Good morning. Subcommittee on superfund raced the is Waste Management is meeting today to discuss hearing entitled oversight of the us Environmental Protection agencys Superfund Program. Today we will hear testimony from witnesses with extensive involvement cleaning up superfund sites. Our witnesses will discuss experiences working with epa, State Government and local communities to clean up and repurpose these sites as well as offer suggestions how cleanups can be completed quicker and more efficiently while utilizing taxpayer dollars. Since 1980 the comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act has been a cornerstone of the nations hazardous Waste Management program. It was enacted by congress to give the federal government the authority to clean up contaminated and Hazardous Waste sites and respond to environmental emergencies, oil spills and natural disasters. The program created a trust fund dedicated to cleaning up abandoned waste site and give the Agency Authority to work with potentially responsible parties to facilitate a site cleanup. It also allows two types of cleanup actions. Shortterm removal in emergency instances that require prompt action and longterm remedial response actions allowing permanent reclamation and reuse of the site. Superfund sites take many forms. They can be abandoned mine lands, manufacturing facilities, military installations or shuttered chemical facilities. Common contaminants at these sites include lead, asbestos and dioxin all of which can pose a danger to human health and contaminate soil and groundwater. They are located in all of the 50 states and us territories. These sites pose a risk to human health, the environment and contaminate the water supply and prevent valuable land being used to benefit the community. Created in 1983 the National Priority list, consists of 1300 sites across the country. These sites represent those who pose a risk to human health and the environment. In addition to these sites there are 53 sites for listing on npl, 393 sites have been successfully cleaned up and the leader from the lists. A Superfund Program has been vital to contaminated sites, cleanups are often delayed to a complex bureaucracy and delayed decisionmaking that can hinder the cleanup process. These delays resulting contaminated sites, languishing in communities at time for decades, stakeholders determine the best path forward. And bureaucratic lingering through disagreements on the parties. And the local communities pay the biggest price, and no progress made toward the cleanup. And valuable property that could benefit the Community Remains unused. The leadership of administrator pruitt has made cleaning up superfund sites a priority for the agency. Earlier this year administer pruitt established a Superfund Task force past with providing recommendations on how the Superfund Program could be approved. Last week the task force released their report which provided 42 recommendations that can commence with one year and are currently within epas existing Statutory Authority. And reinvigorated responsible party cleanups, encourage private investment, promote redevelopment and Community Revitalization and stakeholders. The same day the report was released administrator pruitt issued a memorandum directing the epa to immediately being implementing begin implementing 11 of these recommendations. I am encouraged that administrator pruitt had made cleaning of these sites a priority and im hopeful the recommendations provided by the task force will result in programmatic improvements allow quicker and more efficient cleanups. The epa should strive to work in a transparent, cooperative fashion in state and local governments and stakeholders to make certain these sites are effectively cleaned up and free developed for the communities in which they are located. I think our witnesses for being here today and look forward to hearing their testimony as well. I would like to recommend senator harris for her opening statement. I am pleased to be with you today. And this hearing certainly speaks to a topic, and keep the American People safe. And superfund, anyone who puts Public Health at risk by releasing Hazardous Waste is held accountable for cleaning up the damage they created. This is a matter of basic justice. Communities and families should not pay the price for someone elses pollution. This is a matter of basic economic justice. We should cleanup our communities so the jobs should be created and properties can be used for good. This is a matter of basic opportunity. All americans should have a healthy and productive life regardless of where they happen to call home. That is why i am so glad to be holding this hearing. We share a common goal of improving the cleanup process, by restoring contaminated sites. Without cutting corners. This is something we have a real opportunity to do. I look forward to members of the Community Helping to make it happen and i am heartened for strong bipartisan interest in figuring out ways to make superfund work better. Our work is guided by tweet through principles, the superfund laid out four decades ago to guide its recommendations. And threaten Public Health and comprehensive cleanup response and second, polluters should be held accountable and pay for the damage they cause. Superfund has cleaned up thousands of the most heavily contaminated sites across the country, there are still 53 million americans who live within three miles of the nation, more than 300 superfund sites. Communities of color are disproportionately likely in these sites. This is true from the mountains of appalachia to cities and streets of los angeles. Those most likely to be exposed to toxic waste are the same americans who had the fewest resources to deal with the consequences. We can all agree that is wrong and something we need to do more to address. I am concerned by some of the signs i have seen about the direction the epa will take on superfund. He considers cleaning up contaminated lands to be a core responsibility of the epa and the task force was created which he created, and to expedite cleanup. I am heartened by this action. Some of these recommendations they 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. In light of the administrators skepticism of science and prioritization of corporate interest over Public Health. Examples of this include weakening requirements that polluters show they can pay for cleanup, agreed to or reduce federal oversight. 30 proposed cut for the upcoming 2018 fiscal year to the superfund account at epa and the 24 opposed cut in the office that enforces the law, the rhetoric and the reality may not add up. We should reject efforts to expedite cleanups if it means cutting corners on health and environmental standards. It or shutting out input from members of the public that are bearing the brunt of the harm. Mister chairman, i look forward to hearing from epa officials and would like to hear how the agency plans to accelerate the pace of cleanup while cutting sources of funding to do that cleanup. 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, mister chairman, i look forward to your hearing. I would like to introduce our witnesses to begin with steven nadaeu. He is a partner with hoglund, miller, schwartz and cohen. And jeffrey steers of the department of Environmental Quality and katherine probst, independent consultant. Welcome to all of you. Your full statements will be made part of the record today. I would ask that we begin with opening statements, limit them to 12 minutes, that would be appreciated. We turn to steven nadaeu for a five minute introduction. Turn your microphone on please. Ranking member harris and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this oversight hearing on implementation of surplus. My name is steven nadaeu, environmental attorney with sweeping decades of experience working with industry and epa on developing remedies with complex sites across the country. I also served as coordinating director of the sediment management workgroup since 1998. Im delighted to be here to share my experience with the Superfund Program. I should note these views are my own and do not represent the views of any particular client or organization. Congress enacted to ensure the nations most contaminated states would be cleaned up. For more than 30 years epa successfully identified and remediated hundreds of superfund sites, typically all the landfills for Industrial Properties or the typical superfund site profile has changed to complex mining instead of river sediment sites referred to as mega sites. These mega sites are more complicated, expensive and timeconsuming than traditional superfund sites often exceeding 10 to 15 years of study with costs ranging from 100 to 150 million which contaminated sites are the result of hundreds of years of urban industrial activity through hundreds of sources presenting unique challenges to the Superfund Program. These largescale cleanups cost more than 1 billion and drag on for decades. That is why i am 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 exchange to the delegation on may 9th, all circular remedial decisions expected to cost 50 million to be approved by the administrator rather than being decided exclusively by the reasons. Subsequently the administrator created a task force to recommend improvements to the program resulting in the release last tuesday at 42 recommendations designed to achieve where the objective is to expedite cleanup and remediation such as promoting the use of phased approach and further incorporating technical and scientifically sound review, engaging partners and stakeholders, prioritizing redevelopment and encouraging Publicprivate Partnerships. Oral and written testimony is consistent with and build upon these regulatory improvements but also identifies additional issues that need to be addressed. There are several steps in the process and each could cause undue delay in putting sites back into productive use. If not conducted according to epa policy. Two of the steps that often cause the most delayed expense, the first is collection of excessive amounts of data rather than focusing on the data needed for decisionmaking. This is driven by a desire to eliminate all uncertainty which is an unachievable goal. The second example is protracted debate that often occurs over appropriate assumptions for determining assessment of risk. Some epa regions impose conservative assumptions that go well beyond scope of what is required by the guidance on virtually every aspect of the site. These assumptions result in an artificially inflated risk to review the information the administrator will need to decide whether to approve the proposed remedy. Another issue is some epa regions have ignored the sediment guidance Risk Reduction focus. The greater dredging component than is typically necessary at the larger sediment sites. Historically, some epa regions have set unrealistically low background concentration levels for the sediment which resulting goals that are unattainable because sediments will become recontaminated the level above the cleanup goals due to the ambient conditions. In 2005 epa issued a policy guidance document for contaminated sediment sites known as contaminated sediment guidance representing a comprehensive technically sound policy roadmap for addressing complexities associated with contaminated sediment sites. However, the disregard of the settlement guidance and the National Contingency plan requirements particularly at the regional level are limiting the effectiveness of the Superfund Program dealing remediation of impact sites and stymieing redevelopment waterways. In terms of solutions i respectfully request the following recommendations to streamline Site Investigation and remedy collection decisions that contaminate settlement sites. Epa headquarters should require the regions to strictly adhere to the in cpn sediment guidance in all phases of site Risk Assessment and remedy evaluation and remedy selection stages that contaminate sediment sites. Epa should restore contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group independent review of the regions recommended remedy prior to the National Remedy Review Board review. In addition, the reviews of the regions proposed remedy should be required to include a specific recommendation of the appropriate remedy for the site. This will be provided the administrator for review of sediment remedies expected to cost 50 million. This would allow the agencys most experienced staff contaminated sites to have direct input and recommend remedy to the administrator. Moreover epas region should be required to consult with the stag on certain steps with the superfund process including scope of the remedial investigations where things get bogged down. Assumptions for developing the Risk Assessment and a review of the remedial options during the allimportant Feasibility Study phase. Epa regions should apply the wellestablished superfund process of Adaptive Management at the sediment mega sites rather than waiting years and decades before beginning construction. This would also solve the most problematic approach to superfund which is attempting to address virtually all the site issues large and small up front in one massive ultraconservative remedy. In contrast the Adaptive Management approach will accelerate while achieving a scientifically supportable remedy. Number 4. Every sediment site should comply with the costeffectiveness requirement of the ncp by including a detailed and transparent analysis demonstrating the proportionality between the anticipated Risk Reduction of each remedial alternative and incremental cost of each such alternative. This way you can balance the benefits and the cost of each remedy under consideration. Epa should manipulate formally incorporated sustainability analysis in superfund evaluation. Sustainability is consistent with superfund ncp criteria and should be in the circular remedy evaluation. Number 7 existing authority should be used to develop an approach that addresses contaminated sediment sites through Publicprivate Partnerships, this would build on highly successful site after sites addressed in a timely and efficient manner. In addition, implement in these protect human health and the environment, xl sediment cleanups and redevelopment of the jason sites. By ensuring costeffectiveness saving the epa and taxpayers money, i want to thank the subcommittee for holding this important hearing and look forward to answer your questions. Appreciate your testimony and return to the second weakness, jeffrey steers, you may begin. Good morning, members of the subcommittee. The virginia department, deq is a member of the associated solid Waste Management. And the 50 states, territories and district of columbia. We have individual responsibility, and management of waste and cleanup of superfunds. The more testimony on oversight Cleanup Program, states approve primary Secular Authority and play a role in the implementation. With profound impact on state resources. And human health and the environment and appropriately addressed in a financially responsible manner. This assures it is done in a costeffective way. We support, greatest in collaboration with federal partners, that are not diminished. We enjoy a positive working relationship with epa and does not wish to discount these collaborative efforts. We wish however to offer the subcommittee comments and opportunities to enhance the program. States value the relationship with epa through several cooperative agreements as individual states and as an association continue to make Great Strides addressing the most contaminated lands in the United States. We support epas memo stating the Superfund Program is a vital function of epa and the agency cannot have a Successful Program without substantial state involvement. Furthermore the state support the input and role of local government in communities in which contaminated sites exist. Opportunities exist for improvements to the program to deal with costly and delayed cleanups that have a negative impact on communities across the nation. Efficiencies can be realized administratively without legislative change and epa authority, there is an opportunity to modernize certain aspects of the statue to acknowledge the role states as coregulators who operate sophisticated programs across the country are members and to some extent regulated community continue to be challenged with skyrocketing financial obligations associated with contaminated lands. This past week epa release recommendations of the task force and superfund appointed by administrator pruitt. Member states are encouraged the administration recognize the need for improvements to a program whose purpose is to ensure American Communities are protected from contaminated sites. States are reviewing this recently released report we take note of the fact the schedule for implementation is aggressive given the proposed reduction of Agency Staffing and budget, states stand ready to assist epa in meeting this schedule and hope they can work with us in adopting and implementing these recommendations. Experiences in working with epa Regional Office have demonstrated inconsistent application of policy and guidance developed by headquarters is one of the Task Force Recommendations states regions are encouraged to consider greater use of early and interim actions including use of Removal Authority for interim remedies to address the media risk, even source migration and return to portions of the site to use more detailed evaluations or other parts of sites. Regional offices must be held accountable in ensuring consistent implementation of this and other recommendations are followed. One area of difficulty for our Member States is the process to identify state regulations as potential applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, main areas of concern include consistent application from site to site, documenting epas decisions in these matters and allowing states early interaction in the development of specific sites. And recently participated in a process Improvement Team with epa to identify tools that could streamline the process providing states with meaningful involvement. The exercise was successful in agreement on a path forward between the Superfund Program and the states participants, the outcome was afforded by epas office of general counsel who created bureaucratic roadblocks that prevented the project being implement it. This is an example of a lost opportunity in improving federal state relations. Another growing concern is ongoing escalation of cost incurred by state onsite on the National Priority list. You may be aware states are required to cost share 10 of remedy construction while incurring 100 of the operation and maintenance costs. States need to be given more authority in remedy selection and upfront cost decisionmaking early on and often in the process. Prior to transfer to state 408m epa should be given the authority to consider whether the state has sufficient funds to take on obligations even though the state agreed to assume the obligations in this process, it could be projected costs whenever appropriately updated by epa. If there are not sufficient funding to take on the on them at the time of transfer the statute should allow process that identified options how to fund state shortfalls. The role of communities in superfund states has been diminished. States encourage the Task Force Report recommends identifying sites for thirdparty investment and accelerating the remedies might be accomplished under these circumstances. Not mentioning state involvement in recommendation, epa must involve members in the process as we have redevelopment programs that can facilitate remedying fermentation and pragmatic yet protective longterm monitoring of these sites. Investors require level of certainty not typically found in the Superfund Program. And facilitating and negotiating agreements. With response to the sites under superfund, states find themselves in the secondary oversight role. It is customary to enter into a cooperative agreement which defines our role with epa providing funding mechanism for state oversight. In virginia we reached out to responsible parties to gauge their interest in a Pilot Program entering into a customer site agreement to pay the project over cost and funneling money through epa and that resulted in epa and deq. This approach is more costeffective, increases the budget forecast and position virginia to provide Better Customer Service and have an opportunity for specific concerns like costs at key decision points. The oversight is where the consent decrees and settle cost of their cleanup. It is difficult to engage the rps to do additional work needed to recover the states protected oversight costs. This is compounded if the state has the issue of different requirements for the state. Coordination on high profile sites must be a team effort on epa, state and local government. Two recent examples in virginia illustrate the need, the state has been working closely with local state Health Departments that characterize neighborhood Drinking Water next to a contaminated private well. The state provided a temporary solution in the filtration system and a longterm fix was developed. Eventually all parties agreed the public water supply would reduce the exposure pathway to a neighboring resident. Getting public water extended despite that being the intended desire of all parties largely in fact due to epas long process under superfund the didnt facilitate connecting public water. In another case i have to ask you to wrap it up. States positions himself to be Effective Department with epa and superfund implementation developing working relationships with local communities that are home to contaminated sites. We are encouraged, we encourage cooperation with Regulatory Oversight as improvements continue to be made to the Superfund Program. Thank you for allowing me to testify and i will be happy to answer any questions. We turn to our third witness, katherine probst. You may begin. Members of the subcommittee for thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. My name is katherine probst, i am an independent consultant. For 20 years i have worked with the Superfund Program evaluation and sole author of the recently released report superfund 2017, clean up compliments and challenges ahead come in independent report by the American Council engineering company. I was the lead author of the 2001 report to congress, what will it cost published by resources for the future. A washington dc think tank where i was a senior fellow. The conclusion, recommendations and opinions in my testimony are mine and mine alone and do not represent any person or organization. In my testimony i am focusing on what we know, what do we not know about superfund cleanups and none of my data has anything to do with federal facilities. What do we know . We know over two thirds of the sites at the end of fiscal year 2016 either have been deleted from the npl or construction is complete. The remaining 28 for medial pipeline 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. Funding for the Superfund Program has declined since 2000 and it appears the Remedial Program is facing a declining shortfall. And you will superfund appropriations declined from a high of 1. 9 billion in fiscal year 2000 to low of 1. 9 billion in fiscal year 2016, increase of 43 . Funding for their Medial Program has declined from a high of 7 40 million in fiscal year 2004 to a low of 501 million last year, decreased 33 . Over the past we 5 years the end of the year funding shortfalls has averaged 67 million. More difficult to quantify are more subtle result of funding complaints, sites not added to the npl, sites of remedial processes spread over a longer time and other less physical actions not taken or delayed due to lack of resources. Cleanup progress has slowed in recent years since the beginning of fiscal year 2000, 452 sites achieved complete status, average of 27 a year. That average dropped to 12 sites a year for the 5 years consistent in 2012 through fiscal year 2016. Federal pension continues to be identified and add to the npl. There continues to be a need for federal dollars, federal enforcement and federal expertise to address contaminated sites. Since fiscal year 2000, 310 nonfederal sites were added. What we dont know, first, why they are taking so long to finish with these sites. There are 189 nonfederal sites that were at the npl before fiscal year 2000 that are still not construction complete. The question is why. Expeditions include lack of adequate epa funding, prp inaction, epa in action, sheer magnitude of the site of contamination and technical limitations. Any initiative by epa should begin by identifying specific factors contributing to other npl sites. It is not possible to solve a problem if we dont know what is causing it. How much will it cost at current sites . With annual superfund appropriations we need and pipeline funding needs on an annual basis. Sadly the last time such an estimate was made public with the 2001 report to congress in which i was the lead author. Why are contaminated, epa should of course continue to list off sites with federal cleanup dollars enforcement and expertise. It is hopeful to have better understanding of the factors resulted in the last few years. There truly orphans sites, no known prps or they are not financially viable. The types of sites listed suggest gaps in other regulatory programs or inadequate Financial Insurance requirements. I sites added more expensive on average than early years of the program, more complex technically . Are states referring sites to epa for action they dont have financial or Technical Resources to address. Better understanding of factors leading to sites on the npl would be invaluable efforts to close regulatory gaps, investigate and estimate future funding needs. What is the Financial Capacity of state Superfund Programs . Some have suggested little or no need for federal Cleanup Program. Few if any state have Financial Resources to pay for cleanup of the npa caliber site much less the mega site costing more. The financial burden and maintenance, epa should commission an independent analysis of capacity for the Superfund Programs. Happy to answer any questions. I begin the questioning, i would like to ask the panel and certainly appreciate your background in this, there is a process, riskbased corrective action, a method of managing contaminant release sites in which the amount of Environmental Management to protect human health and the environment, with the risk posed by contaminants, or cleanup of petroleum sites. Does the epa currently use the rebecca process, utilized in the epa to manage cleanups more efficiently. Thank you, the Rebecca Program is successful, the riskbased approach, the federal superfund statute contingency plan for contaminated settlement are all riskbased as well. A lot of the concept is rejected. The concept we are seeing as we are getting bogged down on the study page and the riskbased approach falls by the wayside when conservatism is selected. This is why Adaptive Management approach would deal with the worst issues first and monitor these sites to get cleaned up more efficiently, people come to the table because companies that are involved want to get this done so the rebecca approach followed as written in the federal program would really help things accelerate and get better cleanups. Director steers . I agree with my colleague. Microphone please. We get bogged down with looking at risk and what is the appropriate risk and the use of the property especially if it is redeveloped. A rebecca model and especially on large mega sites we see one in virginia, would help when you look at Adaptive Management and the appropriate level of risk. It needs to be tempered with the appropriate risk in those conditions. I dont have the right expertise to answer that question. How would expanding the role of the National Remedy Review Board and contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group remedy decisions improving epa decisionmaking at sediment sites. The sea stag organization was founded because contaminated sites are more complex than anything the government addressed in the past. You cant get your arms around them easily. By having the most experienced practitioners in the region who have 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 document. If we follow the guidance we can make this work so we are encouraged that we are taking a separate look at this through the task force and actions that follow. The nrb and sea stag review making it part of the decision process where a recommendation of a remedy will allow a second look at whether we are complying with sediment guidance which is a riskbased program, it has the ingredients we need to make this work and change the decisionmaking landscape to get this underway, to think everyone is looking forward to doing it. In your testimony you say there is an opportunity to modernize certain aspects without making the legislative change to the statute. Can you elaborate on what you believe are improvements that can be made that epa can undertake with its current Statutory Authority . One of the problems we have seen is the level of involvement with states and contractors working for epa oftentimes work directly with their contractor and cost control isnt on the top of the list as it should be. Working with states we want to look at where the expertise is, making sure the costs are involved. If you look at the removal actions program, project managers at epa that do that for a living, they are in tune with trying to control costs, not pr. It fits hand in glove. Do they mean there will be no change to the ability to address the issue . There will be pressures, no doubt. If there is more funding available to provide review on key issues like settlement sites or mining sites, it would be helpful and it is important to have staffing. Whatever happens, we can make it better and we will live with it. Again, what is the 30 budget cut in terms of the ability to address the cleanup that is necessary . States are concerned about that. We work as partners with them. The cuts in both staff and or construction of projects could end up causing certain additional delays but looking at remedies that are not the best remedies we need for these sites especially ones where the state needs to carry them through longterm monitoring and operation. We also feel even if you have some cuts we need to look at efficiency and you can absorb some cuts if you are being efficient and working with partners in streamlining the process as we mentioned this morning because in lieu of having any ideal budget, you also have to be able to use that money and there is opportunity especially when we talk about project managers apply guidance across epa regions, that can escalate costs easily so it is not an unlimited budget. There is not unlimited funds to address these sites but we need to Work Together and states need to be at the table when talking about budget cuts. The states as a group have discussed or addressed potential 30 cut to the budget . We are trying to understand the impact. Can you follow up with this committee when you have a sense of that . Im interested as i am sure my colleagues are to know what the impact of the states will be of the 30 cut. Proposed 30 cut. Katherine probst. Having worked there in my past life a 30 cut in one year is huge. That is going to hurt the program no matter how we feel about the program. It is hard to absorb huge cuts quickly, extramural dollars are the same dollars, hard to cut staff quickly and have that pay off so the 30 cut to any program in one year will shut down a lot in the program, just a reality. The superfund appropriations have different pockets. The money out of the agency for cleanup and out of the agency for removal actions and staff and other things. We know the Remedial Program budget has declined in real dollars. Hard to see how you can accelerate cleanup and cut the budget without becoming a removal only program. We were going in and addressing current risk but hard to imagine you can do longterm cleanups with that kind of draconian cut. The second point which i made 100 times for 20 years it is good to know how much money they need. This is not a republican or democrat issue. I dont understand but ever since the report we issued in 2001 they have stopped estimating out your liability. It is hard to say what the impact of the cut is if you dont know, to clean up 1500 sites on the fund lead actions. It is hard, we are trying to get a ballpark estimate of the funding they need. And what the implication of the cuts are. I cant think of Something Else he wanted to know. I urge that we follow up on this point. An important and valid point, we should have an estimate of the cost if our budget is going to be relevant to the task at hand and figure out how to follow up with other expert suggestions on how to create a process for evaluating the cost estimate. Thank you for having this hearing. Administrator pruitt mentions cooperative federalism to work with state specifically in the superfund processes the talking states part with the epa to leverage superfund funding to stretch money to more sides . States are positioned to help in working with ba through cooperative federalism as administrator pruitt defined. The Environmental Council of states which represents all the state regulatory environmental agencies is helped in defining how our rolling states can be doing that. To leverage the resources needed to address these sites as mentioned earlier, really need to understand the needed costs and prioritizing, we have a lot of sites, virginia has 31 of them that are npl sites. How do we prioritize and manage at risk . Working with bpa in each region, in virginia with region 3 and helping define how to prioritize the budget we have to deal with what we are dealing with in our states and how can we maximize that . States dont have funds to fund a full Superfund Program. The states have a Superfund Program but it is not on the level of what epa does but states are there, there is some assistance we can provide in looking at the remedy, helping where there is a responsible party to leverage working agreement where we get the responsible party to help pay the cost in an efficient way and doing it timely. One of the issues the time value of money and how long things take and you want certainty with getting a cleanup done. A lot of times you have epa and states duplicating studies and things. Talk to me about perhaps you can give an example of that duplication and describe how it can delay the remediation cleanup in that cost . There is duplication in characterizing the site where we have epa has done studies, states have studies and we keep looking at collecting data. Collecting data can be very expensive and we have got state resources they review the data, epa has contractors and project managers the review the data so a lot of people wanting to look at data, create more data and there needs to be a point where there is an agreement between federal and state agencies, what is the appropriate level of characterization of the site to get what we need for looking at it and the future use of that site. We are encouraged epa is trying to develop these sites and talk about wanting to do that, in virginia they can be reused, if you have the appropriate cleanup being done where you have some longterm responsible party, and step in with some certainty and do things to monitor the site and restrict certain aspects of the property if you are leaving a risk in place so there is duplication that we should be able to work closely with. Steven nadaeu, can you give an example of a successful Publicprivate Partnership where sites have been remediated quickly . Absolutely. One of the Great Success stories was the great lakes legacy act, a program which is completely Publicprivate Partnership driven. Here you add the federal aspect, the state aspect and industry aspect. Folks start on the same page as partners and these sites are getting cleaned up, the funding component is helpful but everyone is trying to problem solve from day one. The atmosphere is so different. We can get through a complex site, not the biggest ones around but still hundreds of thousands, millions upon millions, 60 million remedy, we can do that in a couple years and it is such an improvement that will save on the budget and save on resources. All of those factors of the cooperation, unified purpose of reducing risk in a timely manner would change the landscape and it is the most successful Cleanup Program we have ever seen. If we can borrow those concepts to add and expand the Public Partnership and private partnership we can really get things done. Thank you, mister chairman, senator booker. Thank you for holding this Important Committee hearing. It has been said there are superfund sites in every state, new jersey has the most, about 50 live within 3 miles of superfund sites and unfortunately when i was mayor of newark i saw this in my own city, superfund sites where poisonous chemicals having real effects, people with hazmat suits walking into neighborhoods where there are playgrounds, sitting in meetings with parents and children worrying, telling stories about cancers, respiratory problems. This is an incredible crisis. I dont think we understand the gravity of it all and the urgency of it all. I really dont. Now we have longitudinal data about what effect it actually has on people that live within a mile of superfund sites. 11 million americans live within a mile and 3 to 4 million of our children, the most precious assets this country has, we know babies born to mothers living within mile of a superfund site prior to cleanup have a 20 greater incidence of kids being born with birth defects. 20 higher and so this should be alarming to everyone. It is utterly unacceptable, as senator harris said, this is the job of government, to protect people but we seem to have a declining sense of urgency to deal with this crisis. This topic in 2014 i was told by the regional administrator that there were many sites in new jersey that were ready to be cleaned up but stalled for the simple reason of lack of funding and then in 2015 senator boxer and i requested from the Government Accountability office a report on the state of the superfund sites and a pointed out the annual superfund site had declined 2 billion to 1. 1 between 99, and 2013 and because the epa prioritizes funding work that is ongoing the decline, some led the epa to delay the start on the third of the projects due to funding. For me the question that was asked earlier, it is unconscionable to me that Donald Trumps budget calls for a 30 reduction, it will cripple these programs. It is incredibly irresponsible, this is a time we should be trying to expedite cleanup, do more to do it. I dont mean to take personal offense to what you said but your answer was we will just have to live with this. I live in the work, new jersey. I live a mile from the superfund site. My 11, 10yearold niece lives with me. She was born in that community and for us to have this resignation, a hateful hypocrisy because if everybody in congress lived within a mile of the superfund site had their children being born there there might be a sense of urgency, outrage, that we are debilitating our ability to clean these up and it is hard for me to sit comfortably having come from my house last night in a poor community, innercity community, black and Brown Community and have to tell my neighbors who still Pack Community meetings concerned about the superfunds in our city, you have answered my question about the problem. I just want to ask simply this. I will introduce a superfund polluters pay act which will reinstate a small pack, tax that reagan reauthorized, some senators here on both sides of the aisle voted for. This would put a small tax on polluting industries, that was visited. In places like cancer rally louisiana. Plowing more toxins into the air. Paying for superfund cleanups cannot be part of the issue and my question, a reliable source of funding at a greater rate than now, not cutting introducing legislation that we should spend 5 of 1 trillion infrastructure plan, 5 could satisfy all the funding needs of the current priority list, just 5 of the infrastructure needs. Would that take care of the problem is it is certainly true congressional appropriations were higher when they were dedicated taxes balancing trust funds. In theory congress can do whatever it wants, nothing precluding congress from saying we want to appropriate 1. 6 billion a year, but history shows us where there was a dedicated task and the balance in trust fund the epa gets more money. And essentially cleaned up. There werent the same concerns about funding shortfalls when we did this report in 2001. The assistant administrator said we are not putting mega sites on the list if we dont have the funds so it gets back there are lots of issues, what you are talking about, we have sites, in the report i show how many sites dont have human exposure under control, more disturbing is where we dont know if it is under control. Im horrified by that piece. We have sediment sites and mining sites. Superfund sites are not all you need but not how much you need. One thing, pull out these substantive sites and figure out how we go after them. Innercity sites, people being at risk and new bedford arbor and hudson river and the passaic, those are different sites but history shows where there is money in the trust fund epa gets more money and there is nothing that precludes appropriations committees from saying we will give them more money but that is thank you. Thank you, mister chairman, very much. I was an original coauthor of the superfund law in 1980, on the committee. One of the issues that came to me was when an anderson, a mother with a young son, jenny anderson, visited me in her office and told me the boy has leukemia and she had organized other mothers in massachusetts to go door to door to find other children who had leukemia and along with love can now and other sites that may be the motivating force for the creation of superfund. It became the movie a simple action, the book the simple action. Mothers were the ones who identified this problem, not the experts, not city officials. It was the mothers. In the movie they make the lawyer the hero. It was the mothers. To me died from leukemia. On that site is a huge industrial developments. The Jimmy AndersonTransportation Center as well. They converted it. But the first and most important goal we had was make sure kids didnt die, that they werent drinking the water or put in situations that lead to these human tragedies. As i look at what we are talking about right now, i see the epa making the decisions 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 be redeveloped for commercial purposes. That is the triageing that is unacceptable. This program is there in order to make sure you dont have to make that kind of a choice. That families that have kids who are exposed to these toxins are never exposed regardless whether the property can be redeveloped. As you look at this dramatic downsizing of the Superfund Program, what are the implications for those families that have kids in areas that will never be redeveloped . Im not a scientist or Health Official so im not sure i can totally answer your question but you raise a good point. The thing that concerns me most about the Task Force Report is a third of the 32 recommendations about real violence and reuse, last time i read the statute, nothing in the statute about really development. I am not a Government Official but i did spend time with mayor rabbit who was at the Industrial Site and what he was happy about was tax revenues to his city. I think the idea that redevelopment and reuse is more important than cleaning up sites or reducing human exposure is wrong and not a system with a statute. To place at first seems to be public policy. Exactly. It was a wonderful side benefit that they got to redevelop the site but the first and foremost goal that we had to have was to make sure all these children didnt have other equivalents around the United States and we used it as an example and what we are seeing here is a denial of what this Program Means to families. In 1984, when and gore such n ann gorsuch was in charge, someone went to prison for lying to the committee about that program. She had to do time. This has been controversial right from the beginning. If it was slow rolled by the reagan administration, has never been a program now that the Trump Administration really embrace, that they will give the hug to and understand why this funding has to be there in order to help children, in order to help families avoid the kinds of catastrophes which we are seeing in the past, in massachusetts, if you know mayor rabbit, that is great and he was a big ally of mine, took a lot of courage for him to stand up. How could this impact the remaining superfund site in massachusetts, we have a lot of them. What is the consequence if this funding occurs . There is no way to know what the confluence is if we havent seen the cuts taken at epa but you could slow down cleanup, could affect the enforcement program. A 30 cut is a huge cut in one fiscal year to a federal program so i think it would cause a lot of disarray and to figure out how to deal with when there is a threatened furlough and everything shuts down. I wont tell you exactly in massachusetts but it is fair to say a 30 cut. Is it fair to say of the epa task force comes back with constructive recommendations and a 30 cut in the funding of the mediation of these sites, there is going to be great harm because the triageing will have to occur. Considered successful. Thats a different program. Thats a concern of somebody like me or various people is that you basically move away from the npl cleanup Action Program and you have shortterm and less money and less time in addressing immediate risk, but not addressing longterm hazard and thats the thing to watch out for. If you took a huge cut, if i were the Office Director thats what i would do. Again, you only have certain choices so thats the thing to sort of watch out for is are you really choking off the longterm Cleanup Program or not. Theres nothing in their report that says that. I could be completely wrong, but over the past 25 years thats what one has concerns about, are you gutting the longterm Cleanup Program or not. Again, theres nothing that says they are, but thats kind of what you want to watch. I get it. 30 cut is like moving kryptonite over to a superfund and it will it will really significantly harm its strength and its ability to help. But i want to be wonder woman instead. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. In listening to the testimony and i most certainly appreciate what all of you bring to the table here. It seems to me part of the challenge as we look at oversight of the super fund and superfund activities is to begin to restore trust in the process itself, give confidence in the system of being able to show successes where they are at, and in doing that, we also have to have, as Ranking Member harris has indicated, the accurate assessment of the costs to come yet. Where the costs are at in the future so theyre as we look at the planning for the trust fund and so forth and as we ask questions of the officials at the Environmental Protection agency to have a straightforward assessment to share with the American People, these are the anticipated costs for this program in the future and then, along with that comes a responsibility to efficiently deliver that program, to use these entrusted dollars as efficiently as we can in order to actually address the goals of the program in the first place, which is life and safety for individuals who are impacted, but a side benefit, as indicated here today, to be able to reutilize those properties as well and to bring them back in. Neither of which is a bad goal to have and so, let me just end by once again thanking Ranking Member harris and members of the committee for their participation, to our guests for your participation. As i indicated earlier, your full statements will be included for the record. I would also like to thank, once again, everybody here who has attended. The record will be open for two weeks on this hearing, which will bring us to tuesday, august 15th, and with that, once again, senator harris, thank you for your participation in this, and without further ado, this hearing is adjourned. Sunday on in depth, tea party activist, author and attorney our guest everybody has an idea that the federal government is out of control and then the most asked question i get, as we teach, what do you suppose that is . What do we do about it . And have we been teaching the constitution properly . For the last 150 years . We would know what to do. Shes the author of several books including essential stories for junior patriots, in defense of liberty and sovereign duty during our live threehour conversations well be taking your tweets and facebook questions. Watch sunday on 3 p. M. Eastern on book tv on cspan2. The magnusonstevens act is up for reauthorization and this law governs the management of u. S. Fisheries and waters. The officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fishery Council offered solutions to fishery management. This is an hour and 20 minutes. Good morning, the subcommittee on oceans atmospheric fisheries and coast guard will come to order. Today is the first in a series with the long overdue issue of the reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens act, and this is impact on managing our nations fisheries. Its successes to date and possible areas of improvement. The committee has announced a field hearing in alaska later