Chaired a hearing. Senator rounds good morning. The subcommittee on superfund Waste Management oversight is meeting today to conduct a hearing entitled oversight of the u. S. Environmental protection agencys Superfund Program. We will hear testimony from witnesses with involvement in cleaning up superfund sites. They will discuss their expenses in working with the epa, state government, and local committees to clean up these sites as well as offer suggestions on how cleanups can be completed quicker and more efficiently while best utilizing taxpayer dollars. Since 1980, the comprehensive environmental sponsor of an Liability Act has been a cornerstone of our hazard Waste Management program. Superfund was enacted by congress to give the federal Government Authority to clean up contaminated and Hazardous Waste sites and is fun to oil spills and natural disasters. The program created a trust fund that is dedicated to cleaning up site and gives the agency to work with and responsible parties to facilitate a site clean up. It allows for two types of cleanup actions. Shortterm removals that require prompt action and longterm remedial spots actions that allow for the permanent reclamation and reuse of the site. Superfund site take many forms. They can be abandoned mine lands, manufacturing facilities, military installations, or chemical facilities. Common contaminants at the site include lead, asbestos, and dioxin, all of which can pose a great danger to human health and can contaminate soil and groundwater. They are located in all the 50 states. These sites pose a risk to human health. They can contaminate the water supplies. Created in 1983, the National Priorities list consists of 1336 site across the country that are a National Priority for cleanups. These sites represent those that does a great risk to human health and the environment. In addition to these sites, there are 53 sites proposed for a listing on the npl. 393 sites have been successfully cleaned up and deleted from the list. While the Superfund Program has been idle to reclaiming previously contaminated sites, cleanups are often delayed due to a complex bureaucracy and delayed decisionmaking that can hinder the process. These delays result in contaminated sites, languishing in communities, at times for decades, while stakeholders and other parties involved in the cleanup determine the best cap forward for the site. These connection not be delayed or halted because of bureaucratic red tape and disagreements among the parties. When these delays occur, it is the citizens and the local communities that the price. When contaminated sites are allowed to languish and no progress is made towards a cleanup, the second teams to pose a potential risk to human health, and valuable you property that could benefit the Community Remains unused. The epa under the leadership of the administrator has made cleaning up sites a priority. Earlier this year the administrator created a task force that was tasked with providing regulations how the fun can be improved. Last week the task force released a report which provided 42 regulations that can commence within one year and are currently within the epas existing authority. These regulations aim to expedite cleanups and remediation, reinvigorate responsible party cleanups, encourage in investment, promote we develop redevelopment. On the same day the report was released, the administrator epaed a memorandum for the to begin implementing 11 of these regulations. Im encouraged that the administrator has making up these sites a priority and i am hopeful that the recommendations provided by the task force will result in programmatic improvements that allow for quicker and more efficient cleanups. The epa should strive to work in a transparent, cooperative fashion with the state and local governments and stakeholders to make certain these sites are cleaned up and can be safely redeveloped with the benefit of the communities in which they are located. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today, and i look forward to hearing their testimony as well. Now i would like to recognize senator harris for her Opening Statements. Senator harris . Senator harris i am pleased to be with you today. This is my first time serving as the Ranking Member for a Committee Hearing in the United States senate. And this hearing speaks to a topic that is part of our core mission of the United States government, just to keep the American People safe. Maketatute was created to sure that anyone that puts Public Health at risk is held accountable for cleaning up the damage they created. This is a matter of basic justice. Communities and families should not have to pay the price for someone elses pollution. This is a matter of basic economic justice. We should clean up our communities so jobs can be created and properties can be used for good. This is a matter of basic opportunity. The notion that all americans should have a chance at a healthy and productive life regardless of where they have to call home. That is why i am glad to behold in this hearing with you, mr. Chairman. We share a common goal of improving the cleanup process to better protect health by restoring contaminated sites. This is something we have a real opportunity to do. I look forward to working with you and the members of our committee to help make it happen. And im heartened to see sean bipartisan interest in figuring out ways to make superfund work better. Our work is guided by two key was laid outat nearly four decades ago to guidance implementation. First, that toxic waste contamination threatens Public Health and requires a conference of cleanup response. Second, that polluters should be held accountable and pay for the damage they cause. While superfund has successfully cleaned up thousands of the most heavily contaminated sites across the country, there are americans whoon live within three miles of the nations more than 1300 superfund sites. Communities and communities of color are disproportionately likely to live near these sites. This is true from the mountains of appalachia to the cities and streets of los angeles. The americans who are most likely to be exposed to toxic waste are the same americans have the fewest resources to deal with the consequences. I think we can all agree that that is wrong. And it is something we need to do more to address. I am concerned by some of the signs i have seen from the epa administrator about the direction the epa will take on super. On one hand, i am encouraged and at last week a Superfund Task force was created which he created and offered 42 recommendations on ways to expedite cleanup. I am heartened by this action. Some of these recommendations may be genuine efforts to help the program operate more efficiently and effectively, and produce Better Outcomes for the people we all represent. On the other hand, other recommendations give me pause, especially in light of the administrators skepticism aside, and prioritization of corporate interest over Public Health. Examples of this include weakening requirements that polluters can show they do the cleanup. 30 you add on top of that, proposed cut for the object upcoming 2018 fiscal year to the superfund account at epa and the 24 proposed cuts that enforces the law, the rhetoric and reality may not add up. We should reject efforts to expedite cleanup if it means cutting corners on health and environmental standards. It means letting polluters off the hook for the risk damage theyve done or shutting out members input from the members of the public that are bearing the brunt of the harm. I look forward to building a hearing with epa officials in the near future and i would like to hear how the agency plans to accelerate the pace of cleanup while significantly cutting the source of funding to do the cleanup. And i look forward to working with you to find ways to make sure this program is working for all americans, regardless of where they live, who they are, or who polluted their community. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I look forward to our hearing today. Thank you, senator harris. Id like to introduce our witnesses today. He is a partner with hyman Miller Schwartz and comb, llp. Jeffrey steers, director of regional operation,. Consultants. Nt welcome to all of you. Your full statements will be made a part of our record today. I would ask that we begin with Opening Statements and if you could limit them to about five minutes, that would be appreciated and we will turn to our first witness today, for a fiveminute introduction. Please proceed. Good morning. Ranking member harris and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this important oversight hearing on implementation. I am an environmental attorney with more than 3 decades of experience working with industry and epa on developing remedies for complex superfund sites across the country. Ive also served as coordinating director of the sediment management workgroup since 1998. Im delighted to be here today to share my experience with the Superfund Program. Know these, i should views are my own and do not represent the views of any particular client or organization. To ensure theed nations most contaminated states sites would be cleaned up. For more than 30 years, epa successfully remitted remediated superfund sites. However, the typical superfund site profile has changed too complex mining instead of river sediment sites, often referred to as mega sites. These megasites are far more complicated, expensive, and expensive than traditional superfund sites, often exceeding 10 to 15 years of study with costs ranging from 150 million 100 million to hundred 50 million. Presenting unique challenges to the Superfund Program. Cleanups oftenle cost more than 1 billion and drag on for decades. Thats why im pleased to see a diligent effort by the new administration to address concerns with the entirety of the superfund process, from initial assessment. This includes the administrators change to the super delegation , calling allmay 9 decisions expected to cost 50 million to be approved by the epa administrator rather than being decided exclusively by the regions. Subsequently, the administrator created a task force may 22 to recommend improvements to the Superfund Program, resulting in the release last tuesday of 42 recommendations designed to achieve a number of worthy objectives, such as promoting the use of alrge and large and complex sites, engaging partners and stakeholders, prioritizing redevelopment, and encouraging Publicprivate Partnerships. Conservative assumptions of the project level that go well andnd the scope of guidance virtually every aspect of the site. His assumptions result in an artificially in later risk that significantly skews the information the administrator will need to does right whether to approve a host remedy. Another issue i am served is that some epa regions ignored the sediment focus. Instead, a component that is technically necessary, especially of the larger sediment sites. Historically some epa regions lowcost sent attrition levels for the sediment which resulting cleanup goals are unattainable because sediments are likely to become recontaminated to the levels above the cleanup goals due to the conditions. In 2005, epa issued a policy guidance document for contaminated sediment sites commonly known as tom contaminated sediment guide straight this represents a comprehensive, technically sound policy, roadmap for addressing complexities associated with contaminated sediment sites. However, the disregard of the sediment guidance and the national contingent to plan requirements, particularly at the regional level, barely limiting the Superfund Program, delaying remediation of impacted sites. So in terms of solutions, i respectfully written as you consider the following recommendations to improve and streamline and investigation. Epa headquarters should require the regions prickly adhere to the sediment guidance at all phases of the site investigation, Risk Assessment, remedy evaluation, and remedy selection stages. Epa should restore its contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group independent review of the regions recommended remedies prior to the national remedy review boards review. Reviews of theb regions proposed remedy should be required to include a specific recommendation of the appropriate remedy for the site. This recommendation will be provided to the administrator remedies, fo sediment expected to cost more than 50 million. This would allow for the agencies most experienced staff to contaminate sites, you have direct impact and recommend a remedy to administrator. Moreover, epas regions should be required to consult with c stack on certain steps within the process, including the scope of the investigation were things often get down. Assumptions for developing Risk Assessment and review of her medial options during the allimportant usability study base. Epa regions should be required to apply wellestablished superfund process of Adaptive Management at the sediment mega site web rather than waiting or years. In contrast, the adaptive approach will accelerate cleanups while achieving a scientifically supportable remedy. Number four, every sediment site must comply with the costeffectiveness requirements of the ncp including a detailed and transparent analysis demonstrating the proportionality between the risk each remedial alternatives and the incremental costs of each such alternative. This way you can balance the benefits and the cost of each remedy under consideration. Formally incorporate a sustainability analysis in its superfund, remedy selection evaluation. Sustainability is consistent with the superfund ncp criteria and should be incorporated into the remedy evaluation. Number 7, existing authority should be used to develop an approach that addresses contaminated sediment sites through collaborative Publicprivate Partnerships. This would build upon the highly successful great lakes legacy siteswhere sites after have been addressed in a very timely and efficient manner. In conclusion, supplementing these recommendations will protect human health and the sedimentnt, accelerate cleanups and redevelop and of adjacent sites and provide for efficient use of resources by ensuring comprehensive effectiveness, saving the apa epa taxpayers money. I look forward to answering your questions. Nadeau. You, mr. I appreciate your testimony. We will turn to our second witness, director jeffrey steers. You may begin. Good morning. My name is jeffrey steers. Virginia dq is a member of the state and territorial solid Waste Management officials, of which i previously served as president. Our membership includes state Program Experts with individual responsibility for the regulation or management of waste and hazardous substances, including overseeing the cleaning of the superfund sites. This forum will appreciate the opportunity to provide oversight of the epas Cleanup Program. While states do not assume primary authority, we play a role in its implementation. The decisions made by congress and those made by epa can have a profound impact on state resources that share a common goal with the federal government in ensuring that human health and environment are mitigated and appropriately addressed in a financially responsible manner. Our association is committed to ensuring this is done in an efficient, costeffective way,. We promote greater state collaboration with our federal partners while ensuring our voice and opinions are not diminished. As long as Member States enjoy a relationship with the epa and does not want to diminish these efforts. We wish to offer the subcommittee some comments and opportunities to enhance the program. States value the relationships with the epa through several types of cooperative agreements, both as individual states and as an association continue to make Great Strides in addressing some of the most contaminated lands in the United States. Mo, stating thee Superfund Program is a vital agency the epa and the cannot have a Successful Program without substantial state involvement. Furthermore, the state supports the input of rural and local governments in the communities in which contaminated sites exist. Opportunities exist for improvements to the program to deal with costly and delayed cleanups that continue to have a negative impact on communities across this nation. While efficiencies can be realized administratively without legislative change, or authority, there exists an opportunity to modernize certain aspects, to acknowledge the roles that the state as c oregulators who operate sophisticated programs across the country. Our members and to some extent our regulator community continue to be challenged with skyrocketing financial obligations associated with remediating contaminated lands. This past week epa released the recommendations of a task horse and superfund appointed by administrator pruitt. Member states are encouraged that the administration recognizes the need for improvements to a program whose purpose is to ensure American Communities are protected from contaminated sites. While states are still reviewing this recently released report, we take note of the fact that the schedule for implementation is aggressive. Given propose reductions in the Agency Staffing and budget, states stand ready to assist the epa in meeting the schedule and hope that they can efficiently work with us in adopting and implementing some of these recommendations. Experiences in working with epa Regional Office has historically demonstrated inconsistent application of policy and guidance developed by headquarters. One of the Task Force Recommendations states regions are encouraged to consider greater use of early including interim remedies to address immediate risk, prevent source migration, and returned to portions of the site for more detailed evaluations are parts of sites. Heldnal offices must be accountable in ensuring that consistent implementation of this and other recommendations follow. One area of difficulty for Member States is epas process to identify state regulations as potential applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. Our main areas of concern include inconsistent application from site to site, documenting epas decisions in these matters, and allowing states early interaction on specific sites. Recently participated in a process Improvement Team with the epa to identify tools that could streamline the process while providing states with meaningful involvement. While the exercise was successful and an agreement on the path forward was gained between the Superfund Program andy state participants, the by the was thwarted office of general counsel who created bureaucratic roadblocks that prevented the project from being implemented. This is an example of a lost opportunity. Concern is the ongoing escalation of costs incurred by states. Aware, datae required to cost share 10 while undertaking 100 of the operation cost. States must be given more authority and remedy selection and the upfront cost Decision Making early in the process. Prior to transfer to states for owen m, epa should be given the authority to consider whether states have sufficient funds to take on oh nm obligations. O m obligations. That projected costs havent been appropriately updated by the epa. If the state does not have sufficient funding to take on the o m at the time of transfer, the statute should arrange for a process. Communities and local investors may play in the redevelopment of superfund sites has historically been diminished. States are encouraged that the Task Force Report recommends the epa identify sites for thirdparty investment and to pilot how accelerating the remedies might be accomplished under these circumstances. Will not mentioning state involvement in recommendation, in thet involve members process as we have robust ground field redevelopment programs and other tools that can facilitate expedited reviews, remedy implementation, and pragmatic yet protective longterm monitoring at these sites. Investors require a level of certainty not typically found in superfunds. The states can assist the epa in facilitating and negotiating agreements with third hearties and we stand willing to do so. The inspector response to the underor our prp site superfund, states typically find themselves in the secondary oversight role. Its customary for a state to enter into a cooperative agreement, which defines our role with epa for providing a funding mechanism for state oversight trade in virginia we have recently reached out to 4 responsible parties to gauge their interest in a pilot program, agreeing to pay dqs project over cost directly in lieu of funding funneling the money through epa, and that resulted in cooperative agreements for ea and dq. This is much more cost effective, increasing dqs budget forecast in position virginia to provide Better Customer Service and help ensure we have an opportunity to avoid state specific concerns. Another state engagement issue is ind to rpo oversight the consent decree, or other types of Settlement Documents to settle costs of their cleanup grade epa often does not include the state in the settlement process which can make it difficult for a state to engage the rps to do additional work that may be needed to recover the states current and projected oversight costs. This issue can be compounded if the site has the issue. Finally, coordination on local highprofile sites must be a team effort to between epa, the state, and local government. Two recent examples in virginia in the state to need illustrate the need. The state provided a temporary solution of installing an onsite filtration system while a longterm fix was developed. Eventually all parties agreed a connection to the public water supply would reduce the exposure pathway for neighboring residents. There was a delay in getting public water extended to the area despite that being the intended desire of all parties. Epasy, in afact, due to very long stepwise process on the superfund that didnt easily facilitate connecting to public water. Im going to have to ask you to wrap it up. Jeffery states have positioned themselves to be effective partners with the epa and superfund development. We encourage continued federal and state you let tori oversight as improvements continue to the Superfund Program. Thank you for allowing me to testify. Id be happy to answer your actions uqestquestions. We will now turn to our third witness. You may begin. Subcommittee,the thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. Im an independent consultant. For over 20 years of work as a researcher and policy analyst. I was also the lead author of the 2001 report to congress, which wasfuture, published by resources for the future, a washington, d. C. Think tank. The conclusions recommendations and opinions in my testimony today are mine and mine alone and do not represent any other person or organization. In my testimony am focusing on what do we know, what do we not know about superfund cleanups. I would note none of my data has anything to do with federal facilities. First we know that over 2 3 of the 1555 sites on the npl at the end of fiscal year 2016 have been deleted from the npl or construction complete. The remaining 28 are in some stage of her medial pipeline and will require additional actions by epa and responsible parties to complete implementation of cleanup remedies. Those sites that are construction complete but not deleted also have more work to be done. Second, funding for the Superfund Program has declined markedly since fiscal year 2000. It appears the Remedial Program is facing a funding shortfall. Annual superfund appropriations declined from a high of 1. 9 billion in fiscal 1. 000 to a low of one 9 billion in 2016. Funding for the Remedial Program declined as well from a high of 740 million to a low of 501 million last year, a decrease of 33 . Over the past five years, and of the year funding shortfall for remedial action projects is averaged 67 million dollars. Much more difficult to quantify or more subtle results of funding constraints. Sites not added to the npl, states setting remedial visible, and other less actions not taken or delayed due to lack of resources. Third, cleanup progress has slowed in recent years. Since the beginning of fiscal year 2000, 462 sites achieved construction complete status, an average of 27 a year. That average dropped to 12 sites a year from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2016. For sites needing federal attention continued to be identified that add to the npl. There continues to be a need for federal dollars, federal enforcement, and federal expertise to address contaminated sites. Since the school year 2000, 301 nonfederal sites were added to the npl. What we dont know. First, why is it taking so long to complete cleanup at some of the sites on the npl . There are 189 nonfederal sites added to the npl before fiscal year 2000 that are still not construction complete. The question is why. Possible explanations include lack of adequate epa funding, theaction, epa inaction, sheer magnitude of the site and contamination, and technical limitations of available cleanup technologies. Any initiative by epa to speedup up cleanup should start by identifying specific factors. To solve aossible problem if we dont know whats causing it. Second, how much it will cost to complete cleanup. To evaluate whether annual superfund appropriations are sufficient, we first need to have an estimate of how much money is needed to complete cleanup as well as an estimate of her medial pipeline funding on an annual basis. Time thee last estimate was made public was the 2001 report to congress of which i was the lead author. Why are contaminated sites still being added to the npl . Epa should continue to list sites that need federal cleanup dollars, enforcement, and expertise. He would be helpful to have a better understanding of the factors that resulted in sites being added to the npl over the past five years. Our sites continuing to be placed on the npl because they are truly orphan sites . The prps are not financially viable . Of sites being listed suggest of the regulatory programs or inadequate financial assurance requirements . The sites being ad to the added to the npl, are the more expensive, complex technically . Are states referring sites to epa for action that they do not have the financial or Technical Resources to address . The better understanding of the factors leading to sites being listed on the npl would be efforts to close regulatory gaps, investigate cleanup technologies, an estimate future funding needs. Fourth and lastly, what is the Financial Capacity of state Superfund Programs . Some has adjusted theres little or no need for a federal Cleanup Program and programs should be delegated to the states. Few if any states have the Financial Resources to pay for the cleanup of an npl caliber site, much less a mega site. To address this issue as well as state concerns about their financial burden of operation and maintenance at npl sites, epa should commission an independent analysis of the Financial Capacity and legal authorities. Thank you for asking me to testify before you today. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your testimony, ms. Probst. Senators now will each have five minutes for questions. This one id like to ask the panel. I most certainly appreciate all of your background in this. There is a process, riskbased corrective action, method of managing contaminant release sites, to protect human health and the environment is based on a scientific assessment of the risks posed by contaminants. On south dakota, this was a management technique reviewed successfully for cleanup of trillium sites petroleum sites. Does the epa currently use the rebecca process as a means of managing superfund cleanups, or is this something that could potentially be utilized by the epa to manage cleanups more effectively and efficiently . Curious if any of you are familiar with this process and what your thoughts are. Was veryogram successful and is successful because it focuses on the riskbased approach. The federal superfund statute and all its regulations as a contingency plan, in the case of contaminated sediments, a riskbased as well. Is, weblem we are seeing are getting bogged down on the study page, and the riskbased approach falls by the wayside when conservatism factor is applied to the remedy selection. This is why the depth of management approach would allow us to deal with the worst issues first, monitor the sites that they cleaned up more efficiently, and people would come to the table. Companies involved want to get this done. The approach, if we follow it is written, already in our federal program, would really help things accelerate and we would get better cleanups and earlier cleanups. Director steers . Jeffery i would agree with my colleague. Microphone, please. Jeffery we get bogged down with looking at risk and whats the appropriate risk and the use of the property, especially if its going to be redeveloped. A rebecca model, and especially on large mega sites, we have one in virginia, would help, when you look at the Adaptive Management and being able to assure you have the appropriate level of risk. You can take Risk Assessment to an extreme level, and i think it needs to be tempered with whats the appropriate risk for that site in these conditions. Ms. Probst . Katherine i dont think i have the expertise to answer that question. How would expanding the role of the National Review board and the contaminated sediments Technical Advisory Group remedy decisions improve epa decisionmaking and sediment sites . Steven the organization was founded because contaminated sediment sites are former complex than anything weve had to address in the past. You cant get your arms around them easily. By having the agencys most experienced practitioners from the regions, you have basically a peerreviewed of the best and brightest. If you have that kind of input, this will even out the disparity we see in how the guidance is applied. The guidance is a terrific documents. If we follow the guidance, we can make this work. The nrb and c stagg reviewed, making it part of the process where a recommendation of a renault be detrimental he will allow for a second look at it has we are complying, the ingredients we need to make this work, and it will change this Decision Making landscape. In your testimony you say there is an opportunity to without making a legislative change to the statute. Can you elaborate on the improvements that can be made . I think one of the problems we have seen is the level of involvement with states and contractors working for epa. Often times they work directly with their contractor. States, we want to be able to look at where the making sure people who know how to control the costs are involved. When you have project manager is at epa that do that for a living, they are in tune with trying to control costs. Not so much on the remedial project managers, but the needs to be a dialogue on how contractors and epa in the states can work, looking at reducing costs. Thank you. Senator harris . , ranking my question member ca harper had to leave. This is a question for each of you. What do you believe will be the impact of the Trump Administrations proposed 30 budget cut to the epas program from 1 billion to 762 million . If you could tell me if you believe it would be helpful, i am assuming it would, congress would appropriate money to help close that gap. What else could be done to address what will be the shortfall in terms of the Resources Available . Yes. The folks at epa have been working diligently on these issues. Steps tolining the review we can accelerate our process. We do think that other changes will help the process. We can get from az in half the time and start cleaning up the sites with early actions. This will take the burden off these 15 year studies. For three or four years, identify the areas to be addressed. Of our resources resources are applied to cleanup. It will fit hand in glove. Does that mean you think there be no change to address the issue . There will be pressures. There is no doubt. I think that if there is more funding available to provide review on the key issues, that would be helpful. Whatever happens we can make it better. What do you believe this 30 budget cut will do to address the cleanup that is necessary . The states are concerned about that. We work as partners with them. Because in staff and construction of projects could end up causing certain additional delays, but also looking at remedies that are maybe not the best remedies that we need with these sites. Specially when they need to carry them through longterm monitoring of the operation. Even if you have some cards we still need to look at efficiency. You can absorb some cards if you are also being efficient and working with your partners, being able to streamline the process. Ideal of having any budget you have to use that money effectively. , hows opportunities project managers consistently noty, we understand it is an unlimited budget. Together. To work states state to be at the table. The states as a group, have they addressed this potential 30 cut to the budget . We are to understand what the impacts of that might need. Can you follow up . Im interested to know what the impacts of the states will be. Having worked with the epa 30 cut in one year is huge. That is going to hurt the program regardless of how one feels about it. It is hard to absorb huge cuts quickly. The same dollars that fund cleanups, whether remedial. Forgetting this program, a 30 lotis going to shut down a in the program. The superfund appropriations have different pockets. Is the money that goes out of the area. We know the Remedial Program budget has declined in real dollars. You are basically going in and addressing current risk may mediate risk. Its hard to imagine you can do longterm cleanups with that kind of a draconian cut. The second point, it would be good to know how much money they need. Say i dont understand it, but ever since the report they have stopped estimating liability. I dont know why, but it is hard to say what the impact of a cut is if you dont actually know. This is what we need for the enforcement. This is what we need for oversight. That is doable. Maybe it is hard. It is actually not hard as long as were not trying to go to the moon. I would argue the first thing somebody needs to do is tell how much money they need in the implication of the cuts are. I think our time is up. I would urge we followup on this point. We should have an estimate of the costs. If her budget is going to be relevant if our budget is going to be relevant to the task at hand. How we could create a process for doing the estimate for cleanup. Thank you. A bipartisan recommendation. Fantastic. You mr. Chairman for having this hearing. Steers mentions cooperative federalism and the desire to have the epa Work Together with the states, specifically in the superfund process. How can the states partner to better leverage funding to stretch money . Helpates are positioned to in working with the epa through cooperative federalism. Statesy mental counsel areelped in defining how our role the states can be in doing that. Resources needed to address these sites as was mentioned earlier, we need understand what is the needed cost . We have a lot of sites. Virginia has 31 that are in pl sites. We need to look at how do we prioritize in manage that risk . ,orking with epa in each region helping to define how do we prioritize, what is the budget we have to deal with in our stay . How can we maximize that through states dont have the funds to be able to fund a full Superfund Program. It is not on the level of what the epa does. That is thee assistance we can provide looking at the remedy, whether as a responsible party, helping to leverage a working agreement where we get the responsible party to help pay the cost in an efficient way. That is one of the issues. Time value of money. How long things take. You want certainty getting a cleanup done. A lot of times you have the epa and states duplicating studies. Talk to me about perhaps an example of that duplication. Describe how it can delay the remediation of cleanup and add cost. Sometimes there is duplication and characterizing a site. Where we have the epa that has done some studies. We keep looking at collecting data. Collecting data for characterizing the hazards can be excited expensive. Weve got state resources that will review the data. Youve got a lot of people wanting to look at data, create more data. There needs to be a point where there is an agreement between the federal and state agencies on what is the appropriate level site tocterization of a get what we need for looking at it. And the future use of that. Epa is trying to redevelop some of these sites. They talk about wanting to do that. We have opportunities where they could be reused if you have the appropriate cleanup being done or youve got some longterm responsible party thats able to step in and do things to monitor the site and restrict certain aspects of the property if you are leaving some top of the risk in place. There is duplication that i think we should to work closer with. Of an you give an example Successful Public Private Partnership where science has been re80 where it has been remediated quickly . One of the Great Success stories was the great lakes legacy act. It is a program which is completely Publicprivate Partnership driven. You have the federal aspect, the state aspect, the industry aspect. Folks start off on the same page as partners. These sites are getting cleaned up. Bute is a funding component everyone is trying to problem solve from day one. The atmosphere is so different. We can get through a complex site, hundreds of thousands, millions. We can do that in a couple years. Itis such an improvement and will save on the budget and resources because all of those factors of the quad operation and the unified purpose of reducing risk and a timely manner would change the landscape. Its the most successful Cleanup Program weve ever seen. Concepts borrow those and expand the Public Private partnership we can really get things done. Thank you. Senator booker . Thank you to the chairman and Ranking Member. It has been said that are superfund sites in every state. New jersey has the most. 50 of all New Jerseyans live within three miles of a superfund site. When i was mayor of newark i solve this. These poisonous chemicals were having real effects. People with hazmat suits ,alking around playgrounds worrying, telling stories about cancers and respiratory problems. This is an incredible crisis. I dont think we really understand the gravity of it all in the urgency of it all. I really dont. Now we have longitudinal data about what effects it has on. Eople that live within a mile it is 11 million americans that live within a mile. We,000,000 of our children, now know babies born to mothers living within one mile of a superfund site prior to cleanup had a 20 higher incidence of kids being born with birth defects. 20 higher. Alarming tobe a everyone. That this istable the job of government to protect people. Yet we seem to have a declining sense of urgency to deal with this crisis. I held a hearing on this in 2014 that there were many sites in new jersey that were ready to be cleaned up stalled because of lack of funding. In 2015, senator boxer and i requested a report on the state of the superfund sites. They pointed out the annual ,uperfund sites had declined from two billion dollars to 1. 1 between 99 in 2013. Because the epa prioritizes funding work that is ongoing, it led to the delayed start of a third of the projects. Due to funding. For me the question asked earlier, it is unconscionable to me that president trumps budget calls for a 30 reduction. It will cripple these programs. What is incredibly irresponsible time weat, this is a should be trying to figure how to expedite cleanup among do more to do it. I dont mean to take offense to what you said but your answer was we will just have to live with this. Work, new jersey. I live a mile from a superfund site. My 10yearold niece lives with me. She was born in that community. Resignation,e this a hateful hypocrisy because of everybody in congress lived within a mile of a superfund site, children being born there, there might be a sense of outrage that we are debilitating our ability to clean these up. It is hard for me to sit comfortably having just come from my house last night in a poor community, and a black and Brown Community and have to tell my neighbors, who still Pack Community meetings concerned about the superfunds within our city. You have already answered my question about the problem. I just want to ask simply this. Im going to reintroduce in this congress the superfund ares superfund polluters pay act. Ax that reagan read reauthorize that some voted for. This would put a small tax on polluting industries. Petrochemical industries that i have visited, it in cancer alley, louisiana. They are plowing more toxins into the air. Pangs for superfund cleanup cannot be a partisan issue. Reliableon is, a source of funding at a greater rate than now. Not cutting. Im introducing legislation, we should spend 5 of an infrastructure in plan to satisfy all the funding needs of the current priority list. Just 5 of infrastructure needs. Would that take care of the problem as you see it . I dont know the exact number. It is true that congressional appropriations were higher when there were dedicated taxes. In theory congress can do whatever it wants. There is nothing precluding congress from say we want to appropriate 1. 6 billion a year. History shows us where there was a dedicated task tax, the epa was given more money. And besides were being cleaned up. There were the same concerns about funding shortfalls. Said we are not putting megasites on the list, because we dont have the funds. There are lots of different issues. Where, we have sites where there are real risks now. I show how many dont have human exposure under control, and more concerned about, places we dont know if they are under control. Superfund sites are not all unique but they are not homogeneous. One of the things, to pull out these sites and figure how we go at them. There are people at risk. Then we have New Bedford Harbor and the hudson river, very different kinds of sites. History shows that where there is money in the trust fund, the epa gets more money. There is nothing that precludes the Appropriations Committee saying we are going to give them more money. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I was an original coauthor of the superfund law in 1980 on the committee. One of the issues that came to me was one and anderson, a mother with a young son visited maine in her office in my office and told me the boy had leukemia. She had organized other mothers in massachusetts to go door to door to find other children with leukemia. Along with love canal and a couple of other sites that became the motivating force for the creation of the superfund. It became the movie, a civil action the book a civil action. The mothers identified this problem. Not the experts. It was the mothers. In the movie the lawyer the hero. It was the mothers. Jimmy duncan leukemia. On that site is a huge development. The Jimmy Anderson purification center. Importantand most goal we had was to make sure kids didnt die. They were drinking the water. They were put in situation that could lead to these human tragedies. As i look at what we are talking about now, i see the epa making a decision that they have to choose between the sites that have an impact just on the health of families, and those that could be redeveloped. This limited budget would prioritize those that could also be redeveloped for commercial purposes. That is the kind of triaging that is unacceptable. This program is there in order to make sure that you dont have to make that kind of a choice. Who families that have kids are exposed to these toxins are regardless oned, whether or not the property can be redeveloped. This dramatic downsizing of the Superfund Program, what are the implications for those families kids in areas with areas that will never be redeveloped . Im not a scientist im not sure i can totally answer your question. The thing that concerns me most about the report is over a third of the recommendations are about reuse. Last time i read the statute, there is nothing about reuse. It may be a good thing. I did spend time with mayor rabbit, at the Industrial Complex site. What he was happy about where the tax revenues to his city. I think that the idea that redevelopment and reuse is more sitesant than cleaning up or reducing human exposure is wrong. It is fine to be happy about redevelopment, but to place that first seems to be bad public policy. Exactly. Benefit wonderful side to woburn that they got to redevelop the site but the first and foremost goal that we had to have was to make sure these children didnt have other equivalents around the United States. Is oncere seeing here again a denial of what this Program Means to families. When an gorsuch was in charge of the epa, they went to prison for lying to our committee about that program. She had to do time. This has been controversial from the beginning. It was slow rolled by the reagan administration. Thats never been a program the Trump Administration is in today, that they will give the hug to and say i understand why this funding has to be there, to help children and families avoid the catastrophes with which we have seen in the past. Massachusetts, if you know mayor rabbit, that is great. He was a big ally of mine at the time. It took courage for him to stand up. Impact remaining superfund sites in massachusetts . If thisthe consequence occurs . There is no way to know exactly now. We have not seen how the cuts would be taken. It could slow down cleanups. It could cut staff. Again. A 30 cut is a huge cut in one fiscal year to a federal program. I think it would cause a lot of disarray, having to figure how to deal with the cuts. Just like when there is a threatened furlough. I cant tell you exactly. Say ir to even if the epa task force comes back with recommendations, if there is a 30 cut in the funding, of these sites, there is going to be great harm because the triaging will have to occur, and a vision without funding is a hallucination. Saying that you care, cutting the funding only results in more kids being exposed around the country. Nobody has said this to me. The concern is you end up with a program where all you have is the removals. When you have a huge cut and you cant really fully fund remedial actions under the law, it is a different program, the concern of somebody like me is that you basically move away from the npl program and you end up with removables only. It is not addressing longterm hazard. That is the thing to watch out for. I you took a huge cut, if were Office Record that is what i would do. You only have certain choices. That is the thing to watch out for. Are you choking off longterm cleanup or not . Nothing in the report says that. That is past 25 years what one has concerns about. Are you getting the longterm Cleanup Program or not . Are, but thathey is what you want to watch. A 30 cut is like moving kryptonite. It will really significantly harm. But i want to be wonder woman. Thank you. Testimony, ithe appreciate what you bring to the table here, part of the challenge for us as we look at oversight of the superfund activities is to begin and restore trust in the process itself. In the system of showing successes where they are at. The accurateve assessment of the cost yet to come. As we look at the planning for the trust fund, as we ask questions of the officials, to have a straightforward assessment, to share with the American People, these are the anticipated cost, along with that comes a responsibility to deliver that program. To use these interested dollars efficiently as we can to actually address the goals of the program, life and safety for individuals impacted. But the side benefit of being able to utilize those properties and bringing them back in, neither of them are a bad goal to have. Harris in thek members of the committee for their participation. Earlier, full statements will be included for the record. I would also like to thank everybody who attended. The record will be open for two weeks on this hearing, going up to august 15. I want to thank you for your participation in this. Without further a do, this hearing is adjourned further ado, this hearing is adjourned. A live look outside here in washington, with Lamar Alexander and Hattie Murray announcing hearings on changing the health care law. Sent a seriesder of tweets and they will hold hearings on Actions Congress will make so that americans will be able to buy affordable plans in 2018. We will hear from state insurance commissioners, patients, and insurance companies