and should take action to improve the availability of that insurance. As a first step, Congress should amend the Products Liability Risk Retention Act to facilitate the creation of interstate risk sharing pools. Congress should change the liability standards of CERCLA only with great caution.

10. Right-to-Know

Congress should enact federal community right-to-know legislation in order to establish a more uniform means of planning for and responding to emergencies caused by the release of hazardous substances which may present an imminent and substantial danger to public health. The legislation should pertain to owners and operators of facilities, including federal facilities, at which inventories of hazardous substances are maintained in quantities of 6,000 kilograms or more. The legislation should cover acutely and extremely volatile hazardous substances which may present an imminent and substantial danger to public health, as determined by the Administration of the EPA. The legislation should require the owner/operator to report to designated state and local agencies annually on the type of hazardous substances on-site, the present and anticipated amounts of the substances during a given year, and the location of the waste inventory.

Additionally, legislation should require each state to appoint a statewide emergency response planning commission to play a coordinating role in emergency response planning. If a state fails to act within a specified time period, then EPA should establish such a commission, or should designate a state agency on behalf of the state. Participation by local government representatives in the state commission should be mandatory. The statewide commission should be responsible for developing statewide plans, for responding to on-site releases of hazardous substances, for assisting the local governments in developing their own plans, and for coordinating local plans with each other and with the state plan. The costs of developing state and local emergency response plans should be borne by the federal government.

The federal legislation should also preempt different or conflicting state and local right-to-know and emergency response requirements. However, states and localities should be allowed to seek a waiver from the preemption if they can demonstrate that they have a unique safety or health circumstance which necessitates passage of a right-to-know or emergency response requirement inconsistent with the federal requirements.

11. Deferred Listing

Congress should carefully examine the impact of a deferred listing approach as a means of better managing the Superfund sites.

States, with the concurrence of local governments, should be allowed to petition EPA to defer certain sites. State petitions should be required to show that the state has consulted with and secured the concurrence of local governments involved in the site, and has provided reasonable notice to the public of its intent to petition. Provisions should be made for public participation in the remedy selection process.

12. Accounting Procedures and Cost Study

To ensure that adequate accounting data is obtained and reported, EPA and other federal agencies should be required to provide detailed accounting data as to the costs they have incurred under CERCLA. Further the Comptroller General should undertake a "Costs Study" to carefully examine the efficiency and efficacy of the current EPA oversight process.

13. Alternative Dispute Resolution

The existing Superfund program has been greatly criticized on the basis of too much litigation and too little cleanup. The use of alternative or non-litigation dispute resolution procedures, excluding the use of binding arbitration for local governments, should be examined and incorporated more effectively into the Act.

Back to Top