Mr. Fields, thank you for appearing before the subcommittee today. Now, as I know you are well aware, the EPA is under a court ordered mandate to determine whether low level combustion wastes should be regulated as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Originally, the EPA was supposed to announce a determination by March 10, but I understand that you were granted a 30-day extension so the final determination from you isn't required until April 10.
I have some serious, serious concerns about this course of action Mr. Fields. In 1999, the EPA, the agency that you represent, recommended to Congress that these wastes not be regulated by RCRA. In fact, this report came out of your department, Mr. Fields. Your scientists reported that the states were doing an adequate job in regulating and managing these wastes. That report represents 19 years of research by the EPA. But now, this year, less than a year after the report was submitted, I hear that you have proposed a rule to OMB that would regulate these wastes as hazardous.
During many of the debates up here, I have emphasized and re-emphasized the use of sound science. Does that concept mean anything to you folks at EPA? The reason I ask is because I know there is a serious problem when you can't even agree with a report that your own agency, your own scientists, release.
I guess I don't understand why you all keep doing this. We saw the same thing in the Ozone/PM debate when the EPA ignored CASAC's recommendations. We see it today with MTBE and the EPA ignoring the Blue Ribbon panel and their recommendation. What makes the EPA think that these recommendations are beyond your consideration?
I am angry that issues like this seem to be taking a political tone. They are obviously beyond scientific justification because the scientists clearly believe that these wastes should be left to the states to regulate. Let me just remind you of what your report says. On page 3-5 your scientists state that " . . . Subtitle C is inappropriate to address any problems associated with disposal of these wastes and that the continued use of site and region specific approaches by the states is more appropriate for addressing the limited human health and environmental risks that may be associated with disposal of these wastes."
Finally, let's talk about cost for this regulation. Your agency concluded in the report that the total cost could be between $3.5 and $5 billion, or even more. I know how these things work and I am assuming that your numbers will fall far below the actual costs.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to addressing these issues in more depth during the question period.