PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 10, 1994
Amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to authorize States to submit to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval programs for the remediation of qualified municipal waste landfills. Defines a "qualified municipal waste landfill" as a landfill on the National Priorities List (NPL) which is owned by a municipality or a county or is a privately-owned site which has a record of receiving municipal waste. Makes CERCLA provisions inapplicable to releases or threatened releases at landfills covered under approved programs. Directs the President to promulgate regulations governing response actions for State programs that provide for a presumptive remedy based on streamlined site characterization using EPA's Model Municipal Landfill Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Guidance and for closure of the site consistent with Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Includes within such remedy: (1) waste consolidation where feasible if multiple discrete disposal sites can be more economically contained in one unit; (2) final cover; (3) landfill gas and surface water controls; (4) control of leachate where feasible; (5) groundwater monitoring or treatment under specified conditions; (6) controls to prevent future exposure to waste; (7) site security to prevent access; and (8) a post-closure care plan that ensures the integrity of the remedy. Authorizes additional protections as necessary to protect human health and the environment. Provides for reimbursement from the Hazardous Substance Superfund for remediation expenses incurred by a State with an approved program at one qualified municipal waste landfill selected by the State each year. Limits total reimbursement to $2.5 billion. Permits reimbursement for remediation commenced before approval of a program if activities were not completed before January 1, 1994, and the remediation provides protection equivalent to that specified by this Act. Exempts any person who is otherwise liable under CERCLA or other Federal law with respect to a release of a hazardous substance from liability if the State has an approved remediation program. Bars such exemption in cases where: (1) remediation was completed before January 1, 1994; or (2) a person violated any Federal, State, or local law relating to the generation, transportation, or disposal of solid waste which is present at the facility concerned.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Nancy L. [R-CT-6] · R–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 7, 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.4382 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.4382 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.4382 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.4382 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.