Cleanup at Abandoned Hardrock Mines: Issues Raised by âGood Samaritanâ Legislation in the 109th Congress (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (26 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Dec. 15, 2006 |
| Report Number |
RL33575 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Claudia Copeland, Resources, Science, and Industry Division; Robert Meltz, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
In the 109th Congress, several bills were introduced to address the legacy of pollution from inactive and abandoned hardrock mines (IAMs) that degrades the environment throughout the United States, particularly in the West. The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that 40% of headwaters in the West have been adversely impacted by acidic and other types of drainage from abandoned sites where gold, silver, copper, lead, and iron ore were mined. The core concept underlying the bills is that, in order to address the problem of pollution from IAM sites, it is appropriate to encourage cleanup by so-called "Good Samaritan" entities. To do so, the bills proposed to establish a process for issuing permits to Good Samaritans and to provide incentives in the form of reduced liability from environmental laws and less stringent environmental cleanup standards.
This report discusses four bills introduced in the 109th Congress: H.R. 1266 (M. Udall), S. 1848 (Salazar), S. 2780 (Inhofe), and H.R. 5404 (Duncan). S. 2780 and H.R. 5404 were identical bills, introduced at the request of the Administration. Three House and Senate committees held hearings during the 109th Congress on issues raised by the legislation. In September, an amended version of S. 1848 was reported to the Senate, but no further action occurred on any of the proposals. This report discusses several key issues in these bills:
eligibility for a Good Samaritan permit (especially at issue is whether Good Samaritans should be limited to government entities or may also include the private sector);
standards applicable to a Good Samaritan cleanup (defining what standards to apply to a remediation project is often a challenge);
scope of liability protection (at issue is whether and to what extent the liability and other requirements of Superfund, the Clean Water Act, and other laws should be waived for Good Samaritans);
treatment of revenues from cleanup (one particularly controversial issue is whether Good Samaritans should be allowed to benefit economically from minerals that are recovered during a cleanup);
enforcement and judicial review;
role for states and Indian tribes;
funding (none of the bills proposed a comprehensive mechanism to fund hardrock remediation activities);
terminating a permit; and
sunsetting the permit program.
Reviewing testimony from congressional hearings on these issues, it is evident that, except for witnesses testifying in support of their own bills, no witness endorsed any of the specific legislative approaches in total. For example, some stakeholders want an expanded definition of who may be a remediating party and favor elimination of additional regulatory and legal disincentives. But every effort to broaden the proposals' scope seemingly enlarges the complexity of the legislation and raises stronger opposition from groups who prefer a narrower approach.
