PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 1995
Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to exempt owners or operators of pesticide rinse water degradation systems from obtaining a permit for the treatment or disposal of pesticide rinse water if the system: (1) uses evaporation and biological degradation to treat or dispose of such water; (2) contains an above-ground tank or double-walled tank that can be inspected for leaks; (3) includes a secondary containment system capable of collecting and containing any leaks from the tank; (4) does not discharge fluid; (5) is protected from rainfall; and (6) when it is dismantled or any matrix or media used in the tank is replaced, if the matrix or media contains any hazardous waste, the matrix or media is treated, stored, or disposed of in accordance with hazardous waste management requirements. Applies this Act to systems in operation as of January 1, 1987.
People & committees
Rep. Bilirakis, Michael [R-FL-9] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the House Committee on Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 5, 2024. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.102 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.102 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.102 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.102 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.