PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 22, 1993
Expedited Hazardous Site Cleanup Act of 1993 - Applies this Act to any facility listed on the National Priorities List under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and to any facility listed pursuant to State law as requiring remedial action for hazardous substances or any facility proposed for such list. Authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to enter into cooperative agreements to authorize States to administer the owner-operator initiated response program under this Act. Sets forth State eligibility requirements. Authorizes owners or operators of contaminated facilities to submit a notification of intent to conduct a response to the Administrator and potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at the site. Sets forth requirements for owners or operators with respect to response programs, including: (1) payment of specified costs to constitute a set-off against future oversight costs incurred by the Administrator; (2) preparation of a schedule for facility investigation; (3) publication of notice of the proposed action; and (4) preparation of a response action plan. Sets forth response plan approval procedures. Authorizes the Administrator to require additional response actions at a facility under specified circumstances. Prescribes penalties for failures to comply with an approved response plan. Requires the Administrator, upon receipt of a certification of completion of a response action and at the request of the owner or operator, to enter into a covenant not to sue the owner or operator or any other PRP for civil liability under CERCLA or the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Reserves the Administrator's rights to assert all claims against any party to the covenant except for claims based on conditions requiring additional response actions under this Act. Directs the Administrator to remove a facility from the National Priorities List upon issuance of a covenant not to sue. Authorizes the Administrator to issue guidelines for situations in which it is not in the public interest for the Administrator to enter into a covenant not to sue.
People & committees
Rep. Kreidler, Mike [D-WA-9] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
See H.R.3800.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1849)
Referred to the House Committee on Public Works + Transportation.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. 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.2709 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.2709 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.2709 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.2709 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.