March 20, 2001

The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Administrator Whitman:

In recent years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made remarkable progress in completing construction at Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The Agency’s Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2000 released earlier this month reported that "more than 92 percent of the sites on the NPL are either undergoing cleanup construction or cleanup has been completed." In states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Indiana, Tennessee, Iowa, South Carolina, Minnesota, and others, more than two of out every three non-federal Superfund NPL sites have completed all construction actions. A recent industry report concluded that the Superfund program "can now be recognized as an arena in which EPA has achieved a high level of success." The General Accounting Office (GAO) for the first time in a decade recently removed Superfund from designation as a high risk area.

We believe that virtually all Members of Congress want to see the remaining NPL sites achieve construction completion as expeditiously as possible. To gain a better understanding of your management and budgetary approach to maintaining the solid progress of the program, we would request answers to the following questions no later than Monday, April 9, 2001.

1. In the past four years, the Superfund program has made excellent progress by averaging 85 construction completions per year. Will you manage the program in a manner that will maintain at least 85 construction completions per year?

2. The Clinton Administration, in testimony before this Committee, made a commitment that it would reach construction completions at 900 Superfund NPL sites by the end of FY 2002. Will the EPA under the Administration of President Bush reaffirm the commitment to reach "construction complete" status at 900 Superfund NPL sites by the end of FY 2002?

3. Does the Superfund budget proposed by President Bush contain the necessary level of funding to (a) maintain the pace of achieving 85 construction completions per year and (b) keep the Superfund program on the path to achieve 900 construction completions by the end of FY 2001?

Please provide an explanation of how the President’s budget will, at a minimum, maintain the excellent progress in cleanups.

4. How does President Bush’s budget for the Superfund program in FY 2002 compare with the budget request submitted by President Clinton for FY 2001?

5. With respect to new site listings on the Superfund NPL, in the past two years (FY 1999-FY 2000) the top four states have accounted for 38% of the total new listings: New York (10 sites); Texas (7 sites); New Jersey (6 sites); and Louisiana (5 sites).

What is the EPA’s understanding of why these states felt it was necessary to rely on the Federal program to clean up the sites as opposed to individual state programs. If there are different reasons for different states or sites please provide them. What did the state officials indicate was the reason for the State Governor concurring in the listing of the site on the NPL?

Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact us or have your staff contact Dick Frandsen, Minority Counsel, at (202) 225-3641.

Sincerely,

John D. Dingell
Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

Frank Pallone, Jr.
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Environment
and Hazardous Materials

cc: The Honorable W. J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce

The Honorable Paul E. Gillmor, Chairman
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials