HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND LEGISLATION

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Thursday, November 6, 1997 105th Congress, 1st Session

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 5 years ago Congress directed EPA, in consultation with NOAA and the Army Corps, to conduct a comprehensive survey of data regarding aquatic sediment quality in the United States. Sometime within the next few weeks, this long overdue report will be submitted to Congress. Because of the widespread contamination that EPA, working with the Army Corps and NOAA, has found, this report should sound an alarm for all of us. While we have made great progress on preventing pollution from many sources, we have severely neglected the problem of contaminated sediments. This contamination is a legacy of decades of hoping that pollution would flow down the drain or off the land and out of sight never to bother us again. But, now we know where a significant portion of it is and it's not going anywhere soon until we do something about it.

The report, "The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States," identifies approximately 96 areas of probable concern APC's . In these watershed areas, sampling indicates there is a significant possibility of adverse aquatic wildlife or human health effects due to contaminated sediments. These APC's can be found throughout the country including Boston Harbor, the Detroit River, Green Bay, along the Mississippi, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, Seal Beach, Mobile Bay to the Middle Savannah, to name a few. This concentration of sites is surprising when one considers that of the 2,111 watersheds recognized by the U.S. Geological Survey, there is no sediment quality information on about 90 percent of them or about 1,900 watersheds.

Mr. President, this report has to be used with caution because it is only a first step. There is obviously insufficient information to make sweeping claims about the extent of contamination in sediments across the country, though EPA plans to develop the report into a national sediment inventory, a continually updated centralized assemblage of sediment quality measurements and stateoftheart assessment techniques. However, "based on the evaluation in the report , sediment contamination exists at levels indicating a probability of adverse effects in all regions and states of the country." We must be cautious too about leaping directly from evidence of contamination to evidence of adverse effects due to that contamination. Unfortunately, Federal Government agencies have been slow to agree upon and provide sediment quality guidelines to inform States and the public about contamination that could cause adverse human health effects. This sluggishness has prevented development of the true picture of the potential risks contaminated sediments pose.

In the Great Lakes, we have been concentrating our efforts on contaminated sediments for some time. We realized some time ago that our industrial legacy would need attention. That is why I authored the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990, which formalized the process of developing remedial action plans RAP's in areas of concern AOC in the Great Lakes, where beneficial uses are impaired. These AOC's are not too dissimilar to the APC's described in the sediment report, because contaminated sediments are a significant component of the environmental and public health risk associated with AOC's. Unfortunately, despite all of the efforts by local and State governments to prepare RAP's, very little Federal money has gone into their development and even less into implementing them to clean up the waste and prevent further contamination. That needs to change.

The Federal Government has to commit more of its resources to helping States and local governments clean up the industrial legacy that lurks beneath the water's surface in harbors and rivers across the Nation. To date, Federal agencies have been too reluctant to carefully examine the risks that these contaminated sediments pose for fear of the costs of cleanup and because the technologies necessary have not been adequately developed. But, as we have learned in the Great Lakes, these contaminated sediments are the source of much of the continuing pollution of our surface waters, as they recirculate pollutants into the water bodies that are then taken up by fish, birds, humans, and other living organisms. So, if our goal is to have fishable and swimmable waters again, we need to use every took that we can to begin addressing the cleanup.

I am introducing legislation today to authorize the use of Superfund money to expedite remediation of contaminated sediment sites across the Nation. Many of the most persistent, bioaccumulative toxics found in contaminated sediments are derived from the same chemical feedstocks taxed to fill the Hazardous Substance Superfund, so it is most appropriate that those moneys be used to clean up sediments.

The bill allows the EPA Administrator to use the Superfund to remediate contaminated sediments, but limits the amount to no more than $300 million annually. In expending funds, EPA is to give priority consideration to sediment sites which do or could adversely affect human health or the environment. Further, there is a preference given for sites in watersheds where the local governments are actively engaged in trying to prevent further contamination of the sediment and are willing to contribute 25 percent or more of the costs of remediation.

Under the bill, EPA would have to do a better job of integrating its Water and Superfund programs' approach to contaminated sediments. Specifically, the hazardous ranking system used in Superfund to estimate the potential risks associated with a conventional terrestrial site will be revisited to determine if it adequately assesses risks associated with aquatic contaminated sediments. And, EPA would be required to promulgate final numerical sediment quality criteria for the 10 toxic, persistent, or bioaccumulative substances most likely to adversely affect human health and the environment by 2001.

In addition, EPA would have to identify the 20 contaminated sediment sites that are most likely to adversely affect human health and the environment and have not been the subject of Federal or State response actions. And, to address the lack of data on contaminated sediments at Superfund sites, EPA would have to report on their occurrence and associated risk.

Mr. President, I consider this to be a fairly modest bill. It does not set aside a specific percentage of the Superfund that must be spent on contaminated sediment cleanup, through I think that might also be helpful. And, it does not place great demands on Federal agencies, States or local governments. What it does do, however, is seek to bring resources and attention to bear on a very pressing problem. This problem has been clearly illustrated in EPA's report and it is a tenacious one that will not get any smaller. Unfortunately, our current system lets contaminated sediments fall between the regulatory and environmental policy cracks in the pier. And, there it will stay on our harbor and river bottoms, polluting fish, water, and vegetation until we act.

I urge my colleagues from all parts of the country to consider cosponsoring this legislation, but particularly want to encourage the attention of Senators from coastal areas or from States with environmentally sensitive and industrialized watersheds. I believe that the approach taken in this bill is a necessary first step toward cleaning up contaminated sediments and I will be working to incorporate this into whatever Superfund reauthorization bill comes before the Senate.