<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:55642.wais]
THE STATUS OF THE FEDERAL SUPERFUND PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 23, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-642 CC WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG GANSKE, Iowa THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona LOIS CAPPS, California
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
James E. Derderian, Chief of Staff
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
Vice Chairman PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio BART STUPAK, Michigan
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
GREG GANSKE, Iowa LOIS CAPPS, California
RICK LAZIO, New York EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
VITO FOSSELLA, New York JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
ROY BLUNT, Missouri (Ex Officio)
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Fields, Hon. Timothy, Jr., Assistant Administrator, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Environmental
Protection Agency.......................................... 13
Guerrero, Peter F., Director, Environmental Protection
Issues, General Accounting Office.......................... 132
Kerbawy, Claudia, Chair, Federal Superfund Focus Group,
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials.................................................. 142
Material submitted for the record by:
Dingell, Hon. John D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, letter dated April 12, 1999, to Timothy
Fields, Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Environmental Protection Agency,
enclosing questions for the record, and responses to same.. 157
(iii)
THE STATUS OF THE FEDERAL SUPERFUND PROGRAM
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael G. Oxley
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Oxley, Tauzin, Greenwood,
Largent, Ganske, Shimkus, Wilson, Fossella, Blunt, Ehrlich,
Bliley (ex officio), Towns, Engle, DeGette, Barrett, Luther,
Capps, Pallone, and Rush.
Staff present: Nandan Kenkeremath, majority counsel; Amit
Sachdeb, majority counsel; Anthony Habib, legislative clerk;
Richard Frandsen, minority counsel; Alison Berkes, minority
counsel, and Anne Zorc, minority legislative intern.
Mr. Oxley. The subcommittee will come to order.
The Chair will recognize himself for an opening statement
and then recognize members in order of appearance.
Our topic today is the Superfund Program, but it is not
like we haven't been here before. This subcommittee has held
over 25 hearings on Superfund over the past 6 years, both here
in Washington and on the road. I am pretty sure I have been at
all of them. Just call me the Cal Ripken of Superfund Reform.
The message we are likely to hear today is sites are
finally starting to work their way through the pipelines. Given
that a lot of those sites have been on the NPL since the
1980's, I would certainly hope that we would be seeing remedies
finally being selected. Close to half are finally in a phase
called ``construction complete.'' Final cleanup remains in the
distance, and the litigation pipeline in steering thousands of
parties will remain for years and years.
The sad truth is that, during the nearly 20 years of
CERCLA, we could have been cleaning up sites with greater speed
and less waste while protecting people's health and the
environment. Despite several rounds of administrative reforms,
the Superfund statute itself remains fundamentally flawed. The
liability scheme is unfair and is better suited to courtroom
fights than cleanup sites.
The remedy selection process is often unrealistic, and
Superfund creates disincentives and uncertainty for State and
voluntary cleanups for a lot of the work that is getting done
these days. The quality of our Nation's most prominent cleanup
program does matter. When sites stay abandoned because of
Superfund's vagaries, people suffer; neighborhoods suffer;
cities and towns suffer.
I still believe that there is a bipartisan majority in the
House and a broad number of stakeholders for significant
changes in the Superfund statute. The litigation pipeline is
still causing injustice. According to States, cleanup
contractors, and realtors, Superfund is still creating a
disincentive for thousands of brownfields sites. If we don't
take the recommendations of the States and cleanup contractors
to fix Superfund, cleanups will continue to languish and
development will continue to push out into the pristine rural
countryside.
Many Members of Congress have worked on a bipartisan basis
over the last 6 years with State cleanup agencies, cleanup
engineers, and dozens of experts to develop statutory changes
that would make a real difference. Many of those proposals have
lasting value and are worth exploring. We also have to realize
that, for reforms to move forward, they need bipartisan
support.
Today, we welcome Mr. Tim Fields in what I believe is his
first appearance in front of the subcommittee since he was
formally named as Assistant Administrator. We welcome back
Peter Guerrero with the GAO, which has compiled an impressive
body of work critiquing the Superfund Program. I also think it
will behoove all of us to listen closely to the State
perspective that will be presented by Ms. Claudia Kerbawy, who
has traveled here from Michigan on behalf of ASTSWMO.
State agencies are cleaning up many more sites than the
Federal Government at this time. States are closer to the
problem, closer to local governments, and have less
bureaucracy. Their efforts point to the way of the future. I
will be turning to all of today's witnesses, other
stakeholders, and members on both sides of the Chair for more
information, the right formula, and the right opportunity for
positive results.
Yogi Berra once observed it is all deja vu all over again.
I hope that those in this room don't feel that way. Maybe it is
because the optimist in me comes out during spring training,
when all teams are equal and the Tigers have as good a shot at
the World Series as anybody else, but I certainly think we can
definitely improve on a status quo that has been
unsatisfactory. I'm ready to play ball, if others are.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, the
ranking member of this subcommittee, Mr. Towns.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
let me thank you for holding this hearing, and I would like to
welcome our witnesses today to our oversight hearing on the
current status of the Superfund Program.
In the last year, 31 additional non-Federal sites have been
listed on NPL, as physical cleanup actions to mitigate threats
to human health and the environment have taken more than 50
percent of the these newly listed sites. These statistics
reflect tremendous progress on the ground in our neighborhoods,
protecting the health of our citizens from toxic waste.
Mr. Chairman, it would be unwise and counterproductive to
make comprehensive changes to the program at this point. Such
changes would also likely lead to a slowdown in Superfund
cleanups. This is a result I hope none of us wish for, even
though delay may be a strategy employed by some of those
responsible for contamination at certain sites.
Let us focus on brownfields and areas where we essentially
agree on liability clarification for the prospective bona fide
purchases and developers, innocent landowners, and contiguous
property owners.
The President's budget invests approximately $92 million in
the cleanup and redevelopment of abandoned industrial sites
through EPA's Brownfields Program, including $35 million for
the brownfields revolving loan fund, which helps communities
leverage funds for the actual cleanup of brownfields sites.
We should ensure the successful program which has assisted
350 communities continues, with the full support of this
Congress, by recognizing that over the last 4 years EPA has
listed on the Superfund National Priorities List only those
sites that the States are unwilling or unable to handle. It is
important to acknowledge that the Federal Superfund statute has
played a strong and important role in assisting State cleanups.
Many State officials have informed Congress that the Federal
liability scheme and the threat of NPL listing are important
incentives to private parties to voluntarily clean up State
sites. The General Accounting Office has recently reported
similar findings to Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
I think this is a very important hearing and thank you very
much for calling it.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from Ohio, Dr. Ganske.
Mr. Ganske. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, you are
absolutely right, Mr. Chairman; we have held a lot of hearings
in the last few years on comprehensive Superfund reform. And,
you know, Mr. Chairman, when you have got the votes, you move
comprehensive legislation, and after a while, when you don't,
you start looking at fixing part of the problem. And so I'm in
agreement with the ranking member, and in our conversations, I
think that it is fair to say there is sentiment on the
Republican side to look at a brownfields piece of legislation.
In Des Moines, Iowa, my home, there are brownfields. I see
thousands and thousands of acres of the best farmland in the
world, Grade A Iowa farmland being eaten up by a peripheral
development around the cities every year, when those prior
industrial sites in the center of our Iowa cities are going
unused because of the brownfields problem.
And so, as we've discussed, Mr. Chairman, a number of us
will be working on trying to craft a bipartisan piece of
brownfields legislation this year that can pass and become law,
and I look forward to working with you and the members on the
other side on this issue.
I yield back.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as you said, we
are here again, and although the members of this subcommittee
may have changed somewhat, the topic really hasn't changed much
and my attitude about Superfund hasn't changed. I personally
remain pleased with the direction of progress that EPA is
making in the Superfund Program, particularly, in New Jersey
and in my district.
I want to say that, as of December 1998, New Jersey has or
has had 123 sites on the National Priorities List--more than
any other State in the country--and 2 proposed NPL sites. In my
district alone, there are nine sites. EPA's Region 2, which
encompasses New York and New Jersey, contains 223 Superfund
sites and 9 proposed sites. Of these, 75 sites, or 33 percent,
have been cleaned up and deleted from the NPL or have all their
construction completed and are undergoing long-term
remediation.
Cleanup progress is evident, considering that at the end of
fiscal year 1996 there were 42 sites completed and 60 complete
sites by the end of fiscal year 1997. In addition, over 247
tons and 3.9 million gallons of products from abandoned sites
were removed or treated. And in New Jersey alone, approximately
76 percent of our sites are either being cleaned up or are
cleaned up, and mitigation work has been conducted at more than
10 percent of the sites, bringing the total percentage of sites
in New Jersey at which physical work has been done to more than
85 percent.
All nine sites in my district have experienced some level
of cleanup. They are either undergoing cleanup construction or
have had threats mitigated by physical work, and in fiscal year
1998, three sites in New Jersey were deleted from the NPL.
I mention this because, obviously, I think that the EPA is
doing a good job in terms of overall cleanup. A large number of
the sites in New Jersey at which work has been completed have
not been deleted from the NPL only because long-term monitoring
is still going on or because long-term treatment of groundwater
is still underway. And these monitoring effects may have been,
or could continue to be, underway for many years. Nevertheless,
such efforts are critical to protect human health and resources
for current and future generations, and I believe that remedial
measures undertaken now will minimize the extent and costs of
future remedial actions.
Today, I know we are discussing the same issues surrounding
the Superfund Program that we have discussed for years, and
let's face it, cleaning up hazardous waste sites is not a
simple task. We here in Congress need to decide what about the
Superfund Program is more important--how long it takes to
cleanup the site or whether that site gets cleaned up safely
and to a level that protects kids and the environment.
Obviously, I feel that the latter is more important and that's
why I think it's important that, even though we have done a lot
of cleanup, we have to still go at it with the remediation, the
groundwater, and the other things to make sure that public
safety and health are protected.
Now, I say that by way of background, because, I just want
to say, in conclusion, that I believe this is not the time to
roll back or significantly alter our Superfund Program.
Substantial changes would only cause more unnecessary delays in
cleaning up our Nation's Superfund sites. If anything, we need
to ensure that our Federal program remains strong, is well
funded, that the burden of site cleanups remains with the
polluter--the potentially responsible party--and that we avoid
any corporate carveouts.
So, at this point, I know this is an oversight hearing. Let
me say that I think that we are moving forward in a substantial
way, and that I would be fearful that any substantial changes
to the Superfund Program, instead of going in a more
progressive way, might actually do harm to the program. And for
that reason, I am very suspect of any effort to make
significant changes at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Greenwood.
Mr. Greenwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to
thank you for holding these hearings.
It is vital that we continue to work toward reform of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, better known as Superfund. Like many other
members of the committee, my district has been directly
impacted by the act. My suburban Philadelphia district of Bucks
and Montgomery counties has eight National Priorities List
sites alone, not to mention that we have four square miles of
brownfield sites located in the southern portion of Buck
County.
I am in full support of comprehensive Superfund reform. I
think it is amazing to hear that some are not. I think the
program has been a disaster, not only in what it has done wrong
in the lives of innocent American citizens, but what it has
failed to do at great expense. But I would like to direct my
comments to once specific area of Superfund reform.
Of personal interest to me is the title in Superfund
dealing with brownfields. My interest in this area is not
driven just because of my intimate knowledge of the large area
of abandoned or underutilized, once-prime commercial real
estate in my district, and I thank the chairman for having
brought this committee to my district to look at that problem,
but also because returning America's original fields of dreams
to active use is key to economic development. And as we all
know, economic development leads to job creation, a drop in
welfare rolls, a reduction in crime, and safer, healthier
neighborhoods. In fact, economic development is a vital
component of the fulfillment of the American dream, self-
sufficiency, and opportunity. As long as these properties lie
vacant, the dream will remain unfulfilled for many Americans
who live and struggle to survive in these areas.
The brownfields program has many sources. Foremost among
them is the Federal law itself. Under Superfund, the parties
who currently own or operate a facility can be held 100 percent
liable for any cleanup costs, regardless of whether they
contributed to the environmental contamination and regardless
of whether they were in any way at fault.
The imposition of this liability has led to tragic
consequences, including the potential developers who recoil
from any site with a history of industrial activity. It is
simply not worth it for them to deal with the environmental
exposure, when they have the alternative of developing in rural
areas with no potential for liability.
In stark contrast to the Federal program, 32 States have
launched so-called voluntary cleanup programs. Under these
initiatives, property owners comply with State cleanup plans
and are then are released from further environmental liability
under State law at the site. In fact, in the first year the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted its brownfields program,
it succeeded in cleaning 35 sites, again, in the first year.
Although many of these State laws have proven successful,
States, businesses, and other experts have testified before
this subcommittee that they could be far more effective if
participation in a State voluntary cleanup program also
included a release from Federal environmental liability.
Therefore, it is imperative that any initiative to reform
Superfund include a strong brownfields provision.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing today. I look forward to working with the committee in
crafting legislation that will ensure a clean and safe
environment for ourselves, for our children, and for
generations to come.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlelady
from Colorado, Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing on the Superfund site.
Today, I am pleased to say the program is running more
efficiently and effectively than at any time in its history. In
fact, by the end of the 106th Congress, it is projected that 90
percent of the non-Federal Superfund site listed as of
September 30, 1997 will either have all construction completed
or remedial construction underway. In addition, 3,800 emergency
removal actions have been taken at sites not on the National
Priorities List.
Responsible parties who perform the vast majority of long-
term cleanups are saving the taxpayers billions of dollars, and
by the end of fiscal year 2000, four times as many sites will
have finished construction compared to the first 12 years of
the program.
In Colorado, my home State, the pace of cleanup has
accelerated in the last 6 years as well. Clearly, the success
of this program has turned around during this administration,
and improved human health and the environment at the vast
majority of sites through the country. These tangible and
significant results, they demonstrate the increase and
effectiveness of the Superfund Program.
And I would like to talk for a minute about a site in
Colorado. In the last year alone, the EPA has listed 31
additional sites, and 17 cleanup actions have been initiated to
mitigate threats to human health and the environment. Recently,
the EPA listed the I-70 and Vasquez site in Denver. I know that
the EPA will work with the State of Colorado, the city of
Denver, and especially the neighborhood, to ensure that remedy
selected gives the highest level of protection to human health
and the environment and takes into account how the remedy will
affect property values in the years to come.
I remain concerned, however, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal
Government hides behind the shield of sovereign immunity to
protect itself from State enforcement of most environmental
laws, and to that end, Mr. Chairman, I have today an article
from the March 1999 National Environmental Enforcement Journal,
published by the National Association of Attorneys General. I'd
like to ask unanimous consent to insert that into the record,
if I may.
Mr. Oxley. Without objection.
[The article is retained in subcommittee files:]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Federal facilities which aren't cleaned up to the same
standards as other privately owned properties create a
heightened risk for redevelopment and allow the Federal
Government to shirk its responsibilities to communities across
the country. Given the Federal Government's continued
downsizing, sites which once housed Federal facilities are
being transferred to the private sector, creating new
opportunities, but also, frankly, new uncertainties.
Finally, I can't resist commenting on the brownfields
discussion that we are having today, because that has been one
of my main focuses in my career in Congress. I am encouraged to
hear on both sides of the aisle that people want to pass
brownfields legislation, and, in fact, had a conversation
myself with the chairman of the full committee about this issue
the other day. I understand, although I disagree, with some
members' of this committee desire to attach brownfields to some
kind of Superfund reauthorization. I have been here now 2 years
and I haven't seen that reauthorization occur. I'm not
optimistic that it will occur any time soon, but, yet,
meaningful brownfields legislation continues to languish.
This would help all of us in our districts, rural and
urban, throughout the country, and it would also help with some
of the sprawl that we are seeing in areas like mine in
Colorado. It would help stop greenfields from being developed
at the expense of redevelopment of places like several I can
think of in Denver.
And so I would urge you, Mr. Chairman, and this whole
committee, to consider strongly working on bipartisan
brownfields legislation and to move that ahead this Congress,
irrespective of whatever action we may decide on Superfund
reauthorization. I think the time is ripe. I think our
constituents want it, and I think our businesses would welcome
it. I think it is a win-win situation for everyone.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Oxley. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from
Missouri, Mr. Blunt.
Mr. Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing on this topic.
Like many other Members of Congress, I have a number of
sites in my district in southwest Missouri, and, of course,
there is a number of sites in our State. I will say that
generally our contacts with the agencies, the oversight
agencies, are positive, and more positive than they may have
been in the past, but I still think that our oversight
responsibility is significant here. I think looking at the law
to make the law better is an important goal for this committee
and for this Congress to have.
We need an effective cleanup program. To have that kind of
program is critical. To have a program that actually moves
toward final cleanup is very important, and I think, Mr.
Chairman, that we need more results rather than more verdicts.
Maybe we need more mitigation and less litigation, as we try to
solve this problem.
In oversight, our goals should not be to defend everything
the government does. Our goal should be to make everything the
government does better; that this program can be improved.
Nobody on this committee, or in the Congress, or who works with
the program every day would begin to defend everything that
happens in the program or everything in the law.
We need to take our oversight responsibility seriously. I'm
pleased that you do that and glad that you're leading the
committee in doing that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oxley. I thank the gentleman and recognize the
gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps.
Ms. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing today.
I think it is useful to look back 20 years ago to when the
Superfund was established to identify and clean up hazardous
waste sites. Prior to Superfund, across the Nation were
hundreds of toxic waste sites that threatened the environment
and public health, and weakened the long-term health of local
economies. While the cleanup process has been arduous,
significant progress has been made in identifying and cleaning
up many of our Nation's most hazardous waste sites.
As we approach a new millennium, it is estimated that 90
percent of the listed Superfund sites will have either
construction completed or remedial construction underway. Over
the last decade, the pace of cleanup has also increased
significantly. In 1992, only 12 percent of listed non-Federal
Superfund sites had completed construction. By the end of year
2000, 61 percent of these sites are expected to have all
construction completed, a fourfold increase.
EPA, particularly under the current administration, has
made considerable strides in improving the program with its
administrative reforms. Furthermore, innovative programs such
as EPA's Brownfields Initiative have proven successful in
empowering States, communities, and other stakeholders through
public-private partnerships to restore contaminated lands and
spur economic development, greatly benefiting our local
economies.
In my own district, Santa Barbara County is participating
in a brownfields pilot program to restore the old town of
Goleta as an economically vital, social, and cultural focus of
the community.
While great advances have been made under the Superfund
Program, there may be ways in which Congress might work with
EPA to further improve upon this effort. For example, while
cleanup is proceeding at the majority of Superfund sites, a
great deal of litigation is also ongoing. This specter of
litigation can be particularly burdensome to smaller parties,
municipalities, and businesses. However, any effort to improve
upon Superfund must not weaken cleanup standards established to
protect human health and the environment.
I believe that it is worth exploring ways in which we can
try to reduce the amount of litigation to achieve what I think
is the shared goal of everyone, to clean up as many sites as we
can as quickly as possible to protect public health, the
environment, and local economies. I look forward to working
with my colleagues as we address this most important issue.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Oxley. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ehrlich.
Mr. Ehrlich. I have no prepared statement, Mr. Chairman,
other than to say I look forward to this hearing an awful lot.
There is an awful lot to say. Many members of this subcommittee
are interested in moving one or more bills, as we have
discussed, and I congratulate you with respect to your
leadership on this issue. I hope we can work in a bipartisan
way, and I trust that we can, to really, at the very least,
move the brownfields bill out of this subcommittee and the full
committee over the next couple of months.
I appreciate the time.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman yields back, and we now----
Mr. Towns. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent that
we leave the record open for additional statements for members?
Mr. Oxley. Without objection, it would be the desire of the
Chair to have any opening statements be made part of the
record.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Gillmor, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Ohio
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing.
Comprehensive Superfund reform is just as important today as it was
when this panel first tried to accomplish it in the 103rd Congress. We
both have sat on the hazardous materials panel of this committee for
several Congresses and know just how broken a program that Superfund
reform is.
Superfund is the quintessential government program that spends way
too much as its accomplishes far too little. In the meantime, the
agency that administers it has resisted even modest proposals for
change on political grounds. This is the worst possible scenario for
the taxpayers, hazardous waste rots in the ground while lawyers and
bureaucrats quibble over how to divide the spoils.
We need a Superfund program that recognizes its faults and works to
correct them. Whatever has happened in the past needs to be understood,
honestly evaluated, and changed. Back when Superfund was first created,
the Federal government was asked to respond to an emergent local
concern. Today, Superfund has grown into a program that often responds
without asking, cleans out without cleaning up, and begins without
ending. We need a hazardous waste program that works for us and
meaningful reform is the only way to make that a reality.
I am very interested to hear from the Clinton Administration's
witness on how we no longer need to comprehensively reform this
program. It has been my experience, and that of the Government
Accounting Office and EPA's own Inspector General that EPA is spending
less than 50 cents on the dollar on actual dirt moving, Superfund
cleanup. This is bad enough, but when you combine this fact with
acknowledged slowness in cleaning up sites, a nightmare of a liability
system, and clean up standards that defy logic, Superfund reform
becomes more of an imperative than a slogan. I think that if the
Administration is willing to walk away from correcting this mammoth
program, this committee and the American public deserve a good
explanation as to why.
I am also looking forward to hearing from the Government Accounting
Office on the Superfund program. In the last Congress, GAO provided
some of the most damning evidence as to what Superfund was not doing
and why Congress needed to step in and make it better. It is important
that our discussion on Superfund be current and extensive. This
committee should be fully aware of all the things that Superfund is
doing, both good and bad, so a reformed program will encourage more
cleanups, not prohibit them.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this important hearing.
Major, structural reforms to Superfund remain a concern today and
should be for all those who care about the environment.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Largent, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman, today's hearing reminds me of Yogi Berra's famous
line, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' Over the past six years, in an
attempt to reform the current Superfund program, the House and Senate
committees with jurisdictional authority over Superfund have held over
sixty hearings on this issue. Clearly, these hearings have borne out
one unquestionable fact--Superfund is not working. Despite expenditures
in the billions of dollars, Superfund has failed to clean up more than
a small fraction of the nation's worst hazardous waste sites.
This Subcommittee has heard testimony from numerous Members, on
both sides of the aisle, chronicling the bureaucratic nightmare that
states, localities, and businesses face when ensnared in the Superfund
web.
One of most troubling aspects of the current Superfund program is
its liability system. A system which promotes litigation rather than
remediation of hazardous waste sites. Before the enactment of Superfund
in 1980, only 2000 lawyers specialized in environmental law. Today,
this number has grown to 18,000. A boom to the legal profession, but a
boondoggle to those who actually want to clean up toxic waste sites.
Under the present system of strict, joint and several, and retroactive
liability, the EPA is provided with a multitude of Potentially
Responsible Parties or PRPs who have a strong incentive to sue each
other to minimize their own liability--rather than pay for actual
cleanup. In addition, lender liability has contributed to the
``brownfields'' problem which plagues many of our cities and
communities across the country. Fear of being identified as a PRP has
created a situation where banks and other lending institutions are
unwilling to loan resources to the redevelopment of many urban
industrial areas.
It is obvious that Superfund in its current form does not bear any
resemblance to a ``polluter pays'' approach, but instead places fault
on a vast array of individuals, including those who were acting in an
environmentally responsible manner. To me it defies common sense to
impose penalties on a company which was acting legally at the time, but
because of a subsequent change in law, is now held liable for millions
of dollars. It is this type of heavy-handed behavior that restricts
economic growth and greatly diminishes employment opportunities.
Going hand-in-hand with liability reform is the need for improved
remedy selection and the use of risk assessment based on sound science.
Any Superfund reform must provide for the prioritization of sites based
on an actual threat to human health and the environment, rather than
exaggerating the risk based on some hypothetical model that if a child
eats a handful of dirt each day for a year, there then is the
possibility of contracting cancer.
It is also essential that we give states a greater role in the
Superfund program. By nature, hazardous waste sites are local problems
that, in most cases should be addressed at the state and local levels.
Reassessing the role of the federal and state governments would allow
an opportunity to provide more accountability of government
expenditures on the Superfund program. In this respect, a shift in
responsibility of the Superfund program does not equate to transferring
the existing program to the state level. States would be better served
to develop their own systems to address hazardous waste, including the
use of better risk assessments, as well as ways to reduce transaction
costs and inefficiencies of the federal program.
Finally, as someone who represents a district that is heavily
reliant on the oil and gas industry, I am extremely concerned about the
possibility of reauthorizing the Superfund taxes without Superfund
reform. It is estimated that the petroleum industry is responsible for
less than 10 percent of the contamination at Superfund sites; yet the
industry has historically paid over 50 percent of the taxes that
support the Trust Fund. Considering the current state of the domestic
oil and gas industry, it is patently unfair for an already beleaguered
industry to pay a disproportionate share of the costs without
corresponding reform.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that we do not have to wait another
six years and hold another sixty hearings before we move forward with
Superfund reform. Mr. Chairman, I commend you on your diligence with
this issue, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing on the
Superfund program. As a relatively new Member of Congress, I have often
heard horror stories from other Members about how the Superfund program
turns communities upside down.
Although I know that this will sound all too familiar to the
Committee, I wanted to share with everyone how the Superfund horror
story has played out in Quincy, a small Mississippi River town in the
western part of my district in Illinois.
This past February, the Environmental Protection Agency came to
Quincy, Illinois and levied a proposed order seeking $3 million from
165 local businesses. The order alleged that these businesses
contributed small (de minimis) amounts of waste to the Adams/Quincy
Landfill in the late 1960's and 1970's. In fact, none of the parties
violated any laws doing so. In many instances, these businesses paid
municipal waste management companies to dispose of this waste.
Nearly eight years after the landfill closed, EPA began working
with the city and several of the larger waste contributors to clean up
the site. In 1990, EPA placed the site on the Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL), These groups have already paid in about $6
million, and EPA estimates it will cost about $10 million to finish the
job.
This is where the proposed order comes into play. Superfund allows
EPA and the other potential responsible parties (PRPs) to seek
contributions from other PRPs, even innocent small businesses, to pay
for this cleanup. The Agency has asked Quincy's small business owners,
including such family-run businesses as bowling alleys, dairy farms and
family restaurants, to pay as much as $150,000 per company, despite the
fact that these businesses did nothing wrong.
For some of these businesses, the amounts they are being asked to
pay will mean the difference between being in the black or in the red
for the year--and that means this law is costing people their jobs and
their livelihood. Even worse is that even if these parties consent to
EPA's demands, they still risk the possibility of further lawsuits in
state courts, and/or being pursued by the Illinois EPA.
Mr. Chairman, as a result of the Quincy Superfund nightmare, I was
forced to call all of the groups together, including the EPA, the city
of Quincy and the small businesses, to try to get appropriate answers
from the EPA. However, I remain very concerned about several aspects of
the Superfund program:
1. The powers granted to the EPA to essentially pursue action against
small businesses who have broken no laws, and who were given no
fair warning of the Superfund action;
2. Next is the process by which EPA collects Superfund information. In
Quincy, the EPA pursued only those businesses who had kept good
records on waste management. This haphazard method of
information gathering is very suspect;
3. Finally, and most importantly, the Superfund program has become a
litigation nightmare. Many small businesses in Quincy are
feeling the squeeze of the proverbial Superfund vice, and it is
costing jobs and killing small businesses, which are the
lifeblood of small towns like Quincy, Illinois.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your guidance and leadership
on this important effort, and I look forward to working with you in any
way possible to make Superfund reform a reality.
To my colleagues, I want to say that it is often the struggling
small businesses like those in Quincy who have the least time and the
most difficulty paying for what the EPA judges as their share of
Superfund cleanup. While it may be too late to rescue many of the small
businesses in Quincy from the Superfund nightmare, we must act soon, as
your district may be the next stop in the Superfund road show.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce
Thank you Mr. Chairman. We're here to find out where we are with
the Superfund program. I have to admit I have some strong ideas about
that.
What I think is that Superfund is a statute with fundamental flaws.
Its liability scheme has created 20 years of litigation which has hurt
people, particularly small businesses, and delayed cleanup of toxic
waste sites. Superfund also creates barriers and disincentives to
voluntary cleanups, State cleanups, and community redevelopment. The
program's unrealistic cleanup requirements not only create unnecessary
burdens and waste for sites on the National Priorities List, but also
for other cleanups across the country. States and clean-up contractors
themselves have made these points very clear to us.
Mr. Chairman, one has only to review the extensive record that your
Subcommittee has compiled to know that Superfund has been a public
policy embarrassment for 20 years. The questions are: where are we now,
and where should we put our energy for change? These are not issues we
can avoid.
It is time to get on with the business of cleaning up America's
toxic waste sites. Over the next few years, the Trust Fund will run out
of money. We must work with all parties to develop a viable plan to
replenish this fund. The Subcommittee should listen carefully to
today's witnesses and to other interests.
We must focus on ways to enact meaningful reforms that make the
federal program more fair, effective and efficient, that help States,
and that eliminate barriers to redevelopment and cleanup.
We may not be able to fix all of the problems with Superfund in our
current political climate, but I believe strongly that we can do a
better job with the program, and that a bipartisan majority wants to
fix what we can in the 106th Congress.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan
Over the past 18 months, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has
surveyed 3,036 potential National Priorities List (NPL) caliber toxic
waste sites. Representative Manton and I requested this survey to
determine the status of cleanups at these state sites and to answer the
important question of whether it is likely that the site will need to
be cleaned up by the federal Superfund program. This is the most
comprehensive study conducted to date that helps inform Congress about
the future size of the Superfund National Priorities List.
The GAO findings mean that there will likely be far fewer sites
that will need to be addressed in the future by the federal Superfund
program than was previously estimated.
The next Congress will need to look at the Superfund program in
light of these findings, the significant progress in cleanups completed
or underway, and the extensive number of sites with all final cleanup
remedies selected as reported by the GAO recently.
Assuming adequate funding, the approximately 1,200 non-federal
existing sites are expected to have all construction activities largely
completed within the next five years. As of September 30, 1998, 585
sites had completed all construction activities. In August of this
year, the GAO reported that all final cleanup remedies will have been
selected for about 95 percent of the non-federal sites and for about 67
percent of the federal sites as of September 30, 1999.
These findings suggest that comprehensive and radical reform at
this point would be unwise, counter-productive, and likely lead to a
slowdown in Superfund cleanups.
While pointing to far fewer NPL sites, the GAO report does identify
a significant number of sites needing to be addressed or further
evaluated by state cleanup programs. The Federal Superfund statute has
played a strong and important role in assisting state cleanups. Many
state officials have informed Congress that the Federal liability
scheme and the threat of NPL listing are important incentives for
private parties to voluntarily clean up state sites.
This report also provides valuable information to assist the EPA in
prioritizing site evaluations and in planning for the future personnel
and contracting adjustments that will be necessary.
The GAO survey provides information that bears directly on the
question of how many of the 3,036 sites are anticipated to be listed on
the NPL and thus be addressed by the federal Superfund program:
<bullet> 41 percent or 1,234 sites should be deleted from EPA's
database immediately because final cleanup actions are
completed or underway, no cleanup is needed, or they have
already been screened out by the EPA ranking criteria.
<bullet> Of the remainder, 232 sites (or less than 8 percent of the
total) were identified by either a state or EPA as likely to
need cleanup as a Superfund NPL site. Eight of the 232 sites
are federal facilities. The 232 sites are listed in Appendix
III (pp. 320-349) of the report.
<bullet> However, of the 232 sites only 26 sites had agreement between
the state and EPA that the site was a likely candidate for
listing on the Superfund NPL. Under EPA's current policy, the
Governor of the state must generally concur in the listing.
<bullet> In addition to the 26 sites where there was agreement, EPA
officials identified 106 other sites they believed were likely
candidates for the Superfund NPL. However, for 38 percent of
these sites, the state directly disagreed with EPA. For the
remainder of these sites the state did not respond or its
position was unknown.
<bullet> In addition to the 26 sites where there was agreement, state
officials identified 100 other sites they believed were likely
candidates for the Superfund NPL. Over half of these sites are
located in only two states--Florida and Illinois.
<bullet> Of the 232 sites cited as possible NPL candidates, 78 sites
(34 percent) were identified as low, average, or unknown risk
which makes their candidacy as NPL sites less likely than if
they present high health or environmental risk.
<bullet> Of the 232 sites cited as possible NPL candidates, 154 sites
(66 percent) have no identified responsible party or no
responsible party whom officials believe is able and willing to
conduct cleanup activities.
<bullet> In a November 1997 press release the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials stated that ``the
vast majority (95.6%) of sites listed on the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
Information System (CERCLIS) do not warrant listing on the
National Priorities List''.
The GAO solicited information from both the states and the relevant
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region using detailed written
questionnaires for each of the more than 3,000 sites.
Mr. Oxley. Mr. Fields, come on up.
Mr. Fields. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oxley. The Chair is now pleased to recognize our first
witness, Mr. Tim Fields, Assistant Administrator of the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at U.S. EPA--and I think,
as I indicated in my opening statement, your first appearance
in your new capacity before the subcommittee. So, welcome back
Mr. Fields.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY FIELDS, JR., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Fields. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is truly a pleasure
to be here, and also, I welcome Mr. Towns as the ranking
Democratic member and the other members of the subcommittee
today.
I am pleased to discuss the current status of the Superfund
Program and highlight the significant progress we believe has
been made in cleaning up toxic waste sites in this country.
First, we believe that we have fundamentally changed how the
Superfund Program operates through three rounds of
administrative reforms we began in 1993. We have increased the
pace of cleanup from 65 sites a year to 85 construction
completions a year. Ninety percent of the Superfund sites are
either construction-complete or have construction underway.
Today, Superfund has 592 sites that are construction-complete,
an additional 461 sites where construction is underway, and 213
sites where an emergency response or removal action has been
taken to deal with response.
We plan to have, as this chart indicates, 670 cleanups
completed at the end of fiscal year 1999, the year we are in
right now. EPA expects that more than 85 percent of the current
NPL will have been completed by the year 2005. That's more than
1,180 sites where construction is complete.
The construction-completion measure was adopted by the Bush
administration and continued by the Clinton administration.
Three Assistant Administrators have agreed that it is the best
indicator of Superfund Program performance. This remarkable
progress that has been documented is not relegated to a few
States, but has been done across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I am told that in Ohio we have had tremendous
success. Eighty percent of the Superfund sites have cleanup
construction completed or underway in Ohio. Out of 35 Ohio NPL
sites, we intend to have 33 of 35 sites with construction
completed or underway at the end of this Congress. Not only has
EPA been able to significantly increase the number of Superfund
sites cleaned up through the administrative reform agenda, but
we have reduced the time it takes to go through the process by
20 percent--ten years, 6 years ago; 8 years now from the time
we list the site until we get construction completion. One-
hundred eleven sites that we listed in the 1990's are now
construction-complete, having been done in 8 years or less.
Completion of these sites reflects the improved pace of cleanup
in the Superfund Program.
Not only have we reduced time, but we have reduced costs.
The cost of cleanup has been reduced by 20 percent. Over the
last 3 years alone, at more than 200 Superfund sites we have
achieved projected cost savings of more than a billion dollars
in 3 years alone. This tremendous progress has been achieved
without sacrificing and providing added expense to the American
taxpayer. We have continued our Enforcement First Strategy. It
has produced remarkable results over the last many years. We
have achieved more than $15.5 billion in responsible-party
settlements for cleanup and cost-recovery settlements. That is
$15.5 billion that the American taxpayer does not have to spend
or does not have to be appropriated from Congress.
While EPA has been successful in implementing that reform
agenda, we have not ignored the effects Superfund liability may
have on some small parties. We have aggressively worked to
achieve 400 settlements over primarily the last 4 years, 65
percent of those being in the last 4 years. Eighteen thousand
small-volume contributors have been settled out. We have
offered $145 million in orphan share funding to forgive past
costs and oversight costs at 72 sites. So we've been real fair
with all parties involved in the process.
Given this remarkable turnaround, we believe that the
administrative reform agenda should continue and it is
currently not necessary to have comprehensive Superfund
legislative reform. Comprehensive Superfund legislative reform,
even if well-intentioned, we believe would halt or delay the
cleanup progress we see today. The result is simply
unacceptable to the American people and to those in Congress,
we know, as well as the administration.
We believe that Superfund legislation, if enacted, should
be limited to targeted liability relief with provisions that
address prospective purchasers of contaminated property,
liability relief for innocent landowners, liability relief for
contiguous property owners, and liability relief for small
municipal waste generators and transporters.
These liability provisions could be enacted and still allow
us to continue the pace of cleanup, provide the fairness we
want, and help in effectuating redevelopment. We believe these
provisions have achieved consistent, bipartisan support and
have appeared in the Superfund legislation that has been
introduced in the last three Congresses. These provisions would
buildupon the success of the Superfund administrative reforms
without halting or delaying cleanup.
Of equal importance is the need, we believe, to reinstate
the expired Superfund taxes, which expired December 31, 1995.
The Superfund Program should have a reliable source of funding
for the cleanup of toxic waste sites in this country without
shifting these costs to the general taxpaying public.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we are proud
of the progress the Superfund Program has been able to achieve
over the last 6 years. We look forward to working with Congress
to buildupon that reform agenda, and in the context of the
program as we see it today, we believe that narrowly targeted
Superfund legislation is the best way to continue that agenda
and protect the American people, and finish the job of cleaning
up toxic waste sites in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time and look forward to
responding to questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Timothy Fields. Jr.,
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy Fields, Jr., Acting Assistant
Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Environmental Protection Agency
Introduction
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the
Agency's record of accomplishments over the past several years in
fundamentally improving the Superfund program.
Before addressing the successes of the current Superfund program, I
believe it is important to recognize, from the outset, Superfund's
mission. Superfund is an important, and above all, necessary program,
dedicated to cleaning up our nation's hazardous waste sites, including
those caused by the Federal government, and protecting public health
and the environment. EPA has worked closely with the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in evaluating the impacts of
these sites on public health. Superfund site impacts are real. ATSDR
studies show a variety of health effects that are associated with some
Superfund sites, including birth defects, cardiac disorders, changes in
pulmonary function, impacts on the immune system (the body's natural
defense system from disease and sickness), infertility, and increases
in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. EPA also works with other federal
agencies to assess the significant adverse impacts Superfund sites have
had on natural resources and the environment. Together, the efforts of
these agencies, working with EPA, provide the basis for targeting
cleanups to protect public health and the environment, and show the
need for Superfund.
superfund progress
The Superfund program is making significant progress in cleaning up
hazardous waste sites and protecting public health and the environment.
EPA has significantly changed how the Superfund program operates
through three rounds of administrative reforms which have made
Superfund a fairer, more effective, and more efficient program. EPA has
made considerable progress in cleaning up sites on the National
Priorities List (NPL). The Agency has gone from cleaning up 65 sites
per year to cleaning up 85 sites per year. As of March 17, 1999 more
than 89% of the sites on the final NPL are either undergoing cleanup
construction (remedial or removal) or are completed:
<bullet> 592 Superfund sites have reached construction completion.
<bullet> 461 Superfund sites have cleanup construction underway;
<bullet> An additional 213 sites have had or are undergoing a removal
cleanup action.
By the end of the 106th Congress EPA will have completed
construction of all cleanup remedies at approximately 61% of all non-
Federal sites currently on the NPL.
In addition, approximately 990 NPL sites have final cleanup plans
approved, and approximately 5,600 removal actions have been taken at
hazardous waste sites to stabilize dangerous situations and immediately
reduce the threat to public health and the environment. More than
30,900 sites have been removed from the Superfund inventory of
potentially hazardous waste sites to help promote the economic
redevelopment of these properties.
Increasing the Pace of Cleanups
The Superfund program is making significant progress in
accelerating the pace of clean up while ensuring protection of public
health and the environment. Our analyses clearly show that Superfund
cleanup durations have been reduced approximately 20%, or two years on
the average. Almost three times as many Superfund sites have had
construction completed in the past six years than in all of the prior
years of the program combined. In fact, in large part because of our
administrative reforms, EPA will have completed construction at more
than 85% of the sites on the current NPL by 2005.
The accelerated pace of cleanup is demonstrable. In only two years,
FY 1997 and FY 1998, EPA completed construction at 175 sites--more than
during the entire first 12 years of the program (149 sites).
<bullet> Seventy-two percent (128) of the sites are designated
enforcement lead, demonstrating the success of both the
``enforcement first'' policy and the numerous enforcement
reforms.
<bullet> One hundred and eleven of these sites were added to the NPL
during the 1990s. Completion of these sites in less than eight
years reflects improvements in the pace of Superfund cleanups.
Private Party Funding
EPA's ``Enforcement First'' strategy has resulted in responsible
parties performing or paying for approximately 70% of long-term
cleanups, thereby conserving the Superfund Trust Fund for sites for
which there are no viable or liable responsible parties. This approach
has saved taxpayers more than $15.5 billion to date--more than $13
billion in response settlements, and nearly $2.5 billion in cost
recovery settlements.
Protecting Human Health and the Environment
The accomplishments in protecting human health and the environment
are significant. Environmental indicators show that the Superfund
program continues making progress in hazardous waste cleanup, reducing
both ecological and human health risks posed by dangerous chemicals in
the air, soil, and water. The Superfund program has cleaned over 132
million cubic yards of hazardous soil, solid waste and sediment and
over 341 billion gallons of hazardous liquid-based waste, groundwater,
and surface water. In addition, the program has supplied over 350,000
people at NPL and non-NPL sites with alternative water supplies in
order to protect them from contaminated groundwater and surface water.
adnmstrative reforms
Through the commitment of EPA, State, and Tribal site managers,
other Federal agencies, private sector representatives, and involved
communities, EPA has made Superfund faster, fairer, and more efficient
through three rounds of administrative reforms. Several years of
stakeholder response indicates that EPA's Superfund Reforms have
already addressed the primary areas of the program that they believe
needed improvement. EPA remains committed to fully implementing the
administrative reforms and refining or improving them where necessary.
EPA will be releasing its Annual Report on the status of Administrative
Reforms for fiscal year (FY) 1998 within the next several weeks. Below
are some of the highlights from the 1998 Annual Report.
Remedy Review Board
EPA's National Remedy Review Board (the Board) is continuing its
targeted review of complex and high-cost cleanup plans, prior to final
remedy selection, without delaying the overall pace of cleanup. Since
the Board's inception in October 1995, it has reviewed a total of 33
site cleanup decisions, resulting in estimated cost savings of
approximately $43 million.
Updating Remedy Decisions
In addition to the work of the Board, EPA has achieved great
success in updating cleanup decisions made in the early years of the
Superfund program to accommodate changing science and technology. In
fact, the Updating Remedy Decisions reform is one of EPA's most
successful reforms, based on its frequent use and the amount of money
saved. After three years of implementation, more than $1 billion in
future cost reductions are estimated as a result of the Agency's review
and update of remedies at more than 200 sites. It is important to
stress that the future cost reductions described above can be achieved
without sacrificing the protection of public health, and the current
pace of the program.
Remedy Selection
The Superfund program is selecting remedies that require treatment
in fewer instances, focusing on treatment of toxic hot spots. Treatment
remedies were included in less than 50% of the Records of Decision
completed in fiscal year 1997. Even within the current statutory
framework providing for a preference for treatment of waste and
permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable, costs of
cleanups are decreasing dramatically because of a number of factors,
including: the use of presumptive remedies; the use of reasonably
anticipated future land use determinations, which allow cleanups to be
tailored to specific sites; the use of a phased approach to defining
objectives and methods for ground water cleanups. As a result of these
factors, EPA has reduced the cost of cleanup by approximately 20
percent.
Promoting Fairness Through Settlements
EPA has addressed the concerns of stakeholders regarding the
fairness of the liability system by increasing the use of the Agency's
settlement authorities. EPA has negotiated more than 400 de minimis
settlements with over 18,000 small volume contributors (66% of these in
the last four years), protecting these parties from expensive private
contribution suits. EPA continues to use its settlement authority to
remove small volume waste contributors from the liability system,
responding to the burden third-party litigation can place on parties
that made a very limited contribution to the pollution at a site. EPA
continues to step in to prevent the big polluters from dragging untold
numbers of the smallest ``de micromis'' contributors of waste into
contribution litigation by publicly offering to any de micromis party
$0 (i.e., no-cost) settlements that would provide protection from
lawsuits by other PRPs. The real success of this approach is to be
measured by the untold number of potential lawsuits that have been
discouraged.
Orphan Share Compensation
Since fiscal year 1996, EPA has offered orphan share compensation
of over $145 million at 72 sites to responsible parties willing to
negotiate long-term cleanup settlements. EPA will continue the process
at every eligible site. Through 1998, EPA has collected and placed $399
million in 115 interest bearing special accounts for site specific
future work. In addition, over $69 million in interest has accrued in
these accounts. This reform ensures that monies recovered in certain
settlements are directed to work at a particular site. At a number of
sites, this money can make a great difference in making settlements
work. In FY98, EPA set aside and then spent more than $40 million of
Superfund response money in new settlements for mixed work or mixed
funding.
reauthorization
The success of EPA's administrative reforms and the resulting
improvements in the Superfund program have fundamentally altered the
need for Superfund reauthorization legislation. In the 103rd Congress,
the Clinton Administration proposed a five-year reauthorization of
Superfund that reflected program needs at that point in time. When
Congress did not pass Superfund legislation, EPA implemented a series
of reforms administratively. Accordingly, the legislative provisions
proposed by the Administration in the 103rd Congress are now very out
of date, and the five-year authorization period that would have been
provided in that bill has now ended. Many of the provisions in the
bill, and in other Superfund reform bills, were designed to fix
problems that have been addressed through the Superfund Administrative
Reforms. As the result of the progress made in cleaning up NPL sites in
recent years, and the program improvements resulting from
administrative reforms, there is no longer a need for comprehensive
legislation. Comprehensive legislation could actually delay clean ups,
create uncertainty and litigation, and undermine the current progress
of cleaning up Superfund sites.
Legislation to support the President's Budget is needed to
reinstate the Superfund taxes, and provide EPA with access to mandatory
spending. As part of Superfund reauthorization, the Administration
would support targeted liability relief for qualified parties that
builds upon the current success of the Superfund program. The
Administration would support provisions that address:
<bullet> prospective purchasers of contaminated property
<bullet> innocent landowners
<bullet> contiguous property owners, and
<bullet> small municipal waste generators and transporters
Other Superfund Program Accomplishments
States
EPA continues to work with States and Indian tribes as key partners
in the cleanup of Superfund hazardous waste sites. EPA is continuing to
increase the number of sites where States and Tribes are taking a lead
role in assessment and cleanup using the appropriate mechanisms under
the current law. With the May 1998 release of the ``Plan to Enhance the
Role of States and Tribes in the Superfund Program,'' the Superfund
program is expanding opportunities for increased State and tribal
involvement in the program. Fourteen pilot projects with States and
Tribes have been initiated through this plan.
Community Involvement
The Superfund program is committed to involving citizens in the
site cleanup process. EPA strives to create an open decision-making
process to clean up sites that fully involves the communities, provides
the community timely information, and improves the community's
understanding of the potential health risks at hazardous waste sites.
This is accomplished through outreach efforts, such as holding public
meetings and distributing site-specific fact sheets. It has been
enhanced through the successful implementation of reforms such as our
EPA Regional Ombudsmen who continue to serve as a direct point of
contact for stakeholders to address their concerns at Superfund sites,
our Internet pages which continue to provide information to our varied
stakeholders on issues related to both cleanup and enforcement, as well
as our Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs), Community Advisory Groups
(CAGs), Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) and Site-specific Advisory
Boards (SSABs).
The TAG program provides eligible community groups with financial
assistance to hire technical consultants to assist them in
understanding the problems and potential solutions to the contamination
problems. EPA has awarded 202 TAGs to various groups since the
program's inception in 1988. The Agency plans to publish revisions to
the TAG regulation in the Spring of 1999 intended to further simplify
the TAG program.
The CAG serves as a public forum for representatives of diverse
community interests to present and discuss their needs and concerns
related to the Superfund site with Federal, State, Tribal and local
government officials. The number of sites with CAGs increased by over
50 percent before the CAG program was officially taken out of the pilot
stage. In FY98, 14 new CAGs were created at non-federal facility sites,
bringing the total to 47.
Community Involvement at Federal Facilities
The Superfund Federal facilities response program recognizes that
meaningful public participation is dependent on the various stakeholder
groups having the capacity to participate effectively. The program has
entered into partnerships and awarded cooperative agreement grants to
State, local, tribal associations, and community based organizations.
The grants focus on training for impacted communities, participation of
citizens on advisory boards, access to information and implementation
of the Federal Facility Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee
(FFERDC) principles. These grants offer the opportunity to leverage
precious resources, build trust and reach a wider audience.
The Superfund Federal facilities response program is a strong
proponent of involving communities in the restoration decision-making
process and recognizes that input from Restoration Advisory Boards
(RAB) and Site-Specific Advisory Boards (SSAB) has been essential to
making response decisions and, in some cases, reducing costs.
Increasing community involvement, Restoration Advisory Board/Site-
Specific Advisory Board support (RAB/SSAB) and partnering with states,
tribes and other stakeholders is a high priority activity for FFRRO.
There are over 300 RABs and 12 SSABs throughout the country.
Revitalizing America's Land
Brownfields
EPA not only cleans up toxic waste sites through the Superfund
program but also helps communities clean up and develop less
contaminated brownfields sites. The Brownfields Initiative plays a key
role in the Administration's goal of building strong and healthy
communities for the 21st century. The Initiative represents a
comprehensive approach to empowering States, local governments,
communities, and other stakeholders interested in environmental cleanup
and economic redevelopment to work together to prevent, assess, safely
clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. Brownfields are abandoned,
idled, or under-used industrial and commercial properties where
expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived
contamination. Brownfields sites exist in this country, affecting
virtually every community in the nation.
The General Accounting Office has estimated that there are over
450,000 brownfields properties across America. The Administration
believes strongly that environmental protection and economic progress
are inextricably linked. Rather than separate the challenges facing
these communities, our brownfields initiative seeks to bring all
parties to the table--and to provide a framework for them to seek
common ground on the whole range of challenges: environmental,
economic, legal and financial. The EPA brownfields pilot grants are
forming the basis for new and more effective partnerships. In many
cases, city government environmental specialists are sitting down
together with the city's economic development experts for the first
time. Others are joining in--businesses, local residents, community
activists.
Brownfields Assessment Pilots
The Brownfields Assessment Pilots form a major component of the
Brownfields Initiative since its announcement in a little more than 4
years ago. Since that time, significant environmental results had
already been achieved. The Agency has selected 250 assessment pilots
funded at up to $200,000 to local communities across the Nation to
chart their own course towards revitalization. These pilots are seen as
catalysts for change in local communities, and often spur community
involvement in local land use decision-making. These pilots, along with
targeted state and EPA efforts, resulted in the assessment of 398
brownfields properties, cleanup of 71 properties, redevelopment of 38
properties, and a determination that 273 properties did not need
additional cleanup.
Revolving Loan Funds
We are also building on another aspect of our program which began
in 1997. This program will award a ``second-stage'' type of brownfields
pilot. Those pilots known as the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan
Fund (BCRLF) Pilots are designed to enable eligible States, cities,
towns and counties, Territories, and Indian Tribes to capitalize
revolving loan funds to safely cleanup and sustainably reuse
brownfields. EPA's goal is to select BCRLF pilots that will serve as
models for other communities across the nation. In the 1997 fiscal
year, EPA's budget for brownfields included $10 million to capitalize
BCRLFs. That early first round of BCRLF pilots is maturing. Twenty-
three (23) pilots are now in various stages of development. This year
we are planning to make a second round of BCRLF pilot awards. We have
determined that these new pilots would benefit from an increased
capitalization and we are planning to fund approximately 63 new pilots
in fiscal year 1999 at up to $500,000 each. The application deadline
recently closed on March 8, 1999, and we will be considering these
applications in regional panel and Headquarters evaluations and
reviews. The Agency anticipates announcement of the award of these new
pilots by June. Pilot applicants are being asked to demonstrate
evidence of a need for cleanup funds, ability to manage a revolving
loan fund, ability to ensure adequate cleanups, and a commitment to
creative leveraging of EPA funds with public-private partnerships and
matching funds/in-kind services.
Showcase Communities
The Brownfields Showcase Communities project is another component
of the Brownfields Initiative. It represents a multi-faceted
partnership among federal agencies to demonstrate the benefits of
coordinated and collaborative activity on brownfields in 16 Brownfields
Showcase Communities. The designated Showcase Communities are
distributed across the country and vary in size, resources, and
community type.
Job Training
To help local citizens take advantage of the new jobs created by
assessment and cleanup of brownfields, EPA began another demonstration
pilot program--the Brownfields Job Training and Development
Demonstration Pilot program in 1998. Last year we awarded 11 pilots to
applicants located within or near one of our assessment pilot
communities. Colleges, universities, non-profit training centers, and
community job training organizations, as well as states, Tribes and
communities were eligible to apply. This year we are planning to award
an additional 10 pilots.
The Brownfields Initiative has also generated significant economic
benefit for communities across America. By the end of fiscal year 1998,
410 cleanup jobs and 2,110 redevelopment jobs had been created as a
result of the program. Pilot communities had already reported a
leveraged economic impact of over $1.1 billion.
Recycling Superfund Sites
Contaminated sites may be an economic drain on local economies, can
lower property values, and can act as a disincentive for new industries
to move into communities. Once cleaned up, many Superfund sites have
gone on to new, productive, and economically beneficial reuse. We
believe that there are opportunities for many such sites. While some
sites are not suitable for unrestricted reuse, many can be
``recycled.'' Many NPL sites are valuable properties--they reside near
waterways, railroads or major transportation routes. They are in parts
of town ready for redevelopment.
A logical outgrowth of the Brownfields redevelopment work is an
increased emphasis on the reuse of Superfund sites. Recycled Superfund
sites may be redeveloped for a variety of uses, including commercial/
industrial, recreational, and ecological projects. Sites are being
cleaned up across the Nation. Major redevelopment and reuse is
occurring.
Successful reuse is being demonstrated at the Industriplex site, in
Woburn, Massachusetts. Through a private/public partnership this site
will become a regional transportation center with over 200,000 square
feet of retail space and potentially over 750,000 square feet of hotel
and office space. An open land and wetlands preserve will also be
created as a part of the ``recycling'' of this site. Another example of
reuse at Superfund sites is the Anaconda Smelter NPL site, in Anaconda,
Montana, which has become the Old Works Golf Course, a world-class Jack
Nicklaus golf course. At other Superfund sites, major national
corporations, including Netscape, Target stores, Home Depot stores and
McDonalds, have established businesses. Sites have been redeveloped
into athletic fields, community parks and wetland and habitat preserves
as well.
Preliminary analyses indicate that more than 150 sites are in
actual or planned reuse, supporting thousands of jobs and generating
revenue for States and local communities and creating thousands of
acres of new recreational and ecological green space. EPA continues to
make strides in spurring the beneficial reuse of Superfund sites.
Barriers to Reuse
At some sites, the potential threat of CERCLA liability may in some
circumstances be a barrier to the reuse of contaminated sites. EPA is
continuing its efforts to negotiate prospective purchaser agreements
and issue comfort/status letters in order to clarify CERCLA liability
at sites and facilitate reuse of contaminated properties. Through FY98,
EPA has entered into 85 Prospective Purchaser Agreements (PPAs) to
facilitate beneficial reuse and has also issued over 250 comfort/status
letters in order to clarify Federal Superfund interest in sites.
In the summer and fall of 1998, EPA undertook a survey effort to
gather information on the impacts of the PPA process. Preliminary
survey data (for PPAs completed through June 1998) indicate that
redevelopment projects cover over 1252 acres, or 80% of the property
secured through PPAs. EPA regional personnel estimate that nearly 1600
short-term jobs (e.g., construction) and over 1700 permanent jobs have
resulted from redevelopment projects associated with PPAs. An estimated
$2.6 million in local tax revenue for communities nationwide have
resulted from these projects. In addition, EPA regional staff estimate
that PPAs have resulted in the purchase of over 1500 acres of
contaminated property and have spurred redevelopment of hundreds of
thousands of adjacent acres.
Federal Facility Redevelopment
Through EPA's Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program over 850
base closure documents have been reviewed at 108 major closing military
bases. These BRAC documents articulate the environmental suitability of
the property for lease or transfer.
Wurtsmith Air Force Base, located on more than 5,000 acres in
northeast Michigan, stood ready for more than 70 years to support
strategic bombing operations worldwide. In this capacity, the base
managed supplies of aircraft fuel, mechanical cleansers, solvents, and
paints, some leaked into the soil and subsequently the groundwater.
The decision to close the base was made in 1993. A Base Closure
Team (BCT), consisting of representatives from EPA, the Air Force, and
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality was formed to clean up
the site. In an effort to expedite cleanup and minimize cost, an
innovative technology, in situ enhanced bioremediation, was implemented
to treat the contaminated groundwater. Using this innovative
technology, the BCT shaved more than $500,000 and four years off the
original cleanup estimate of $1.5 million and 10 years.
To enhance economic redevelopment, the BCT focused its attention on
reuse options for the base. Working with the Northeast Michigan
Community Service Agency, the BCT enabled approximately 150 low-income
families to move into base structures, which replaced substandard
housing in six counties. The BCT earned national recognition for this
unique reuse plan.
Additional reuse options for the base were determined and
implemented. A portion of the base property was leased to companies
that brought more than 1,000 jobs to the area, helping to boost the
community's economy. Another reuse accomplishment that saved both time
and money was the transfer of airport runways for immediate public use
to the Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport Authority.
future scope of superfund program
EPA will continue to work with all stakeholders to leverage
resources and to assure the successful cleanup of this nation's
hazardous waste sites. We will continue to employ administrative
reforms to ensure a fair, effective, and efficient Superfund program.
The Superfund program is cleaning up 85 sites per year and in fiscal
year 1999 plans to exceed the Agency target of 650 construction
completions--one year earlier than originally expected. In addition,
the Administration recently announced our target of 925 sites
``construction completed'' by the end of 2002. By 2005, EPA expects to
complete construction at 1180--85% of the current NPL. At these
construction completion sites, EPA still has the responsibility for
post-construction activities such as 5-year reviews and groundwater
pump and treat and oversight of PRP long-term operations and
maintenance.
State/Federal Partnership
EPA/State relationships in the Superfund program have evolved into
flexible working partnerships that assign sites responsibilities in a
mutually supportive way. EPA has provided the States with nearly $20
million annually for core program support. Where States are interested
in taking the lead at NPL sites we provide the funding (roughly $100
million annually, in fiscal years 1997 and 1998) for those activities.
Another $30-$40 million annually is provided for site assessment,
voluntary cleanup program (VCP) support, and other program activities.
Total funding provided to States typically exceeds $150 million per
year. A recent GAO study report supports the position that CERCLA and a
strong Federal cleanup program are important to the States--
``. . . a number of stakeholders, including state officials,
said that a lessening of the Superfund program's more rigorous
cleanup requirements or liability standards could negatively
affect the State programs.--``State Cleanup Practices'' report
99-39, December 1998--
States often and regularly ask for EPA assistance when their
technical capabilities fall short, their funding is inadequate,
enforcement cases too complex, or their ability to respond with staff
or contract support is insufficient.
The GAO estimates roughly 3000 sites pose risks serious enough,
based on site inspections to be potentially eligible for NPL inclusion
and are classified as ``awaiting a National Priorities List
decisions.'' Of these the GAO concluded 1,800 of these sites still
appear eligible for NPL while the remaining 1,234 are unlikely to
become eligible for various reasons.
We do not know now how many more sites will need to be listed on
the NPL. We will focus our listing activities on sites when states
request a listing, when there are recalcitrant PRPs or when cleanup is
needed and its not occurring satisfactorily. We have been using and
will continue to use these factors to guide our listing decisions.
Based on what we know at this time, we do not expect to list more than
40 sites this year.
Expiration of Tax
The Superfund tax authority expired December 31, 1995,
discontinuing further tax collections. The President's fiscal year (FY)
2000 Budget requests reinstatement of all Superfund taxes (including
excise taxes on petroleum and chemicals, and a corporate environmental
tax). The Trust Fund balance (unappropriated balance) was roughly $2.1
billion at the end of fiscal year 1998. The Trust Fund balance will be
approximately $1.3 billion at the end fiscal year 1999.
conclusion
The Superfund program has been fundamentally improved through
administrative reforms and is faster, fairer, and more efficient. The
significant progress the Clinton Administration has achieved in
protecting public health and the environment through the cleanup of
toxic waste sites must not be undermined by the passage of Superfund
legislation based upon outdated information and ideas. EPA's
administrative reforms, and the resulting Superfund cleanup progress,
have eliminated the need for comprehensive Superfund legislation. We
look forward to working with Congress to reinstate the Superfund taxes
and enact the narrowly targeted Superfund legislation that I described
in my testimony that builds upon the success of administrative reforms.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to address the
Subcommittee. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the
other Members may have.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Fields, again, for your
testimony, and let me begin with some questions.
What I want to make sure is that everyone understands the
difference between the applicability of the Superfund statute
and implementation of the Federal program by EPA. The States
take on, lead, new sites. That is probably a good idea. You do
not need to pour money into EPA for years when States are
closer to the problem and fully capable.
Unfortunately, the Superfund statute does not just affect
sites on the Federal National Priorities List. So, Mr. Fields,
what I want to do is talk about various areas of the Superfund
statute, whether their application is limited to just the NPL.
First, I want to cover the liability provisions in relationship
to voluntary cleanups and brownfields sites which are not on
the National Priorities List.
Robert Inghram, president of the National Conference of
Black Mayors, wrote in 1995, ``Far too much money is being
spent on lawyers and not nearly enough on cleanup. Our primary
concern is that tens of thousands of abandoned properties in
urban areas lie contaminated and unproductive because
developers and local businesses, they are getting pulled into
Superfund's far-reaching liability system. Congress must act
this year to fundamentally reform the failed liability system.
Without these changes, these properties will lie dormant, and
critical and economic revitalization opportunities will be lost
for cities nationwide.''
The General Accounting Office stated the same proposition
in the 1996 report entitled, ``Barriers to Brownfields
Redevelopment.'' Is it not correct, Mr. Fields, that
Superfund's liability provisions have broad sweep and can apply
at tens of thousands of sites not on the NPL?
Mr. Fields. Yes, that is correct. The Superfund liability
provisions go beyond the 1,387 sites on the Superfund National
Priorities List and do affect activities at voluntary cleanup
sites, brownfields sites, and other sites as well.
Mr. Oxley. So, those folks who are interested in, the
opening statements talking about, brownfields redevelopment
need to understand the applicability of the Superfund liability
scheme to the brownfields issue. Is that correct?
Mr. Fields. Yes, they do need to understand that, and we
believe that those liability provisions have been very
effective in helping put forth a great brownfields agenda over
the last 4 years.
Mr. Oxley. Is it also the case with the natural resources
damages provision that they can apply at sites beyond the NPL?
Can NRD claims be brought after a construction-complete?
Mr. Fields. Natural resource damages claims can be brought
after construction-complete, yes, that is correct.
Mr. Oxley. Ms. Kerbawy, representing ASTSWMO, in her
testimony on behalf of the State cleanup officials, says that
while ``the States are addressing the large universe of non-NPL
sites, the statute still maintains a role for EPA in theory.
Although the majority of those sites, typically, brownfields
sites, will never be placed on the NPL, they are still subject
to CERCLA liability, even after the site has been cleaned up to
State standards.'' Is that correct, that Superfund liability
applies even after the site has been cleaned up to State
standards?
Mr. Fields. I want to be very clear about this. We,
obviously, think the States are doing a great job in
implementing their voluntary cleanup programs. Forty-four
States have those programs. We have been very supportive of
those States. We have never intervened in a State cleanup to
date, except when a State has requested that the Federal
Government come in. We believe in and we endorse those State
programs. We have funded them for the last 3 years at a tune of
$10 million to $15 million a year. We want to support them. We
have entered into memoranda of agreement with 11 States to date
to agree on deferring to the States' authority in implementing
effective, voluntary, cleanup programs. We're discussing
agreement with eight additional States.
So, we want to do all we can to assure the regulated
community and the States that we want to defer to them for the
vast majority of those sites that are not covered on the NPL,
but are being covered by voluntary cleanup programs implemented
at the State level. We think that fear is there, but the
reality is we have never intervened. We don't jump in when a
State is providing oversight for a cleanup in that State. The
instance it has occurred is when a State requested that we come
in.
Mr. Oxley. Let me quote from Ms. Kerbawy also in her
testimony. She says, ``The potential for EPA to overfile and
for third-party lawsuits under CERCLA is beginning to cause
many owners of potential brownfields sites to simply mothball
the properties, and that States should be able to release sites
from liability once a site has been cleaned up to State
standards.''
Do you agree that the issue of release from Federal
liabilities is an issue that is not specifically related to the
status of the NPL sites?
Mr. Fields. I agree that some have fear about having
complete finality on releases from liability for sites that are
not on the NPL. We are trying to do all that we can to work to
assure people that that has not been our history. We do not get
involved, and we want to try to work through memorandum of
agreements, comfort letters, and other mechanisms to provide
assurance, to the regulated community that we do not intend to
overfile, or intervene in those cases where we have effective
State programs overseeing cleanup.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you. My time has expired. Let me now
recognize the gentleman from New York, the ranking member of
the subcommittee, Mr. Towns.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fields, you indicated that EPA has worked with the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to evaluate
health impacts of Superfund sites. If you don't have
information with you today, could you provide this committee
with a summary of those studies?
Mr. Fields. Yes, we will be happy to provide that
documentation for the record, Mr. Towns. We do have data on the
health effects studies that have been done by ATSDR at
Superfund sites. They have evaluated a lot of our sites on the
current National Priorities List. The ATSDR in their studies
indicate that 80 percent of those Superfund sites have public
health exposures. That means that people and children who live
around 80 percent of those sites have been exposed to
contamination from one or more media--air, water, or toxic
waste. They have done health assessments at those sites to have
documented instances of leukemia, and low-birth weight, and
asthma that they believe could be attributed to contamination
around these Superfund sites.
We will be happy to provide more detail for the record, but
we believe that Superfund sites do, in fact, pose a significant
public health threat that needs to be addressed, and that is
why the Superfund Program is around. EPA also conducts
emergency actions. We have done 5,600 plus emergency response
actions since the program began because of significant,
immediate, public health threats that need to be addressed in
these communities.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.002
ATSDR Public Health Assessments
FOREWORD
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, is an
agency of the U.S. Public Health Service. It was established by
Congress in 1980 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as the Superfund law. This
law set up a fund to identify and clean up our country's hazardous
waste sites. The Environmental Protection Agency. EPA, and the
individual states regulate the investigation and clean up of the sites.
Since 1986, ATSDR has been required by law to conduct a public
health assessment at each of the sites on the EPA National Priorities
List. The aim of these evaluations is to find out if people are being
exposed to hazardous substances and, if so, whether that exposure is
harmful and should be stopped or reduced. (The legal definition of a
health assessment is included on the inside front cover.) If
appropriate, ATSDR also conducts public health assessments when
petitioned by concerned individuals. Public health assessments are
carried out by environmental and health scientists from ATSDR and from
the states with which ATSDR has cooperative agreements.
Exposure: As the first step in the evaluation. ATSDR scientists
review environmental data to see how much contamination is at a site,
where it is, and how people might come into contact with it. Generally,
ATSDR does not collect its own environmental sampling data but reviews
information provided by EPA, other government agencies, businesses, and
the public. When there is not enough environmental information
available, the report will indicate what further sampling data is
needed.
Health Effects: If the review of the environmental data shows that
people have or could come into contact with hazardous substances, ATSDR
scientists then evaluate whether or not there will be any harmful
effects from these exposures. The report focuses on public health, or
the health impact on the community as a whole, rather than on
individual risks. Again, ATSDR generally makes use of existing
scientific information, which can include the results of medical,
toxicologic and epidemiologic studies and the data collected in disease
registries. The science of environmental health is still developing,
and sometimes scientific information on the health effects of certain
substances is not available. When this is so, the report will suggest
what further research studies are needed.
Conclusions: The report presents conclusions about the level of
health threat, if any, posed by a site and recommends ways to stop or
reduce exposure in its public health action plan. ATSDR is primarily an
advisory agency, so usually these reports identify what actions are
appropriate to be undertaken by EPA, other responsible parties, or the
research or education divisions of ATSDR. However, if there is an
urgent health threat, ATSDR can issue a public health advisory, warning
people of the danger. ATSDR can also authorize health education or
pilot studies of health effects, full-scale epidemiology studies,
disease registries, surveillance studies or research on specific
hazardous substances.
Interactive Process: The health assessment is an interactive
process. ATSDR solicits and evaluates information from numerous city,
state and federal agencies, the companies responsible for cleaning up
the site, and the community. It then shares its conclusions with them.
Agencies are asked to respond to an early version of the report to make
sure that the data they have provided is accurate and current. When
informed of ATSDR's conclusions and recommendations, sometimes the
agencies will begin to act on them before the final release of the
report.
Community: ATSDR also needs to learn what people in the area know
about the site and what concerns they may have about its impact on
their health. Consequently, throughout the evaluation process, ATSDR
actively gathers information and comments from the people who live or
work near a site, including residents of the area, civic leaders,
health professionals and community groups. To ensure that the report
responds to the community's health concerns, an early version is also
distributed to the public for their comments. All the comments received
from the public are responded to in the final version of the report.
Comments: If, after reading this report, you have questions or
comments, we encourage you to send them to us.
Letters should be addressed as follows:
Attention: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information
Services Branch, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1600
Clifton Road (E-56), Atlanta. GA 30333.
Region 1
CONNECTICUT
Barkhamsted-New Hartford Landfill, Barkhainsted, Litchfield County
Connecticut Correctional Institution (a/k/a Somers Correctional
Facility), Somers, New Haven County
Linemaster Switch Corporation, Woodstock, Windhain County
Old Southington Landfill, Southington, Hartford County
Raymark Industries, Stratford, Fairfield County
Revere Textile Prints Corporation, Sterling, Windham County
Starr Property, Enfield, Hartford County
U.S. Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, New London County
MAINE
West Site Hows Corner, Plymouth, Penobscot County
MASSACHUSETTS
Blackburn and Union Privileges, Walpole, Norfolk County
Groveland Wells, Groveland, Essex County
Hocomonco Pond, Westborough, Worcester County
Industri-Plex, Wobum, Middlesex County
Iron Horse Park, Billerica, Middlesex County
New Bedford Site, New Bedford, Bristol County
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump, Ashland, Ashland County
PSC Resources, Palmer, Hampden County
Silresim Chemical Corporation, Lowell, Middlesex County
Sullivan's Ledge, New Bedford, Bristol County
U.S. Army Materials Technology Laboratory, Watertown, Middlesex County
Wells G and H, Wobum, Middlesex County
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow Rockingham County
Dover Municipal Landfill, Dover, Stratford County
New Hampshire Plating Company, Merrimack, Hillsborough County
Savage Municipal Water supply (Interim), Milford,
Hillsborough<plus-minus> County
Somersworth, Municipal Landfill, Somersworth, Stratford County
Tibbetts Road, Barrington, Strafford County
RHODE ISLAND
West Kingston Town Dump and University of Rhode Island (Plains Rd)
Disposal Area (URI), South Kingston, Washington County
VERMONT
None available currently.
Region 2
NEW JERSEY
A.O. Polymer, Sparta Township, Sussex County
Bridgeport Rental and Oil Service, Logan Township, Gloucester County
CPS Chemical/Madison Industries, Old Bridge Township, Middlesex County
Curcio Scrap Metal, Saddle Brook Township, Bergen County
Delilah Road, Egg Harbor Township, Atlantic County
Garden State Cleaners and South Jersey Clothing Company, Minotola,
Atlantic County
Global Landfill, Old Bridge, Middlesex County
Horseshoe Road, Sayreville, Middlesex County
Jackson Township Landfill, Jackson Township, Ocean County
M&T DeLisa Landfill, Ocean Township, Monmouth County
Mannheim Avenue Dump Site, Gallowav Township, Atlantic County
Montclair/West Orange Radium, Montclair/West Orange, Essex County
Pomona Oaks Well Contamination, Galloway Township, Atlantic County
Sayreville Landfill, Sayreville, Middlesex County
Tabernacle Drum Dump, Tabernacle Township, Burlington County
NEW YORK
Batavia Landfill, Batavia, Genessee County
C&J Disposal, Town of Eaton, Madison County
Carroll and Dubies Sewage Disposal, Port Jervis, Orange County
Circuitron Corporation, Fanningdale, Nassau County
Colesville Municipal Landfill, Colesville, Broome County
Endicott Village Wellfield (a/k/a Ranny Well), Endicott, Broome County
Facet Enterprises, Elmira, Chemung County
Genzale Plating Company, Franklin, Nassau County
Griffiss Air Force Base, Rome, Oneida County
Hertel Landfill, Plattekill, Ulster County
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer, Hicksville, Nassau County
Hooker-102nd Street, Niagara Falls, Niagara County
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill (a/k/a Blvdenburgh Road Landfill),
Hauppauge, Suffolk County
Johnstown City Landfill, Johnstown, Fulton County
Jones Chemical, Inc., Caledonia, Livingston County
Li Tungsten Corporation, Glen Cove, Nassau County
Mattiace Petrochemical, City of Glen Cove, Nassau County
Niagara County Refuse, Town of Wheatfield, Niagara County
Onondaga Lake, Syracuse, Onondaga County
Pasley Solvents & Chemicals Inc., Garden City, Nassau County
Pfohl Brothers Landfill, Cheektowaga, Erie County
Pollution Abatement Services (PAS), City of Oswego, Oswego County
Port Washington Landfill, North Hempstead, Nassau County
Preferred Plating Corporation, East Fanningdale, Suffolk County
Ramapo Landfill, Ramapo, Rockland County
Robintech Inc./ National PiDe Co., Vestal, Broome County
Rosen Site (a/k/a Rosen Brothers Site), Cortland, Cortland County
Rowe Industries Groundwater Contamination, Sag Harbor, Suffolk County
Rowe Industries Groundwater Contamination, Sag Harbor, Suffolk County
Sarney Farm, Amenia, Duchess County
Sealand Restoration, Lisbon, St. Lawrence County
Sinclair Refinery, Town of Wellsville, Allegany County
Solvent Savers, Lincklaen, Chenango County
Syosset Landfill, Oyster Bay, Nassau County
Tri-Cities Barrel Company, Inc., Fenton, Broome County
PUERTO RICO
Fibers Public Supply Wells, Jabos, Guayama County
Frontera Creek, Rio Abajo, Humacao County
V&M/Albaladejo Norte Ward, Vega Baja, Vega Baja County
Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal, Rio Abajo Ward/La Trocha, Vega Baja
County
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Bovoni Dump, St. Thomas, St. Thomas County
Tutu Wellfield, St. Thomas, St. Thomas County
Region 3
DELAWARE
Koppers Company Facilities Site, Newport, New Castle County
MARYLAND
Limestone Road Site, Cumberland, Allegany County
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Harmans, Anne Arundel County
Naval Air Station Patuxent River, St. Mary's County
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division (NSWC-IHDIV), (a/k/a
Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center), Indian Head, Charles
County
Ordnance Products, Incorporated, Northeast, Cecil County
Sand Gravel and Stone, Elkton
Southern Maryland Wood Treating National Priorities List (NPL) Site,
Hollywood, St. Mary's County
Spectron Incorporated (a/k/a Galaxy Incorporated), Elkton, Cecil County
PENNSYLVANIA
Avco Lycoming-Williamsport Division, Williamsport, Lycoming County
Bell Landfill, Wyalusing-Terry Township, Bradford County
BresLube-Penn Inc. Superfund Site, Moon Township. Allegheny County
Butz Landfill, Jackson Township, Monroe County
C&D Recycling, Freeland, Luzerne County
Cabot-Wrought Products, Muhlenberg, Berks County
Crater Resources, King of Prussia, Montgomery County
Cryo-Chem Inc., Worman Township, Bovertown, Berks County
Dublin Water Supply, Dublin, Bucks County
Falls Township Groundwater Contamination (a/k/a CORCO Chemical, Para-
scientific, Meenan Oil), Falls Township, Bucks County
Foote Mineral Company, Frazer, Chester County
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard, Weisenburg Township, Lehigh County
Letterkenny Army DeRot, USA Letterkenny Southeast Area, and USA
Letterkenny-Property, Disposal Office Area, Chambersburg,
Franklin County
Malvern TCE Site, Malvern, Chester County
McAdoo Associates, McAdoo, Schuylkill County
Metropolitan Mirror and Glass Company, Incorporated, Frackville,
Schuylkill
County
Modern Sanitation Landfill, York, York County
North Penn-Area 1, Souderton, Montgomery County
Palmerton Zinc Pile, Palmerton, Carbon County
Resin Disposal Site, Jefferson Borough, Allegheny County
Revere Chemical Company, Nockamixon, Bucks County
Rodale Manufacturing Company, Inc., Emmaus, Lehigh County
Salford Quarry, Township Montgomery County
Strasburg Landfill, Newlin Township, Chester County
Tobyhanna Army Depot, Coolbaugh Township, Monroe County
UGI Columbia Gas Plant, Columbia, Lancaster County
VIRGINIA
Sites in Bluefield and Vicinity, Tazewell County
C&R Battery Company, Inc., Richmond, Chesterfield County
Fort Eustis (US Army), Newport News, Newport News County
First Piedmont Rock Quarry, Beaver Park
USAF Langley Air Force Base/Nasa-Langley Research Center, Hampton, York
County
U.S. Defense General Supply Center, Richmond, Chesterfield County
WASHINGTON, D.C.
None available currently.
WEST VIRGINIA
Sites in Bluefield and Vicinity, Mercer County
Hanlin-Allied-Olin, Moundsville, Marshall Couunty
Sharon Steel Corporation (Fairment Coke Works), Fairmont, Marion County
Region 4
ALABAMA
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, Talladega County
Monarch Tile, Florence, Lauderdale County
T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition/Montgomery Plant Site, Montgomery,
Montgomery County
FLORIDA
Agrico Chemical Company, Pensacola, Escambia County
Broward County-21st Manor Dump, Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County
Chevron Chemical Company (Ortho Division), Orlando, Orange County
Escambia Wood-Pensacola, Pensacola, Escambia
Hipps Road Landfill, Jacksonville, Duval County
Homestead Air Force Base, Homestead AFB, Dade County
Loxahatchee Nursery, Palm City, Martin County
MRI Corporation, Tampa, Hillsborough County
Munisport Landfill, North Miami, Dade County
Plymouth Avenue Landfill, Deland, Volusia County
GEORGIA
Basket Creek Surface Impoundment and Basket Creek Drum Disposal,
Douglasville, Douglas County
Old Douglas County Landfill, Douglasville, Douglas County
Southern Wood Piedmont Company, Augusta, Richmond County
Southwire Company, Carrollton, Carroll County
KENTUCKY
National Electric Coil/Cooper Industries, Dayhoit, Harlan County
National Southwire Aluminum Company, Hawesville, Hancock County
Rubbertown, Louisville, Jefferson County
MISSISSIPPI
Chemfax, Inc., Gulfport, Harrison County
Country Club Lake Estates, Hattiesburg, Forrest County
Potter Company, Wesson, Copiah County
NORTH CAROLINA
Caldwell Systems Incorporated, Lenoir, Caldwell County
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, Craven County
U.S. Marine Corps Camp Lejeune, Camp Lejeune, Onslow County
SOUTH CAROLINA
Carolawn, Fort Lawn, Chester County
Geiger (C&M Oil) Site, Rantowles, Charleston County
Golden Strip Septic Tank, Simpsonville, Greenville County
GSX Landfill, Pinewood, Sumter County
Helena Chemical Company Landfill, Fairfax, Allendale County
Kalama Specialty, Burton, Beaufort County
Koppers Company Inc./Florence Plant, Florence, Florence County
Laidlaw Environmental Services Facility, Roebuck, Spartanburg County
Leonard Chemical Company, Inc., Catawba, York County
Medley Farms, Gaffney, Cherokee County
Palmetto Recycling, Incorporated, Columbia, Richland County
Palmetto Wood Preserving, Incorporated, Cayce, Lexington County
Para-Chem Southern, Inc., Simpsonville, Greenville County
Rochester Property, Traveler's Rest, Greenville Report
Sangamo/Twelve-Mile Creek/Hartwell PCB, Pickens, Pickens County
USMC Marine Corps Recruit Depot (a/k/a Parris Island Marine Corps
Recruit Depot), Parris Island, Beaufort
TENNESSEE
ICG Iselin Railroad Yard, Jackson, Madison County
USA Defense Depot Memphis, Memphis, Shelby County
Region 5
ILLINOIS
A&F Materials Reclaiming, Inc., Greenup, Cumberland County
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Winnebago, Winnebago County
Belvidere Municipal Landfill #1, Belvidere, Boone County
Cross Brothers Pail Recycling, Pembroke Township, Kankakee County
Danville H&L No. 1 Danville City Dump, Danville, Vermilion County
DuPage County Landfill (Blackwell Forest Preserve), Warrenville, DuPage
County
H.O.D. Landfill, Antioch, Lake County
Ilada Energy Company, East Cape Girardeau, Alexander County
Jennison Wright Corporation, Granite City, Madison County
Kaney Transportation, Rockford, Winnebago County
Lenz Oil Service Incorporated, Lemont, Cook County
Ottawa Radiation Areas, Ottawa, LaSalle County
Outboard Marine Corporation, Waukegan, Lake County
Pagel's Pit, Rockford, Winnebago County
Tri-County Landfill, South Elgin, Kane County
Velsicol Chemical, Marshall, Clark County
Wauconda Sand and Gravel, Wauconda, Lake County
Woodstock Municipal Landfill, Woodstock, McHenry County
Yeoman Creek and Edwards Field Landfills, Waukegan, Lake County
INDIANA
American Chemical Services Inc., Griffith, Lake County
Bloomington PCB Sites-Volume 1, Bloomington, Monroe County and Spencer,
Owen County
Bloomington PCB Sites-Volume 2, Bloomington, Monroe County and Spencer,
Owen County
Bloomington PCB Sites-Volume 3, Bloomington, Monroe County and Spencer,
Owen County
Carter-Lee Lumber Company, Indianapolis, Marion County
Enviro-Chem Corporation, Zionsville, Boone County
Fisher Calo, Kingsbury, La Porte County
Marion (Bragg)dump, Marion, Grant County
Northside Sanitary Landfill, Zionsville, Boone County
Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation (Indianapolis Plant), Indianapolis,
Marion County
U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc. (a/k/a USS Lead Refinery Inc.),
East Chicago, Lake County
Waste Inc. Landfill, Michigan City, La Porte County
MICHIGAN
Albion-Sheridan Township Landfill, Sheridan Township, Calhoun County
Baycity Middlegrounds Landfill, Bay City, Bay County
Bofors-Nobel Incorporated, Egelston, Muskegon County
Duell and Gardner Landfill, Muskegon, Muskegon County
Ionia City Landfill, Ionia, Ionia County
Lower Ecorse Creek Dump, Wyandotte, Wayne County
Michigan Sites of Radium Dial Contamination:
Aircraft Components (Michigan Radiologic) (a/k/a D& L Sales), Benton
Harbor, Berrien County
H&K Sales (Michigan Radiologic), Belding, Ionia County
Organic Chemicals Incorporated, Grandville, Kent County
Ossineke Groundwater Contamination, Ossineke, Alpena County
Packaging Corporation of America, Filer City, Manistee County
South Macomb Disposal Authority #9. 9A, St. Clair Shores, Oakland
County
Thermo Chem Incorporated, Muskegon, Muskegon County
Willow Run Sludge Lagoon, Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County
MINNESOTA
Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation Site, St. Louis Park, Hennepin
County
U.S. Air Force Twin Cities Reserve Small Arms Range, Minneapolis,
Hennepin County
OHIO
Air Force Plant 85, Columbus, Franklin County
Buckeye Reclamation Landfill, St. Clairsville, Belmont County
Chem-Dyne Corporation, Hamilton, Butler County
Dover Chemical Corporation, Dover, Tuscarawas County
Fields Brook NPL Site, Ashtabula, Ashtabula County
Fultz Landfill, Byesville, Guernsey County
Miami County Incinerator, Troy, Miami County
Nease Chemical, Salem, Columbiana County
North Sanitary Landfill-Dayton, Dayton, Montgomery County
Powell Road Landfill, Dayton, Montgomery County
WISCONSIN
Delavan Municipal Well #4, Delavan Walworth County
Kohler Company Landfill, Kohler, Sheboygan County
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Sludge Lagoons, Madison (Town of
Blooming Grove), Dane County
Muskego Sanitary Landfill, Muskego, Waukesha County
Penta Wood Products, Town of Daniels, Burnett
Refuse Hideaway, Middleton, Dane County
Ripon City Landfill, Ripon, Fond du Lac County
Sauk County Landfill, Excelsior, Sauk County
Region 6
ARKANSAS
Popile, Incorporated, El Dorado Union County
South 8th Street Landfill, West Memphis, Crittenden County
LOUISIANA
American Creosote Works, Winnfield Winn Parish
Bayou Bonfouca, Slidell, St. Tammany Parish
Marine Shale Processors. Inc., Amelia, St. Mary Parish
Petro-Processors of Louisiana, Incorporated, Baton Rouge, East Baton
Rouge Parish
NEW MEXICO
AT & SF (Albuquerque), Albuquerque, Bernalillo County
Cal West Metals (USSBA), Lemitar, Socorro County
OKLAHOMA
Kerr-McGee Refinery Site, Cushing, Payne County
National Zinc Company, Bartlesville, Washington County
Oklahoma Refining Company, Cyril, Caddo County
Tinker Air Force Base (Soldier CR/Building 3001), Midwest City,
Oklahoma County
TEXAS
Air Force Plant #4 (General Dynamics), Fort Worth, Tarrant County
Alcoa (Point Comfort)/ Lavaca Buy, Point Comfort, Calhoun County
Brio Refining Inc., Houston, Harris County
French Limited, Crosby, Harris County
Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann Energy, Houston, Harris County
Odessa Super Site, Ector, Ector County
Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Carson County
RSR Corporation, Dallas, Dallas County
United Creosoting Company, Conroe, Montgomery County
Region 7
IOWA
Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant, Fairfield, Jefferson County
Mason City Coal Gasification Plant, Mason City, Cerro Gordo County
KANSAS
Ace Services Incorporated, Colby, Thomas County
MISSOURI
Armour Road Site, North Kansas City, Clay County
Big River Mine Tailings Desloge (a/k/a St. Joe Minerals), Desloge, St.
Francois County
St. Louis Airport, St. Louis, St. Louis County
Weldon Spring Site Remediation Action Project (Chemical Plant,
Raffinate Pits, Quarry), St. Charles, St. Charles County
Weldon Spring Training Area, Weldon Spring, St. Charles County
NEBRASKA
American Shizuki Corporation, Ogallala, Keith County
Bruno Coop & Associated Properties, Bruno, Butler County
Cleburn Street Well Site, Grand Island, Hall County
Sherwood Medical Company, Norfolk, Madison County
Region 8
COLORADO
Asarco Incorporated (Globe Plant), Denver, Denver County
Hansen Containers, Grand Junction, Mesa County
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Adams Counky
Smeltertown/Koppers, Salida, Chaffee County
Summitville Mine, Del Norte, Rio Grande County
MONTANA
None available currently.
NORTH DAKOTA
None available currently.
SOUTH DAKOTA
Annie Creek Mine Tailings, Leade, Lawrence County
Williams Pipe Line Company, Sioux Falls, Minnehaha County
UTAH
Kennecott (North Zone), Magna, Salt Lake County
Kennecott (South Zone), Copperton, Salt Lake County
Monticello Mill Tailings (DOE) and Monticello Radioactively
Contaminated Properties (a/k/a) Monticello Vicinity
Properties), Monticello, San Juan County
Murray Smelter, Murray, Salt Lake County
Ogden Defense Depot, Ogden, Weber County
Petrochem Recycling Corporation/Ekotek, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake
County
WYOMING
None available currently.
Region 9
AMERICAN SAMOA
None available currently.
ARIZONA
Luke Air Force Base, Phoenix, Maricopa County
Phelps-Dodge Corp Douglas Reduction Works, Douglas, Cochise County
Williams Air Force Base, Mesa, Maricopa County
Yuma Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Yuma County
CALIFORNIA
El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, Santa Ana, Orange County
Fort Ord, Marina, Monterey County
Frontier Fertilizer, Davis, Yolo County
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, Riverbank, Stanislaus County
Sacramento Army Depot, Sacramento, Sacramento County
Sola Optical USA, Inc., Petaluma, Sonoma County
Naval Station Treasure Island, Hunters Point Annex, San Francisco
County
T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition Company, Fresno, Fresno County
Tracy Defense Depot, Tracy, San Joaquin County
Travis Air Force Base, Solano County
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANAS ISLANDS
None available currently.
GUAM
None available currently.
HAWAII
Del Monte Corporation (Oahu Plantation), Kunia, Honolulu County
Naval Computer and Telecommunication Area, Wahiawa, Honolulu County
NEVADA
None available currently.
TRUSTED TERRITORIES
None available currently.
Region 10
ALASKA
Fort Richardson (U.S. Army), Fort Richardson, Anchorge County
IDAHO
Blackbird Mine, Cobalt, Lemhi County
Triumph Mine Tailings Piles, Halley, Blaine County
OREGON
East Multnomah, Gresham, Multnomah County
McCormick and Baxter Creosoting Company (Portland), Portland, Multnomah
County
Northwest Pine and Casing Company, Clackamas, Clackamas County
Reynolds Metal Company, Troutdale, Multnomah County
U.S. Army Umatilla Depot Activity, Hermiston, Umatilla County
WASHINGTON
American Crossarm and Conduit Company, Chehalis, Lewis County
Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex (USDOE), Vancouver, County
Boomsnub/Airco, Vancouver, Clark County
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Field (a/k/a Commencement Bay, South
Tacoma Channel), Tacoma, Pierce County
Fairchild Air Force Base, Spokane, Spokane County
McChord Air Force Base, Tacoma, Pierce County
Old Navy Dump/Manchester Laboratory (USEPA/NOAA), Manchester, Kitsap
County
Pacific Sound Resources, Seattle, King County
Seattle Municipal Landfill/Kent Highlands, Kent, King County
U.S. Navy Port Hadlock Detachment, Indian Island, Kitsap County
Mr. Towns. All right, thank you very much.
The majority staff circulated a memorandum to the
subcommittee members for this hearing that EPA has completed
remedial actions at slightly under 200 sites. First, is that an
accurate statement or is it misleading?
Mr. Fields. Well, from my perspective, it is a very
misleading statement. We, in fact, have completed cleanup at
many more than 200 sites. As I said in the very beginning, both
Republican and Democratic administrations have all agreed that
the construction-completion indicator is the best indicator of
Superfund Program performance. We have, in fact, completed
cleanup construction at 592 sites to date. We will completing
cleanup construction at 670 by the end of this fiscal year.
Almost half of the sites on the Superfund National Priorities
List will have completed construction by the end of this year.
That is significant progress. It is the appropriate indicator,
and not the information that has been provided in the staff
draft documents.
Mr. Towns. So, I can just assume that that is inaccurate?
Mr. Fields. We believe it is an inaccurate indicator and
not the correct indicator to document Superfund Program
performance.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Fields, I have heard from many local
government representatives that the reuse of contaminated
properties is of great concern to our cities. I believe that we
must focus on this concern, the cost to a community when a
remedy is chosen that does not render the property usable. Can
you describe whether redevelopment of other beneficial
activities has taken place at Superfund sites that are either
construction-complete or still have remedial construction
ongoing?
Mr. Fields. Yes, we definitely can document that at many of
our sites, where construction is complete or construction is
underway, major reuse is occurring, economic reuse,
recreational reuse, those reuses that are very beneficial to
communities. For example, in the industrial-plex site in
Massachusetts, we have converted a Superfund site into a
regional transportation center and a shopping complex. At the
Anaconda site in Montana, we have converted a Superfund site
that is still under construction into a world-class Jack
Nicklaus Golf Course. The Chisman Creek site in York County,
Pennsylvania, we converted that into a recreational area
involving ball fields.
We have documented more than 160 Superfund sites to date
where major reuse, redevelopment, recycling has occurred while
major construction activity is underway.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent that
Mr. Fields insert into the records other examples of
redevelopment and beneficial activities that are now taking
place at the Superfund sites?
Mr. Oxley. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.030
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from Ohio, Dr. Ganske.
Mr. Ganske. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fields, I know that Mr. Greenwood is going to be asking
you some questions about brownfields, and so I am going to move
really to this chart that you have shown. What bothers me about
your statement is--what bothers me is that your statement, the
administration budget document, many of Administrator Browner's
statements repeat over and over an argument that to me doesn't
make since mathematically or logically. The question I want to
ask you about is whether a given set of facts logically proves
a given conclusion about the pace of cleanups. So, let me walk
through this.
I want to refer to an enclosure to a letter the GAO wrote
to Carol Browner on January 28, 1998. The letter responds to
EPA criticism of a GAO report on the current times for listing
and moving a site through the cleanup process.
The enclosure states that site completions are not evidence
of the pace of cleanups. The GAO response to EPA states, ``This
is not evidence of decreasing processing times. Rather, it is
an indication that the program, now more than 15 years old, has
been around long enough for a substantial number of sites to
have had remedies constructed. Given the long cleanup times for
many sites, it is not surprising that more sites, most listed
years ago, are now reaching the end of the cleanup.''
It seems to me the GAO report is correct. Do you agree?
Mr. Fields. We have discussed this with the GAO and Mr.
Guerrero, who will be speaking right after me. We have some
serious disagreements about that study, and we have discussed
this privately and publicly. Our disagreements with the GAO
analysis of the timeline that they have documented in their
report--and I have read that report several times--we, in fact,
have documented, and I will be happy to provide for the record
documentation which says the time it takes to go through the
process has been reduced by 2 years. It now takes, on the
average--and we can provide sites to give you documentation for
this--eight years from the time you finalize a site on the NPL
until construction is complete.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.051
Mr. Ganske. But, you would admit, then, that simply looking
at a chart where you list just the number of projects being
brought to completion in any given year is not an index of
progress, in terms of the length of time that it is taking to
get it completed, because you may just have that many more
projects in the pipeline? So that, as you add more and more
projects on, you can expect that you are eventually going to
get more and more of them completed.
Mr. Fields. You are right in the sense that there will be
more sites completed because of time in the process. But, it is
very clear that the progress you see on that chart could not
have been achieved as quickly as it is being done without the
administrative reforms. We were doing, if you look at that
chart, 65 construction completions a year in the early 1990's.
As you look at the data, we are now up to 85 a year. In the
last 2 years alone we have achieved 175 construction-
completions. We were not operating at nearly that pace in the
early 1990's.
Mr. Ganske. Well, maybe you can explain to me--in 1992, the
last year of the Bush administration, there were 87
construction-completes. In the next 4 years, in the Clinton
administration, there were 68, 60, 62, and 62, respectively.
What was the difference?
Mr. Fields. The difference was that we got an infusion of
money just prior to that year that we achieved 87 in the Bush
administration. It was, actually, the year before we adopted
construction-completion as being the indicator of Superfund
Program progress. The additional infusion of money, roughly,
$400 million, was what allowed us to move faster toward getting
more cleanups done that particular year. But, the overall
budget that we achieved, $1.5 billion a year, that budget, as
you have seen during the 4 years 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996,
that budget allows you to achieve 65 cleanups a year. That is
what we told Congress 6 years ago--by 2000, we would have 650
construction completions.
Because of the administrative reform agenda we have been
implementing, over the last 6 years, we are now going to
achieve 650 construction-completions by this summer. That is
about a year and a half earlier than we told Congress. And, the
real reason we are getting there faster is because of the
administrative reforms. We have the same amount of money, but
we are doing it faster.
Mr. Ganske. But it's your contention that you are getting
the sites cleaned up in a shorter timeframe. Now, does the GAO
agree with that?
Mr. Fields. I think, when you look at the GAO testimony,
the GAO testimony, as I read it last night, indicates that
significant progress has been made in this program and that
Superfund has been implementing its construction-completion
initiative in a fair and constructive way. The General
Accounting Office actually did a review. A document was
prepared on our construction-completion initiative. The General
Accounting Office's report was quite favorable about how we
document and how we are completing many more constructions at
Superfund sites.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlelady
from Colorado.
Ms. Degette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I bet you know what I want to talk about, Mr. Fields. And,
I want to clarify a few things with you. The reason I said, in
my opening statement, that with this new I-70 and Vasquez site
in Denver, that I think that the wishes of the neighborhood and
the property values should be taken into account, is because we
have this existing Superfund site in Denver, the Shattuck site,
which we have had a number of conversations about in the last
year. In fairness to the EPA, this was a site that was closed
before this administration came in.
However, in my opinion, in the bipartisan opinion of every
elected official who deals with this site, and in the opinions
of over 80 percent of the Denver voters, the ``remedy,'' which
is containment onsite in a residential neighborhood of uranium,
was inappropriate in this situation. And, I have been trying to
get a sense from the EPA now for about a year of what it is
that you folks intend to do about this.
Last fall, after the voters elected, by a referendum, that
they wanted this stuff moved out, the EPA announced that it
would appoint a blue-ribbon panel to figure out what was going
on. And, I learned, a couple of weeks ago that nothing happened
with the blue-ribbon panel. Then, after I met with you, and
some other officials from the EPA, I received a letter from you
saying that perhaps we could have a meeting of interested
parties that the Keystone group could facilitate, giving me the
impression that you folks wanted me to pay for, at least, part
of that meeting.
Then, after that, you visited Denver and announced that you
were going to have an investigation whether lower standards
were applied in cleaning up the waste. At the request of
Senator Allard, you said you were going to appoint an EPA
ombudsman; you said you were going to have an analysis by a
Boston consulting firm, and, then, you also said you were going
to have some meetings with the neighborhood.
So, here is my question to you: Exactly what is it that the
EPA intends to do, and exactly what is the timeframe in which
you intend to do it?
Mr. Fields. Thank you, Congressman. Again, we thank you for
your active involvement at the site. I assure you that that
active involvement has helped facilitate EPA's involvement at
that site.
In my meeting with you, I made a commitment that we would
play a more active role in headquarters in the review of
activities at that site, and we are doing so. We are going to
do a full review of activities at that site. The Administrator
has asked me to personally oversee the review of the remedy.
We are doing four things: We are going to be doing a
detailed scientific and technical review of the remedy, a
contractor that we will be hiring will be evaluating all the
technical and scientific issues raised by the community----
Ms. Degette. And, what is the timeframe for that?
Mr. Fields. That will be done by September.
Second, we will be doing an ombudsman review. The National
Ombudsman for Superfund, who works for me, will be doing a
review of some of the community concerns that have been raised
at the site, about environmental justice issues, about
placement of that site in the community, and about the impact
on re-development, some of the non-technical types of issues
that have been raised about the Shattuck site.
Ms. Degette. And when will that be done?
Mr. Fields. Everything is going to be done this summer. All
four of these pieces will be completed this summer.
Ms. Degette. So the ombudsman review is not dependent on
the scientific data? It is a separate assessment?
Mr. Fields. No, all of these are being done on a parallel
track to help facilitate getting the job done.
Third, as you mention, we will be hiring the Keystone
Center in Keystone, Colorado, to facilitate several meetings
that I will be present at, with key stakeholders involved in
the Shattuck site. The mayor's office, the Governor's office,
representatives of Shattuck have agreed to participate, the
responsible party, representatives of the community.
We are going to schedule that meeting at a time that you
can be there. We would like you to come and address that
meeting when----
Ms. Degette. Thanks for letting me know.
Mr. Fields. We will not schedule it unless you are
available, I assure you of that. And, that meeting I expect to
be sometime in the April to early May timeframe.
We are going to hire the contractor by April. We will have
the contractor onboard at the Keystone Center. And then, that
will be done during the summer.
And then, last, I have agreed to, personally, meet with the
parties--the meeting with you was one such meeting. I,
subsequently, met with the mayor a couple of weeks ago. We will
be meeting with Senator Allard. We will be meeting with the
representatives of Shattuck, and their views and comments will
be considered.
Then, we have agreed, as an agency, to make our
headquarters determination by the fall as to what we are going
to do at the Shattuck site, based on the input from all four of
those parallel efforts that will be underway.
Mr. Oxley. The gentlelady's time has expired. The gentleman
from Virginia, the chairman of the full committee.
Chairman Bliley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fields, many of us are familiar with the waves of
litigation that the Superfund law causes, I want to go over
them with you.
Typically, EPA will go after a certain number of larger,
potentially responsible parties. Those PRP's, in turn, can sue
other small PRP's for contributions. The second group is
allowed to sue even more PRP's. We have seen thousands brought
into the mix, from Barbara Williams with her mashed potatoes,
to auto dealers who recycle oil. In addition to these waves,
PRP's can also create separate litigation against their
insurance carriers. All of these are parties who probably will
at least hire a lawyer and many incur thousands in unnecessary
expenses--all of this, often for insignificant contributions of
waste.
Many are liable for activities that occurred over 30 years
ago. Many are liable because they bought a company which was
acting in full accordance with the law. The system is a
travesty.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses has
testified, ``There have been over 100,000 different potentially
responsible parties identified at Superfund sites.'' The effect
of the current liability system is permeating all segments of
the small business community. No issue, in this very complex
public policy debate, will have a more direct impact on the
present and future economic viability of many small businesses.
That is, in one segment, whether it be a retail store, a
professional service business, or a construction business that
has not been touched. My question is: Why is the administration
not working with us on statutory reforms to these problems?
Mr. Fields. We agree with you that the litigation impact
needs to be considered and addressed. We support getting
Barbara Williams out of the system. That is why we support a
legislative provision that would exempt and provide liability
relief for small generators and transporters of municipal solid
waste. Barbara Williams would not be in our liability system if
that kind of legislative provision were enacted.
Over the last 6 years, second, we have introduced an
aggressive reform agenda where we have settled, with 18,000 de
minimis parties, with 400 settlements, to get them out of the
Superfund liability system, to make sure they are not sought
after by third-party litigants and to cut down on litigation by
that reform. We have implemented a de micromis enforcement
policy that allows people to settle out for a dollar out of the
Superfund liability system. We have offered $145 million in
orphan share funding to help facilitate settlements. And we
have found that, in terms of larger parties, we have seen more
fairness being implemented as well. PRP's, over the last 3
years, have agreed to conduct cleanup under the settlement
reform, agreements rather than through unilateral
administrative orders. That is up from 50 percent more than 3
years ago.
So, we think that in all aspects of the program, we have
tried to be fair to the larger parties as well as the smaller
parties. And we support, as you do, liability reform to get
Barbara Williams and other small entities out of the Superfund
liability system.
Chairman Bliley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further
questions.
Mr. Oxley. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize that I wasn't here to hear your testimony, but
looking at your written submission, I note that you state that
the agency has gone from cleaning up 65 sites per year to
cleaning up 85 sites per year. And, obviously, that is
something that I think that you can be proud of, if you are
working more efficiently and effectively. What was the key that
allowed you to get from 65 to 85?
Mr. Fields. Well, it was the set of administrative reforms
we have introduced over the last 3 years. We implemented three
rounds of administrative reforms, and those reforms include
things like presumptive remedies, where we don't have to spend
2 years studying how to clean up certain categories of sites
like volatile organic chemicals or municipal landfills; that
saved time. The fact that we have reduced cost in the cleanup
process by 20 percent, that has allowed us to do more cleanups
with the same amount of money. So, it is this set of reforms
that have allowed us to move faster in this process.
We are now doing it faster and, because of that, we are now
cleaning up 85 sites a year as opposed to 65, one-third
increase in the number of cleanups that we are doing each year.
So, we think that the administrative reform agenda is what has
allowed us to address many more sites than we were formerly
able to address during the early 1990's.
Mr. Barrett. Have you found that, along with that increased
speed, that you have increased hostility toward the agency?
Mr. Fields. No, I don't think that that has increased
hostility at all. We are finding that, you know, more than 70
percent of the cleanups that we are effectuating are being done
by responsible parties. The sites that were cleaned up in, for
example, the construction-completions in fiscal year 1998, 72
percent of those were done by responsible parties. So, we are
seeing that, over the last 5 years, roughly, 70 percent of the
cleanups are being done by responsible parties.
We are thinking that the enforcement dollars we are putting
into this program have been tremendously leveraged. We have
obligated $2.3 billion over the last 18 years for enforcement
and cost-recovery activities in this program. That has resulted
in more than $15.5 billion in responsible-party activity. In
addition to what we are putting in the trust fund, the
responsible parties are stepping up to the plate and doing
effective cleanup and helping us facilitate and do a greater
number of cleanups each year, because of the aggressive job we
have in enforcement and the responsible-party activity going on
at many of these sites.
Mr. Barrett. In my experience in Wisconsin, the State that
I come from, it appears that a strong Federal cleanup program,
with the Federal liability scheme and the threat of NPL
listing, has, in a way, benefited the State cleanup program
because you are so much the ``gorilla in the closet,'' if you
will, that nobody wants to have the EPA come in and a Superfund
come in. Is that experience similar in other States? Are you
seeing more States becoming active, trying to avoid, at all
costs----
Mr. Fields. That is definitely true. We have seen that in
many States, in implementing--as the chairman was indicating,
it goes much beyond Superfund, much beyond the NPL. State
programs are telling us that the fact that we have a joint and
several liability scheme, a strong liability provision in the
Superfund law, actually helps them in terms of getting more
cleanup done. The regulated community, and other parties, would
rather do cleanup pursuant to a State cleanup program than get
involved in being on the Superfund List or have to get involved
in being on the National Priorities List. The State programs
have told us that a powerful Federal statute allows them to get
much more cleanup. This fact has been documented, in reports
prepared by the U.S. General Accounting Office as well.
Mr. Barrett. When you have a situation--again, I am
thinking of my own State--where you have got a cleanup site
where the State, and most of the local players, desperately
don't want to have the Superfund involvement, what is the
criteria you are using to decide whether you are going to allow
this State to move forward on its own or whether you are going
to step in?
Mr. Fields. Well, as we said earlier, we have been working
closely with the States over the last 3 years, under our State
Governor concurrence policy. We consider the threat posed by a
site; we consider whether or not the State is willing to take
that site on; we consider whether or not that site is one where
there are willing, or unable or unwilling or incapable
responsible parties to deal with the site. If the State is
willing to take the site, we are willing to defer to a State
voluntary cleanup program or to a State Superfund program, or
to voluntary PRP action. We only utilize the National
Priorities List, and make a site a Federal interest, if it
cannot be dealt with any other way.
Over the last 5 years, we have listed, roughly, 25, 26
sites on the NPL each year. We don't put sites on the NPL just
because they score above 28.5. We do it when we can't find an
alternative way to deal with that site.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Greenwood.
Mr. Greenwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to place into the record, and provide to Mr.
Fields, a set of statements from parties who have been seeking
statutory reform to provide certainty and finality for State
voluntary and brownfields cleanups. These parties supported the
language in H.R. 3000, Congressman Oxley's bipartisan bill from
last session, which included my brownfield provisions. This
group includes the State waste management officials, the
Governors, the State attorneys general, cleanup engineers, and
contractors, and realtors. Do you have a copy of that yet, Mr.
Fields?
[The information referred to follows:]
Parties Seeking Statutory Reform to Provide Certainty and Finality for
State, Voluntary and Brownfields Cleanups
excerpts from testimony and letters from hearings before the
subcommittee on finance and hazardous materials in the 105th congress
on h.r. 3000
National Governors' Association
``The Governors believe that congressional direction is needed
because the September 1997 EPA draft guidance on state voluntary clean-
up programs would have seriously eroded state authority at the expense
of federal programs. Although the draft guidance was withdrawn, the
Governors is still prevalent. They support the brownfields provisions
in H.R. 3000 and believe that these changes would facilitate cleanups
across the nation and provide certainty for remediating parties.
States believe that voluntary cleanup programs and brownfields
development are being hindered by the pervasive fear of liability under
CERCLA. The Governors would strongly support provisions that encourage
potentially responsible parties and prospective purchasers to
voluntarily clean up sites and reuse and develop contaminated property
by precluding federal enforcement at sites where cleanup has occurred
under state programs . . .''
Association of State and Territorial Waste Management Officials
``Our second goal will be met if title III of H.R. 3000 is enacted
and States are allowed to release sites from federal liability once a
site has met State standards. The reality is the CERCLA statute has
become a primary impediment to remediating sites not listed on the NPL,
yet they are still subject to CERCLA liability even after the site has
been listed on the NPL. The majority of sites classified as Brownfields
will never be placed on the NPL, yet they are still subject to State
standards. We can no longer afford to foster the illusion that State
authorized cleanups may somehow not be adequate to satisfy federal
requirements. The potential for EPA overfile and for third party
lawsuits under CERCLA is beginning to cause many owners of Brownfields
sites to simply ``mothball'' the properties . . . States should be able
to release sites from liability once a site has been cleaned up to
State standards . . .''
The National Association of Attorney Generals
``Federal statutory provisions should be flexible enough to
accommodate different state voluntary cleanup laws. States should be
able to self-certify, subject to EPA's approval. After such approval,
the state should be authorized to issue a release from federal
liability when a volunteer complies with a federally approved state
brownfields program. In this fashion state brownfields programs can
operate to their fullest potential.''
Clean-up Engineers and Contractors
``HWAC [Hazardous Waste Action Coalition] is our trade association
representing more than 60 of the country's leading engineering, science
and construction firms practicing in multimedia environmental
management and remediation. [H.R. 3000] is badly needed. This bill IS
protective of human health and environment; it Does promote and enhance
clean-up. This bill Will ensure that innovations are applied to
cleanups; it provides incentives for new technologies at hazardous
waste sites. And the bill WILL spur essential state and local voluntary
cleanup programs that sometimes languish due to the shadow of potential
CERCLA liability that runs from the Beltway to every Brownfield site in
this country.''
The National Association of Realtors
``Uncertainty over potential liability associated with real estate
which is an actual or potential Superfund site has proven to be a
significant deterrent in the purchase, sale and development of
commercial and residential properties. Properties that could be
positively contributing to local economies remain dilapidated,
contributing to nothing but economic ruin''.
Mr. Fields. Not yet.
Mr. Greenwood. I think that it is coming at you here.
Let me read some quotes from these statements, first from
the--first, do you have one now, sir? Okay, very good. If you
look at the National Governors Association, the second
paragraph--I am just shortening it to get through this--states,
``States believe that voluntary cleanup programs and
brownfields development are being hindered by the pervasive
fear of liability under CERCLA. The Governors would strongly
support provisions that encourage potentially responsible
parties and prospective purchasers to voluntarily clean up
sites and to reuse and develop contaminated property by
precluding Federal enforcement at sites where cleanup has
occurred under State programs.'' That is the National Governors
Association.
If you look at the Association of State and Territorial
Waste Management Officials, it says, ``The reality is that
CERCLA statute has become a primary impediment to remediating
sites not listed on the NPL. Yet, they are still subject to
CERCLA liability, even after the site has been listed on the
NPL. We can no longer afford to foster the illusion that State-
authorized cleanups may somehow not be adequate to satisfy
Federal requirements. The potential for EPA overfile and for
third-party lawsuits under CERCLA is beginning to cause many
owners of brownfield sites to simply `mothball' the properties.
States should be able to release sites from liability once a
site has been cleaned up to State standards.''
National Association of Attorney Generals, about halfway
down: ``The States should be authorized to issue a release from
Federal liability when a volunteer complies with federally
approved State brownfields program, and in this fashion, State
brownfields programs can operate to their fullest potential.''
The cleanup engineers and contractors, the Hazardous Waste
Action Coalition says: ``The bill will spur essential State and
local voluntary cleanup programs that sometimes languish due to
the shadow of potential CERCLA liability that runs from the
Beltway to every brownfields site in this country.''
And, finally, from the National Association of Realtors,
quote, ``Uncertainty over potential liability associated with
real estate which is an actual or potential Superfund site has
proven to be a significant deterrent to the purchase, sale, and
development of commercial and residential properties.
Properties that could be positively contributing to local
economies remain dilapidated, contributing to nothing but
economic ruin.''
Now, Mr. Fields, briefly, these groups say that when a
party works with the State on a cleanup plan that should be
final, there should be a release from further liability and
cleanup issues. This would seem to require statutory change.
As I read your testimony, the administration's answer to
this point is that EPA has entered into 85 prospective
purchaser agreements and issued over 250 conferred-status
letters. And, I am aware that has happened in my district and
it been helpful. But, this would suggest that EPA has to get
involved at every site, at least in this manner, to get this
kind of release.
I understand that there would be tens of thousands of
brownfields sites. The question is, do you really believe this
administrative approach will solve the problem with so many
sites involved?
Mr. Fields. Well, we think that, you know, prospective
purchaser agreements and comfort letters are tools that have
been utilized, but we think the real answer here is to have an
effective partnership between the Feds and the States. The
General Accounting Office indicates that there are 450,000
brownfields sites across the country. And, we, in the Federal
Government, will not ever be able to deal with all those sites.
We have enough difficulties just being able to address the,
roughly, 1,300 sites on the Superfund National Priorities List.
We believe the job, the answer to the finality questions, is to
have the States enter into memoranda of agreement with the
Federal Government, to make clear that there is a partnership
where we are deferring to the State for cleanups of voluntary
cleanup of brownfields and VCP sites in that State.
Mr. Greenwood. But, isn't it the case of, if one PRP will
not release another PRP from liability, that that is not going
to solve the problem?
Mr. Fields. Well, that is an issue that we have got to make
sure that we have to better communicate the fact that we have
never intervened. We have never intervened in an oversight of a
cleanup by a State unless that State specifically asked. We
think we have got to maintain a Federal safety net for those
situations where a State wants us to come in.
Mr. Greenwood. But, the problem is that a PRP can
intervene--I mean, you have got two levels here; you have got
DC, Washington, the Federal Government. EPA looms over and
can--you say it hasn't--but the problem is you can't measure
the invisible effect of the fact that you can and haven't. You
can't measure what that does to property owners, potential
buyers, and, also, potentially responsible parties can
intervene, even if you don't, after a State has completed its
work. Isn't that right?
Mr. Fields. That is correct.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Greenwood. So, to fix that, we need a statutory change.
Okay.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a lot of
questions. I just have 1 or 2.
Mr. Fields, can you go into more details about your
cooperation between EPA and local stakeholders, community
organizations, not-for-profits, universities? Exactly how is
the EPA engaging the local components, local stakeholders, in
brownfields cleanups? And can you explain, go into more detail,
about how it actually works?
Mr. Fields. Sure. We have made very clear, since the
beginning of our brownfields initiative, in January 1995, that
local stakeholder involvement is a critical component, as we
cleanup brownfields, and that has been very successful. In
addition to the grants we have given out to now 250 communities
across America, the private parties have now contributed more
than a billion dollars toward cleanup. And that is part of the
answer to Mr. Greenwood's question. Private parties are
actually finding that brownfields are something they want to
invest in; they are coming to the table and are getting
involved. More than 2,500 jobs have been created.
And, we are making clear that, when we award a brownfields
grant, roughly, $200,000 to one of these 250 communities, they
have to have involvement with the local community. We require,
before they can even get a grant, that there is clear
demonstration that the community is involved; the community
supports this grant; the State voluntary cleanup program is
supportive of this grant being applied for and being given by
EPA. So we assure that environmental justice and environmental
and community concerns are addressed prior to the award of a
brownfields grant.
That is why we never had, in the 4-year history of this
program, we have never had a title VI complaint filed around a
brownfields site. It is because we have assured effective,
coordinated community involvement upfront. So people are not
filing civil rights complaints, because the communities are
involved upfront, as we initiate brownfields activities in
their communities. They are part of the process. We are looking
at how they can be involved in job creation, how the reuse
options that are looked at in that community are worked on with
the community in mind and with community involvement.
Mr. Rush. Does the local, regional EPA administrator--are
they the first point of contact between the local stakeholders
and the EPA or--what functions do the regional offices, what
functions do they have in terms of this entire process?
Mr. Fields. Well, each regional administrator has appointed
a brownfields coordinator in their region. That brownfields
coordinator works with the cities and the States who apply for
a brownfields grant, and that brownfields application, when it
comes into the regional office, that has been done with
consultation by EPA and other Federal and State staff.
Therefore, the regions do an initial screening, the brownfield
coordinators, of those applications, and then the applications
come to EPA headquarters, where we pick the finalists and those
grantees that would be selected to be new brownfield pilots,
either for assessment grants or, under the new support of
Congress, a revolving loan fund grant. But, the regions each
have their brownfields coordinator that reviews them before
they come to Washington.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if this should be
transmitted through you, but I would like to have information
regarding my district, the first district of Illinois, the city
of Chicago, and the State of Illinois. I would like to know who
has assessment grants, who has been given loans, what
organizations are involved in your efforts there, because I am
unaware of any entity, particularly in my district.
Mr. Fields. We will be happy to provide that. We will be
happy to give you that. We have, by congressional district, the
brownfields grants that have been awarded and we will be happy
to share that with you, for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.067
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from Maryland, Mr. Ehrlich.
Mr. Ehrlich. I asked my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Greenwood--Jimmy, I will be glad to yield some of my time to
you because you are discussing an issue that is important to
me, and I think a lot of us here. I, certainly, want you to
have your full time because I think the question you asked was
very relevant, sir, with respect to these non-NPL sites and
sites that have a State plan.
Obviously, I guess this is a philosophical view that you
express, in answer to my colleague from Pennsylvania, in the
sense that he asked you if it is possible for the Feds to sign
off, and you discussed the context of various releases from
liabilities, purchaser agreements, status letters, whatever.
The fact that it is your view that you can engage in a variety
of remedies, but it is your view that you should have the final
signoff, the ``safety net,'' I believe is the phrase that you
used--and, of course, as you know, it has been asked in various
ways; that is the focal point of some of our problems. Because
you have PRP's out there who are scared; there is a chilling
effect, you know it and I know it.
But, could you further engage this area of questioning? I
am just interested in hearing, in the real world, how this
plays out and whether there is a regulatory fix or how you can
better remedy this particular situation which I know you know
exists.
Mr. Fields. Right. I think, Congressman, one clear way is
to try to deal with the liability issue. We do not believe,
however, that liability has prevented brownfields cleanup and
redevelopment. A lot is occurring. We see billions of dollars
of work going on every year. We see hundreds of sites being
cleaned up across the country. We think that what we ought to
do--the brownfields bills have been introduced, and Mr.
Greenwood has been a real leader in the brownfields agenda, and
we support his work on the various bills he has introduced.
We think that what we have for brownfields is a good
mechanism for funding. And, Congress has agreed that we should
fund assessment grants and revolving loan fund grants, and some
bills have proposed that, but we really don't think we need
legislative authority for that because the authority is in the
current Superfund law to fund brownfields, to fund those
activities.
Second, you need liability relief. We think, for
brownfields we need liability relief for prospective purchases;
we need liability relief for innocent landowners, for
contiguous property owners, who had nothing to do with
contamination that may be existing at their properties. We
believe that we ought to have liability relief for small
generators and transporters of municipal solid waste. You know,
liability relief like that is kind of----
Mr. Ehrlich. Truly innocent parties.
Mr. Fields. Right. We see that as part of the brownfields
agenda. The types of revisions that the administration is
supporting, as part of targeted legislative reform, are the
kinds of things, we believe that will help facilitate
brownfields redevelopment.
Mr. Greenwood's bills, that he has introduced--and I have
reviewed those--those bills have included provisions along the
lines of what the administration is supporting. like the type
of targeted liability relief to get certain parties out of the
system, so we don't have to worry about them getting entangled
in transactions around brownfields.
Mr. Ehrlich. Well, that is a mutually agreeable goal.
I will be glad to yield to my colleague, Mr. Greenwood from
Pennsylvania. On the basis of that statement, Mr. Chairman, I
look forward to moving the bill out of this subcommittee
shortly, but I don't know if Mr. Greenwood would like to follow
up on that line of questioning. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Greenwood. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just want to be clear on--Mr. Fields, what is your view,
ultimately, on release of Federal liability then? At what point
are you prepared to release a site from any Federal liability
as a matter of policy?
Mr. Fields. As a matter of policy, Mr. Congressman, we
believe that the process we have outlined in our November 1996
guidance about voluntary cleanup programs and memorandum of
agreements, we believe that by signing a memorandum of
agreement, as we have done with 11 States, to date, and with
other States under negotiation, that is the best way policywise
to send a signal to the regulated community; that is an
agreement between the Feds and the States, within this
particular State, whereby, we are deferring to that State and
are saying that a cleanup is being done by the State of those
that we will allow to be the appropriate cleanup for the
brownfields and the other contaminated properties in that
State. A VCP program, with an agreement signed between the
Federal Government and the State, we believe policywise is the
best way to effectuate that finality. I assure you, we haven't
done it in 18 years; we do not intend now to intervene, when we
have an agreement with a State and we are deferring to them for
a cleanup.
I have had discussions with personnel in the Pennsylvania
Environmental Department about entering into an agreement with
Pennsylvania. We want to do so. And, we think that is the best
way to assure the degree of finality we need for the regulated
community.
Mr. Greenwood. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me
just, if I may, 30 seconds----
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Greenwood. The bottom line here is still, as a matter
of policy, this administration doesn't trust the States to--in
the final analysis, and that is a philosophical distinction
that we have here, and I can't think of any reason why the
Governors can't be trusted as well as the administration can't
take care of the real estate that is in their own States.
And, I yield back.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Luther.
Mr. Luther. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Nice to see you.
Mr. Fields, I believe that you have indicated some reasons,
in some of your prior testimony, as to why you oppose mandatary
gubernatorial concurrence. And, I wonder if you could just
amplify, or expand, on that and give us your present thinking
on that particular issue. Even though, as I understand it, you
have concurred with
States on these sites, nevertheless, you have opposed that.
Seems to me that there have been some persuasive arguments that
have been presented, and I just wonder if you could expand on
that?
Mr. Fields. We, obviously, over the last 3 years, more than
3 years now, have supported a policy of consulting with States
on listings on the NPL. We believe that, for those few sites we
do list on the NPL, it should be done in consultation with the
State. We believe that the State should be involved in the
process when we have made a determination that there are
unwilling or incapable parties who are unable to do the
cleanup. And, we are all in agreement with that. We do not
believe that it is necessary to be mandatory. We believe it
should be a flexible process. There may be situations where the
State wants us to get involved and we would not want something
that precludes that involvement. There are situations sometimes
where there may be a severe public health threat, where we may
have to get involved even if a State may choose or decide they
don't want us to be. There are situations--and we have
discovered those--where, in some cases, a State may be a
responsible party. So, it will be a conflict of interest for a
State, in that instance, to say they do not want a site listed
if they are, in fact, a contributing party toward the
contamination at that site.
But, in general, our belief is that the current flexible
policy process has worked quite well, and there is no need for
a legislative construct to mandate a Governor concurrence
process in the law.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Luther. Thank you. I assume there could also be
instances where there would be more than one State involved?
Mr. Fields. Yes. That is a good point. There are some sites
that the impact--I know one instance where sites impact three
States, and we have seen differing views. One Governor of one
State may feel that the best approach for dealing with that
site is through a Superfund listing, and another Governor may
feel that he or she would want to address that site under a
voluntary cleanup program. That is why we believe there needs
to be a flexible process, a partnership, that has gone on for
more than 3 years now between the States and the EPA in
deciding how to divvy up and decide on how to address sites
within that State.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fields, could you give me the example of that one site
that has three Governors involved and where each of the three
Governors may have a different view on that? Can you cite that
particular specific--I mean, not now, but can you----
Mr. Fields. Right. Sure. I will be happy to provide. I can
give you one example. For example----
Mr. Shimkus. No, just give it to me in writing and the
dates.
Mr. Fields. Sure. I can do it. I will be happy to provide
it for the record.
[The following was received for the record:]
Leviathon Mine is a site that begins in the State of
California, but contamination has spread from the mine areas
downstream to impact lands of the Washoe Tribe, whose
reservation straddles the California-Nevada border. The State
of Nevada may also be appropriate to consult with on this site.
The Washoe tribe is extremely supportive of NPL listing, but
the State of California, who is a PRP for the site, has
not supported listing in response to a letter requesting their
support from EPA Region IX.
Mr. Shimkus. Because I believe that the Governors probably
could come to some type of agreement.
I am dealing with a site in Quincy, as many of you know,
that the municipal landfill was closed in 1978. It was on the
``watch list'' in 1984, NPL in 1990. The statute of limitations
is quickly running out. So, in February of this year, they sent
letters to about 165 small businesses, you know, to settle
versus the threat of suit to buy the--I get the acronyms all
messed up--the PRP's; the Principal Responsible Parties.
So, this whole issue is near and dear, and I have been
following it very closely for over 21 years. One settlement is
$150,000, which is the entire total revenue generated, gross,
of that company in 1 year. So, it would put many of these
businesses out of business just to settle.
EPA Administrator Browner stated to this committee in the
past that innocent small -business owners were never meant to
be dragged into Superfund liability. In fact, Administrator
Browner stated that some kind of small business liability
reform could be worked out to relieve innocent small business
owners of Superfund liability.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to submit the
attached quotes from Browner, for the record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oxley. Without objection.
Mr. Shimkus. And to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Fields,
is it still the position of the Administrator that small
businesses, like those in the Quincy area, are in need of
relief from Superfund liability?
Mr. Fields. Well, we agree that there is a need to provide
relief for the particular parties around the Quincy landfill.
We have tried, as you know--we apologize for the late
notification to your office about that, but we have----
Mr. Shimkus. It wasn't late notification to me. It was late
notification to the businesses, and they are given 5 weeks to
decide if they are going to settle for $150,000, which wipes
out their total annual income.
Mr. Fields. And, as you know, it was because of a statute
of limitations issue. And, we found out that the seven major
responsible parties were going to go after, in litigation,
those small parties. We want to try to protect them, and we try
to provide litigation protection from the lawsuit by the major
parties with these small parties, if we can find a way to enact
appropriate liability relief. We believe that the small
generator and transporter of the municipal solid-waste issue
will address some of these parties----
Mr. Shimkus. Let me go on because I don't have a lot of
time.
Does it have to be done legislatively or can you do that
administratively?
Mr. Fields. Well, we can do this administratively. What we
are proposing to do at Quincy can be done administratively.
However, we are concerned about, as you indicate, the issue of
trying to reach agreement on a small business exemption. That
is something we did discuss in the last two Congresses. We had
difference of opinion as to what the number of employees ought
to be, what the amount of money ought to be--should it be $3
million, $2 million? Should it be 50 employees, 100 employees?
We were not able to reach an agreement or consensus among a
variety of people----
Mr. Shimkus. Who is we?
Mr. Fields. I mean the House Commerce Committee, the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee----
Mr. Shimkus. And the administration?
Mr. Fields. [continuing] the Senate Environment Committee.
We had a lot of dialog on this issue, and there was not an
agreement on how we define a ``small business.'' What we have
tried to offer up and target at the reform are those things we
think everybody can quickly agree on.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me follow up with this question: Did the
administration provide legislative language for a small
business exemption in the last two Congresses?
Mr. Fields. No. We were specifically requested not to offer
legislative language in the last two Congresses. We did----
Mr. Shimkus. By who?
Mr. Fields. Well, the authorizing committees made clear to
us----
Mr. Shimkus. By this committee?
Mr. Fields. I don't recall. I know the Senate. I don't know
if the chairman, specifically--we got that message from----
Mr. Shimkus. Let me ask the chairman; he is here. Mr.
Chairman, would you accept a request, legislative language, for
small business exemption from the administration, if they were
to propose some?
Mr. Oxley. We would hope that they would add that. And,
there was never any discussion that I am aware of, to have the
administration delete that language.
Mr. Fields. Well, we would be happy to have a dialog about
that, but we really believe that is going to be something
difficult to agree on, just because of our history in the last
two Congresses about what the definition of a small business is
and who ought to be exempted. We will be happy to work with
Congress. During the last Congress, for example, as we had
discussions on this topic, we reached an agreement. We began at
25 and we arrived at a number of 50----
Mr. Shimkus. Well, I think that is a hurdle that can be
overcome; I really do. And, if we want some litigation relief
for small business, I think--we can start with any number--that
can all be a change. But, I would request the administration
engage, if they really believe that small business ought to
have some liability protections and we ought to not close down
businesses based upon legal dumping 30 years ago.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Shimkus. I yield back my time.
Mr. Fields. Just a quick response, the de minimis
settlements policy we have had in place has eliminated a lot of
small businesses liability. A lot of those de minimis parties
are small businesses. And, second, we need to keep in mind this
is something that, you know, is going to require, we believe,
some difficulty in arriving at a definition. And, what we are
proposing in legislative relief is liability relief for small
generators and transporters of municipal solid waste. That will
get rid of a lot of small businesses liability, by that
exemption that we are proposing. It is something that we think
everybody, generally, agrees on. That will help small
businesses as well.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
would note, just for housekeeping purposes, without objection,
Mr. Greenwood's submission also will be placed in the record,
with his question, at the appropriate place.
The gentleman from New York.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fields, throughout my tenure in Congress I have a high
rating from environmental groups, and I pride myself in being
an environmentalist. I think what you are hearing from some of
my colleagues is frustration on the local level, and I want to
just share with you some of the frustration that I have as
well--not in terms of brownfields, but in terms of a water
filtration plant that is being forced down the throat of my
community, despite the fact that we feel there are
alternatives, and that local people really know best about what
is best for our communities. I don't in any way, shape, or
form, denigrate the good work that you or the Department does,
and it is work that is needed and work that is necessary.
But, one of the things that you mentioned in your
testimony--I was going over the testimony--in the brownfields
section, you say that the initiative represents a comprehensive
approach to empowering States, local governments, communities,
and other stakeholders interested in environmental cleanup and
economic redevelopment to work together--and I think that is
the keyword--to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and
substantially reuse brownfields.
I think what you are hearing from my colleagues is a
frustration that, in the working together, it is not working as
a partner, but it is, sort of, ``Big Brother knows best.'' The
Federal Government knows better than you who are living in the
community.
And, I would just like you to comment a little more on
that, because I think it is a frustration we share across the
aisle. And, it doesn't matter what your political philosophy
is. We all represent districts and communities of more than
half a million people, and we need to respond to our
constituents. And, it is frustrating when you are sort of being
knocked over the head and told that, no matter what you do, you
don't know best; we know best.
Mr. Fields. I appreciate that concern. As Mr. Shimkus
talked about the Quincy situation, we recognize how sometimes
we may come across as being heavy-handed and sometimes not
caring. But, I assure you, the first reform agenda that the
Administrator announced when she came onboard in February 1993,
she said ``I want to do something about this fairness problem
in the Superfund, where we need to be going after people who
should not be caught in the Superfund liability net.'' That is
why she announced the de minimis and de micromis settlements
initiative--to get small parties, small businesses, and others,
out of the Superfund system. We did not want them to be there,
and, oftentimes, we do not intend for them to be caught up in
Superfund. But, unfortunately, third-party litigation causes
these parties to be there.
We want to try to do all we can to get those people who
should not be in Superfund out of this system. And we worked
over the last 6 years, through our administrative reforms, to
do so. The brownfields initiative, where we are giving grants
directly to local governments, as opposed to a passthrough to
the States, is one way we have tried to do all we can over the
last 6 years to try to reach out to the communities directly,
get involved with them, hear their concerns, and come across as
a more caring, more fair government to our citizens. It does
not always work. We recognize we still have a lot of work to
do, but we think we have demonstrated a willingness to deal
with local governments, deal with local communities, in a more
effective and more useful way.
The Superfund program has given out more than 200 technical
assistance grants to local communities over the last 10 years.
We have established community advisory groups at more than 40
Superfund sites. These are all things we are doing to try to
find ways in which we can reach out to communities, reach out
to local governments, and deal with things in a community-based
way. We have not always been successful, but, I assure you, it
is a major priority for this administration.
Mr. Engel. I just want to also use some of your words in
the testimony to just kind of make a point the other way. In
your conclusion, you wrote that the administration has
achieved, in protecting public health, significant progress
which must not be undermined by the passage of Superfund
legislation based upon outdated information and ideas. And, I
would just say that the outdated information idea really cuts
both ways. There are some things in law which mandates things,
and, again, it's got nothing to do with you, but I want to use
it to make a point about the water filtration plant.
We are told that there is a cutoff in 1992 for alternatives
to filtration and, once you reach 1992, beyond that, it is too
bad; no matter what the community comes up with, there can be
no alternatives. And, I just have legislation which says that
if a community can come up with reason or new technology as to
what can happen as an alternative to filtration, we shouldn't
be constrained by an artificial cutoff date in legislation that
was passed several years ago, but we should be utilizing new
technology. So, I just want to say, when we talk about outdated
information ideas, it really cuts both ways.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlelady
from New Mexico.
Mrs. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Listening to some of
the questions on both sides of the aisle, and the responses, I
now understand why we need significant Superfund reform, if we
can't achieve some of the things that need to be done
administratively. And, it seems to me, there is resistance in
doing that, and I am disappointed by that.
I would like to ask you some questions, both specific and
general ones. Last October, I asked the EPA about the Atcheson,
Topeka, and Santa Fe site that is in my district. On May 12,
1998, EPA gave Chairman Bliley a list of sites that would be
affected by fiscal year 1999 funding. And then, 6 days later,
it came out with a completely different list which added 111
different sites to that list. When I asked, ``Why the
difference?'', the answer I got was that ``the list is a
dynamic list which may change;'' ``there is new information
about physical site conditions or responsible-party involvement
at a site changes.''
I guess I have a couple of questions about that. First,
since it seems to change so rapidly, is the Atcheson, Topeka,
and Santa Fe site on the list today? What changed in 111 sites
in 6 days to justify such a significant change in the site
list? And, what are the criteria used to determine how
appropriations will be used to prioritize cleanups?
Mr. Fields. Well, I don't have a full response on the 111-
site list, but I can address the other two parts of your
question now.
The Atcheson, Topeka, and Santa Fe site is one that, in
hindsight, maybe we should have made another decision on how we
proceeded with cleanup. We made a decision to give the
responsible party the lead on doing the remedial investigation
feasibility study. Sometimes we make a judgment that we want to
do that ourselves as a fund-lead action. We made a judgment
here to let the PRP take the lead. I am happy to say that it is
near completion. They are scheduled to have the remedial
investigation report done by April and the feasibility study
done by June, and a proposed plan issued by the summer.
It is unfortunate that this has taken almost 3 years. We
would have liked for it to have gone faster, but there were
delays. We have tried to work with the State of New Mexico and
the responsible party. Sometimes we make the wrong judgment.
Sometimes we don't allow the responsible party to do it and we
go on and do it ourselves. Maybe, in this case, we should have
done that and maybe this would have been done faster.
So, we apologize for the amount of time it has taken to do
this remedial investigation and feasibility study. It should
not have taken this long, and we regret that.
In terms of how we set priorities for cleanup, we do each
year rank sites and make decisions as to which ones get dealt
with first. We have adopted a risk-based priority system. We
rank about 50 sites a year. Based on health risks, based on
uses of innovative technology, and other factors, we decide
which sites get funded first. We can't always fund every site
that is in the cue, but we try to make sure that the sites that
have the most significant priority--and that priority is
established on a national basis by the representatives of all
10 regions. We then decide which one gets funded first in the
cue, and we don't deviate from that priority order in deciding
which ones get funded.
That is why, when responsible parties are willing to step
forward, we are willing to let them take the lead, if we think
they can do a good job, because it allows us to get that job
done and not be contingent upon whether or not there is fund
money available to establish that priority.
Mrs. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Fields. I wonder if you could
be just real clear and short and specific here. Is the AT&SF
site in the fiscal year 1999 funding stream?
Mr. Fields. Yes. The work will be completed in fiscal year
1999 for the AT&SF site, I assure you.
Mrs. Wilson. And, do you have any explanation for why it
was on one list and not on another list released by the EPA?
Mr. Fields. I do not know why it was on the one list and
not the other.
Mrs. Wilson. There is a tremendous fear--if I may just
finish this question--there is tremendous fear in the community
about being put on a Superfund list, because it leads to
economic ruin in the neighborhood. You are not going to have
economic development at the neighborhood with a Superfund site,
and we have seen that in my district. And, we are potentially
facing it again.
What can you offer as possible solutions, given at AT&SF we
have been waiting 7 years to even get anything started since it
was listed as a Superfund site, and we see this economic
devastation? What can we do legislatively to change this, so
that we can clean up the environment, but we don't destroy
people's neighborhoods and livelihoods in the process?
Mr. Fields. I think that equation is changing. We have
found that Superfund sites are very valuable properties. They
are located near rail yards; they are located near waterfronts.
We have seen tremendous success stories. I think I may have
cited before you came in--we have got 160 cases where major
reuse, redevelopment, has occurred on Superfund sites while
they are under construction. So, the NPL stigma is not what it
used to be, you know, 10, 15 years ago. We are finding major
reuse for shopping centers; transportation centers are being
created on living, existing, Superfund sites where our
construction is underway. So, I don't think that that stigma is
there like it used to be. People are investing and reusing many
of these Superfund sites.
Mrs. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Fields. That is not happening
in Albuquerque, New Mexico, but I am glad it is helping
elsewhere in the United States. Thank you.
Mr. Oxley. The gentlelady's time has expired. The gentleman
from Louisiana, vice chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. Tauzin. Feels good to see you again, sir.
Mr. Fields. Good to see you, sir.
Mr. Tauzin. The fact is, I am sure you know that last year
we filed a bill to limit the pool of PRP's that the EPA could
name in an enforcement action under section 107. I want to
thank the chairman, by the way, for incorporating that bill
into his larger comprehensive legislation. But, the problem
remains that EPA's enforcement under section 107 has,
literally, proved to me rather Draconian for many small
businesses.
Chairman Bliley talked about that incredible series of
lawsuits that flow from it in sort of a pipeline of lawsuits
that almost never ends. And, I happen to think it is because of
the badly drafted language of section 107. But, I don't blame
EPA for the language of the statute. And, I appreciate your
response to the chairman in terms of what you are trying to do
to ameliorate some of the more serious consequences of that
pipeline of litigation. But I want to site you a bunch of
quotes.
James Stock, the California Secretary of Environmental
Protection, ``Superfunds have become a bonanza for lawyers and
consultants.''
The President of the United States, himself, ``We all know
it doesn't work, Superfund has been a disaster.'' The word
``disaster'' comes up several times in all of these quotes, by
the way.
The former chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Al Swift,
``The liability scheme is unfair, litigious, a policy
disaster.''
``Disaster'' keeps coming up in characterizing this
litigious scheme we have created--almost so that I almost think
we ought to have a bill to invite the FEMA to come in and
rescue the program in some fashion. What strikes me, in looking
at what people say about the program, is that even the lawyers
are on our side, to some extent. The editorial writers are on
our side in wanting to reform the statute.
The New York Times editorial of 1994, February: ``It has
failed the efficiency test. The $13 billion spent, one-fourth
has gone to what are euphemistically known as transaction
costs, fees to lawyers and consultants, many of them former
Federal officials who spun through Washington's revolving door
to trade their Superfund expertise for personal gain.''
USA Today puts it even more pedestrian, of course, but USA
Today says: ``Superfund is absurdly expensive, hideously
complex, sometimes patently unfair. As a result, it invites
litigation the way dung attracts flies.'' That is a pretty
awful, but I think somewhat accurate description--so much so
that the lawyers, the flies depicted in the editorial,
themselves, are revolting.
I quote from a 1997 letter from Robert Evans, Director of
Governmental Affairs, American Bar Association, to Sherry
Boehlert, one of our colleagues. While massive time-consuming
litigations may perhaps provide short-term pecuniary benefits
to some in the legal profession, the American Bar Association
and the attorneys it represents have no desire to stand by idly
and profit from other people's misery.'' That is the lawyers
talking.
I mean, so we are down to this: we have got, roughly, 1,400
sites that have been listed on the NPL; the EPA has already
instituted enforcement actions on about 200 of them. That
leaves you with a potential to begin enforcement action on
1,200 new actions, if you wanted to.
And, in the light of this, it is more likely, is it not,
that the current liability scheme is going to continue to
foster the endless streams, the pipelines of litigation, that
ends up touching human beings so disastrously as it has? I have
got testimonies here--we have heard them before--of little
people in our society getting crucified on this cross of unjust
and unending liability schemes.
It seem to me, Mr. Fields, we are down to the issue: Is it
because of the EPA's enforcement of section 107 or is it the
statute? And, if it is not the EPA and it is the statute, why
can't you join us in ending this awful, litigious scheme, the
way the President himself said in his first State of the Union
to us, ``I would like to use Superfund to clean up pollution
instead of paying the lawyers.''? Why can't we just come to
that agreement here in this government? Stop putting people
through this horrible maelstrom of litigation that ends up
robbing people of their energies and their resources, that
ought to be better directed in this country, and simply change
the statutes so you don't have to work your way around it, the
way you described to the chairman. Can't you help us do that?
Mr. Fields. Can I give one quick response?
Mr. Tauzin. You've got it.
Mr. Fields. We recognize those statements, and we recognize
that people have those views. I think that some of those people
you quoted would not have those same views today, 6 years
later, in come cases. We believe that the comprehensive
legislative reform agenda is not necessary now. We in the
administration, including Carol Browner said, in 1993, that
Superfund was something that really needed to be fixed and
there were major problems. Carol Browner does not share the
same view, 6 years later, that she had in 1993.
Mr. Tauzin. My time is up. I just want to get a straight
answer. Is it the EPA's fault then? If it is the statute, why
don't you help us change it? Otherwise, tell me, today, that it
is EPA's fault.
Mr. Fields. Well, it's not necessary now because of where
we are in the program. Half the sites have been cleaned up,
construction completed. And, in 5 years, I am telling you----
Mr. Tauzin. I am talking about the litigation pipeline, not
the cleanup.
Mr. Fields. But when you have already made the decisions on
90 percent of the sites, and we have already implemented
effective reforms that get out the de minimis parties, and we
are suggesting to you that we can put in place liability relief
for perspective purposes, innocent landowners, contiguous
property owners, that is the kind of liability relief we think
we really need. The other type of liability relief is not
really necessary to implement an effective program that is fair
to the American people as well as the parties involved in this
program. We really don't believe that.
Six years ago we were at comprehensive legislative reform
for several Congresses. Now, at this point of where we are in
this program, and seeing the end of the current Superfund
program in sight, we no longer believe that comprehensive
legislative reform is necessary.
Mr. Tauzin. And leave all those people hanging out there in
all those courtrooms?
Mr. Fields. We don't think they are going to be hanging out
there.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from Oklahoma.
Mr. Largent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Fields. It's almost over. I hope you feel
better about that. You will sleep well tonight.
I was interested when you made the comment that you have
had trouble with the last two Congresses on coming to an
understanding on certain definitions like the small business
exemption. That doesn't surprise me. We have had trouble coming
to an understanding on the definitions like what the word
``is'' means and things like that. I wanted to see if we could
come to some understanding on the definitions on your chart
over here: Pace of cleanup is accelerated. Do you recognize
that chart?
Mr. Fields. Yes, sir.
Mr. Largent. I am looking at this and seeing that, from
1996 to 1998, there were--I wrote this down--88 sites cleaned
up. From 1997 to 1998, there were 87 sites cleaned up. And,
then you are projecting, from 1998 to 1999, that there will be
85 cleaned up. So, we went from 88 to 87 to 85, and I am just
wondering if we can come to some agreement on the definition of
``pace'' and ``accelerated.'' Because, to me, that seems like
that number is going down, and not up, and that would not be an
acceleration in the way I would define acceleration. How do you
define acceleration?
Mr. Fields. When I define acceleration, I mean an increase
in the pace; something is moving faster. And, what I was
referring to, as you look at the prior 3 years, prior to the 3
years you just referred to, we were doing an average of 65
construction-completions a year, and now we are doing an
average of 85. Our budget target, the budget we submit to
Congress, provides for the payment of 85 construction-
completions a year with a $1.5 billion budget. The fact that we
achieved 88 in 1987, what that meant was we did more than we
were budgeted to do in those particular years, but, actually,
our budget provides for 85. That is a great achievement, I
believe. You have a third greater number of cleanups that are
going on now for these 3 years than we had in the prior 3
years. I think that is an acceleration of the pace of cleanup.
Mr. Largent. Mr. Fields, have you ever heard the term,
``What have you done for me lately?''
Mr. Fields. Yes, I have heard that term.
Mr. Largent. I heard it a lot, too, in my former life. My
question here is really a very simple one. In your view, is the
Superfund Program working?
Mr. Fields. I think, as someone who has been involved in
this program now for 15 years, I believe the Superfund Program
is working. I have reports that have been done by various
organizations on this program: the Information Network for
Superfund Settlements, the Chemical Manufacturers Association.
We can provide these reports to this committee for the record,
but many parties have documents--the General Accounting Office,
in their reports, I think they have done studies of our program
probably more than any other organization. I think there are
many reports, there are many documents, that point to the fact
that progress in this program has improved; things are better
than they were five to 6 years ago.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.071
Mr. Largent. What is the average length of time it has
taken to clean up these sites?
Mr. Fields. The average length of time now, at the current
time, Congressman, is 8 years on the average.
Mr. Largent. I am talking about the sites that were cleaned
up in 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Mr. Fields. That is 8 years. An average of 8 years.
Mr. Largent. And is that number going down or is it
increasing?
Mr. Fields. The number has gone down. It used to be, on the
average, in 1991, 1992, 10 years from the time a site was
listed on the NPL until construction was complete. We have now
reduced that by 20 percent down to 8 years. That is one of the
reasons we are now able to do 85 sites a year as compared to 65
sites a year, you know, more than 3 years ago.
Mr. Largent. And, so, is it the administration's view, and
your view, Mr. Fields, that we should re-authorize the taxes
for the Superfund without any reforms to the Superfund Program?
Mr. Fields. We believe that Congress should reinstate the
taxes for the Superfund to allow there to be a balance in the
trust fund, but that we no longer need comprehensive, broad-
scale legislative reform, but we only need targeted liability
relief for certain parties. That is our conclusion now, because
we believe the reform agenda will allow us to continue to do 85
sites a year for the next 5 years, funded at today's budget
level, for the Superfund program. We don't need comprehensive
legislative reform to continue cleanup, at the pace we are
doing it, and to provide for liability relief and to provide
for more fairness to parties affected by the Superfund program.
Mr. Largent. Thank you, Mr. Fields.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fossella.
Mr. Fossella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to place into the record and show Mr.
Fields several items.
Mr. Oxley. Without objection
[The information referred to follows:]
Superfund Litigation Delays Cleanups
<bullet> ``On a site by site basis, it is clear that liability
negotiations consume a lot of time and delay completion of the
site.''--EPA Inspector General in testimony before House
Subcommittee on Government Reform and Oversight, May 1996.
<bullet> ``For nonfederal sites, the time required to complete cleanups
increased from 2.4 years in 1986 to 10.6 years in 1996 . . .
EPA officials also said that the effort to find the parties . .
. and to reach cleanup settlements with them can increase
cleanup times.''--Government Accounting Office Report,
Superfund, Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of
Hazardous Waste Sites, March 1997.
<bullet> ``One of the most significant delays that occurs in the
Superfund process is the allocation of liability among
responsible parties.''--Statement of Carol Browner,
Administrator, U.S. EPA, before a hearing of the Subcommittee
on Transportation and Hazardous Materials on May 13, 1993.
<bullet> ``I think we all agree that the transaction cost portion is
one due very serious evaluation and consideration. Again, I do
not think we could have predicted 12 years ago that the result
of the law would be that responsible parties suing responsible
parties--insurance companies, I mean, the level of legal
actions that would take place. We need to do something to
address it.''--Statement of Carol Browner, Administrator, U.S.
EPA, before a hearing of the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Hazardous Materials on May 13, 1993.
<bullet> ``Superfund has been a bonanza for lawyers and consultants . .
. After over a decade of delay, cleanup is only now beginning
at the McColl site in Fullerton . . . cleanup was continually
put off as various defendants wrangled in court over how much
they would pay''.--James M. Strock, California Secretary for
Environmental Protection, 1994.
<bullet> ``Hastings . . . has already spent roughly $1.1 million under
Superfund, yet the cleanup is far from completed. More than 90
percent of the money has been spent on consultants and legal
fees.''--Governor Ben Nelson, Nebraska Journal, March 1, 1996.
<bullet> ``While massive, time-consuming litigation may perhaps provide
short-term pecuniary benefits to some in the legal profession,
the American Bar Association and the attorneys it represents
have no desire to stand by idly and profit from other people's
misery.''--May 21, 1997 letter from Robert D. Evans, Director
of Governmental Affairs, American Bar Association to Rep.
Sherwood Boehlert.
<bullet> ``Each of us has heard concerns from our constituents that the
pace of cleanup is too slow; that more money is being spent on
litigation than on cleanup activities; that citizens are not
properly involved in cleanup decisions; and that program costs
are unnecessarily high.''--Letter from Senators Robert Byrd and
John Rockefeller to Senator John Chafee, Chairman, Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee, dated June 25, 1997.
<bullet> ``One site in particular has escaped the effectiveness of
CERCLA simply because there are 18 or more PRPs and CERCLA
clearly provides the right to litigate. The litigation is not
aimed at the regulatory agencies but instead at the PRPs
themselves.
With over 20 million dollars spent on characterizing Fields Brook at
least half has been devoted to suing non-participating PRPs by
participating PRPs; PRPs against other PRPs to determine who
put how much into the Brook; Who's material was more toxic and
should they pay more than less toxic polluters: litigation
against insurance companies to pay for the disposed materials
of PRPs they insured and on and on.''--Statement of Leonard E.
Eames, Owner Operator, Fish City Marina, Ashtabula, Ohio before
a Hearing of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous
Materials, February 14, 1997.
<bullet> ``The uncertainties, disagreements, and litigation produced by
these aspects of joint and several liability have imposed
delay, profound resentment, and high transaction costs on the
basic process of achieving cleanups . . . [t]he basic mechanism
for funding Superfund cleanups is fundamentally unfair and
extremely inefficient. This problem cannot be solved by EPA's
administrative reforms . . .''--Statement of Michael W.
Stienberg, on behalf of the Superfund Settlements Project in a
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, April 10, 1997.
<bullet> ``Now, almost 15 years later, the matter is about to be fully
and finally settled. In the interim, EPA spent approximately
$1,300,000 investigating the site. Additionally, our company
spent almost $500,000 in attorney's fees and consulting fees
over the period. And for what? The actual cleanup of the site,
which EPA ordered and oversaw, cost approximately $38,000 . . .
It took over 15 years and cost our company nearly $2 million in
professional fees, lost profits, and environmental studies, all
for the sake of a $38,000, 2-day cleanup, which resulted in
three truck-loads of nonhazardous dirt being trucked to
Oklahoma.''--Statement of Michael Mallen, Southern Foundary
Supply Company, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, June 15, 1995.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.073
Mr. Fossella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fields, the first set is just quotes from numerous
parties to the effect that litigation delays cleanups, and the
second set of charts that were presented at prior hearings by
Mr. David Oward. The charts indicate that sites with numerous
parties to litigate and negotiate will take substantially
longer to go through the Superfund process than parts where
there are fewer parties. The charts graph the percentage of
sites that have reached construction-complete versus the number
of parties per site.
Did you find that, Mr. Fields?
Mr. Fields. Yes, I see it.
Mr. Fossella. And, this data, I understand, is a few years
old. Do you agree with the thrust of these charts or what these
charts seek to represent?
Mr. Fields. You mean the totality of these statements?
Mr. Fossella. Well, first and foremost, are the charts
themselves, the number of parties besides----
Mr. Fields. Oh, I am sorry. I am looking at your charts.
Okay.
Mr. Fossella. [continuing] average time to construction-
complete and the numbers of parties per site. The second chart
is the percentage of sites that have reached construction-
complete relative to the number of parties per site. Are you
familiar with these at all?
Mr. Fields. Yes. I am looking at these charts now. Yes, I
see them. We can't say categorically that the number of parties
associated with the site will cause that site to take longer to
clean up, but that is why we want to introduce targeted
liability relief, to get certain parties out of the Superfund
system, so we can then only have to negotiate with those larger
parties who are the major contributors to contamination at
sites. Those are the parties that we primarily focus on. We
don't want to focus on all the de minimis and de maximus
parties that are involved in cleanup.
Mr. Fossella. So you agree that, the more parties there
are, the longer it is going to take to complete?
Mr. Fields. Well, I can't say that that is going to be
always the case. I have seen sites where you have a few hundred
parties and the site can be cleaned up in less than 8 years. I
have seen other sites where we only have two or three parties,
and it has taken us 10 years. So, you can't always just say
that the number of parties equates to the length of time it is
going to take for cleanup.
The best I can say here, Congressman, is we will be happy
to review this data. This is the first time I am actually
seeing this data today. I would be happy to review it and get
back to you in writing with our analysis of this, but I don't
know what sites this data represents.
But I have seen it both ways. I have seen a number of sites
with large parties get done quickly. I have seen sites where a
fewer number of parties take a long time. So, in general, I
can't say it is a one-to-one correlation between number of
parties and the length of time it takes for cleanup. But, I
would be happy to review this data and get back to the
subcommittee in writing.
Mr. Fossella. Okay. Thank you.
[The following was received for the record:]
During the March 23, 1999, Representative Fossella presented a
graph developed by a Mr. David Alward of National Strategies which
asserted that the greater the number of Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) at a Superfund site, the longer that site takes to get from
final listing on the NPL to site construction completion. Mr. Fossella
asserted that in the greater number of PRPs at the site, the more
third-party contribution litigation which in turn results in cleanup
delays.
In fact, in looking at the sites in the analysis we found that
there are a number of sites with large numbers of PRPs, (over 300)
where the time to get from final listing to construction completion was
8 years or less. For example, the Cannon Engineering Site in
Massachusetts which was completed in just slightly over 8 years had
nearly 500 identified PRPs. Similarly, the Union Chemical site in Maine
had over 400 PRPs but was completed in less than 8 years.
Conversely, we identified a number of sites in Mr. Award's analysis
with relatively few PRPs (5 or less) which took over 16 years to
complete. In fact, at the United Nuclear site in New Mexico, only 1 PRP
was identified by EPA but it still took over 15 years to get from final
listing to construction completion. Similarly, the Stanley Kessler site
in Pennsylvania had only 5 identified PRPs but still took over 15 years
to complete. We believe that there are numerous factors which affect
site cleanup duration, including site complexity, site size, numbers of
contaminants, community interest at the site. However, we believe that
no single factor consistently influences site duration.
With respect to enforcement delays, this belief is supported by a
GAO report issued in September 1994 on the Status, Cost, and Timeliness
of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup (GAO/RCED-94-256) that found that
``Cleanup Times Are Similar for Fund- and Responsible Party-Financed
Work''. In that report, GAO found that ``Our analysis of EPA's data
shows little difference in the average times taken to complete each of
our four phases of cleanup that we measure for both fund- and
responsible party-finance cleanup work.''
Sites and Associated Durations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of
EPA ID Number Site Name PRPs Duration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low PRP/High Duration Sites
PAD014269971................... Stanley Kessler... 5 15.2 years
NYD980652267................... Vestal Water 6 15.1 years
Supply Well 4-2.
NMD030443303................... United Nuclear 1 15.1 years
Corp.
FLD980727820................... Kassauf-Kimmerling 2 15.1 years
Battery Disp.
NJD980529713................... Reich Farms....... 1 15.1 years
ARD00023440.................... Vertac, Inc....... 2 15.0 years
High PRP/Low Duration Sites
MOD000829705................... Conservation 300 1.9 years
Chemical.
KYD980557052................... Lee's Lane 141 4.5 years
Landfill.
WID980610141................... Sauk County 110 5.9 years
Landfill.
WAD980833974................... Northwest 178 7.8 years
Transformer.
MED042143883................... Union Chemical 403 8.0 years
Co., Inc.
ALD031618069................... Mowbray 119 8.0 years
Engineering Co.
MND980704738................... Washington County 750 8.0 years
Landfill.
MAD079510780................... Cannon Engineering 478 8.1 years
Corp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Fossella. Let me just read, Mr. Chairman, and for the
record, see if you agree or disagree with some of these folks.
For example, the Governor of Nebraska, Mr. Ben Nelson, the
March 1, 1996 Hastings program he was dealing with in Nebraska
has already spent $1.1 million of the Superfund; yet, the
cleanup is far from completed. More than 90 percent of the
money has been spent on consultants and legal fees.
Or, Mr. Strock, California Secretary for Environmental
Protection, 1994: ``Superfund has been a bonanza for lawyers
and consultants. After a decade of delay, cleanup is only now
beginning at the McCall site in Fullerton. Cleanup was
continually put off as various defendants wrangled in court
over how much they would pay.''
Or, at the top of the page there: ``On a site-by-site
basis, it is clear that liability and negotiations consume a
lot of time and delay completion of the site.'' That was from
the EPA Inspector General in testimony before the House
Subcommittee on Government Reform and Oversight in May 1996.
Or, for example, according to the GAO, ``Superfund times to
complete the assessment and cleanup of hazardous waste sites in
March 1997. For non-Federal sites, the time required to
complete cleanups increased from 2.4 years in 1986 to 10.6
years in 1996.'' EPA officials also said that ``The effort to
find these parties and to reach cleanup settlements with them
could increase cleanup times.''
Does any of this----
Mr. Fields. I have heard and I have seen the reports that
you are referring to. We strongly disagree with the statements
on duration; we do not believe that data. It does not take 10.6
years to clean up a site. And, we stand by our data which shows
that the length of time it takes to go through the cleanup
process has, in fact, been decreased by 20 percent. So, we do
not agree with some of those statements in the reports that you
are mentioning.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman's time has expired.
And, Mr. Fields, we appreciate your testimony and your
appearance before the subcommittee once again. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Fields. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oxley. The Chair would call our next panel. Mr. Peter
F. Guerrero, Director of the Environmental Protection Issues of
the GAO, General Accounting Office, and Ms. Claudia Kerbawy,
Chair of the Federal Superfund Focus Group, Association of
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.
Thanks to both of you for your appearance.
STATEMENTS OF PETER F. GUERRERO, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; AND CLAUDIA
KERBAWY, CHAIR, FEDERAL SUPERFUND FOCUS GROUP, ASSOCIATION OF
STATE AND TERRITORIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS
Mr. Guerrero. Mr. Chairman, if I can take the liberty of
having two of my colleagues with me?
Mr. Oxley. Yes, would you identify them, for the record,
please?
Mr. Guerrero. Eileen Lawrence on my right and Jim Donaghy
on my left.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you. Mr. Guerrero. You may proceed.
Mr. Guerrero. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to talk about GAO's work on the Superfund Program. As has been
mentioned earlier today, that body of work is quite extensive.
My comments today will focus on three issues: the pace of
cleanups, program management, and the remaining future
workload.
First, to Superfund's pace. Even though cleanups have taken
a long time to accomplish, if the Superfund maintains its
current pace, the Superfund Program will complete the
construction of cleanup remedies at the great majority of
current sites within the next several years. This is largely
because few new sites have been added this decade. In fact, 89
percent of Superfund sites entered the program between 1982 and
1990. So, most sites have been in the cleanup process long
enough to finally have moved beyond the remedy-selection phase.
In my written statement, there is figure 1, which shows the
number of sites listed by year and shows this trend. EPA plans
to complete, by the end of this year, selection of remedies for
about 95 percent of the non-Federal sites in the program. EPA
reports that it has completed the construction of cleanup
remedies at 585 sites as of January of this year, and will
finish a total of about 1,200 sites by the end of the year
2005. However, groundwater cleanups will continue at some sites
for many years beyond that date.
I now would like to turn to my second point, the
longstanding management problems of the program. For several
years, GAO has included Superfund on its list of Federal
programs that pose significant financial risk to the government
and the potential for waste and abuse. We included Superfund on
the list for three reasons: first, because of the problems with
the management of cleanup contractors; second, because of
insufficient recovery of cleanup costs from responsible
parties; and, third, because there was no assurance that the
highest-risk sites were being cleaned up first. EPA has
corrected some of these problems, but enough remain that we
have not yet been able to remove Superfund from the high-risk
list.
For example: we reported that EPA had difficulty
controlling the overhead costs of its contractors. To ensure
that it had enough contractors to conduct cleanups, EPA
initially hired a very large number--more, it turned out, than
it needed. Even though it did not have enough cleanup work to
keep them all busy, it still had to pay their overhead costs.
For example, the cost of maintaining the capacity to respond to
work assignments requires office space. Although EPA
subsequently cut in half the number of Superfund contractors,
our recent work indicates that this reduction may not have been
enough, since overhead rates remain high, at about 76 percent,
in one particular case.
We have also reported that EPA has not charged responsible
parties for certain costs of operating the cleanup program--
mainly, indirect program costs such as personnel and
facilities. Over the years, EPA has lost the opportunity to
recover up to $3 billion, or about 20 percent of the $15
billion it has spent on Superfund through fiscal year 1997.
Recently, EPA has developed a new way to determine recoverable
indirect costs that could increase its recoveries.
The final Superfund issue we discussed in our high-risk
series is the absence of a priority system for cleaning up
sites, one that is based on risks to human health and the
environment. In 1995, EPA created a national panel to help it
set funding priorities for the final stages of cleanup.
However, EPA doesn't have assurance that sites posing the
greatest risks are admitted to the program in the first place.
In our discussions with EPA, we found that the agency relies on
the States to screen sites for cleanup under Superfund. Because
of this reliance on the States, EPA may not be aware of the
sites that pose the greatest health and environmental risks.
And, because EPA does not usually track the stages of cleanups
that take place outside of the Superfund program, EPA does not
know if the States are addressing the worst sites.
EPA's cleanup managers have also expressed concerns that
the future Superfund sites will not necessarily be the most
risky, but, rather, those that the States find to be large,
complex, and therefore, costly, or those without responsible
parties willing and able to pay for the cleanups.
In addition to our work in the high-risk aspects of the
program, we also conducted a detailed analysis of Superfund
spending. In summary, we have reported that, while the share of
Superfund expenditures that go to cleanup contractors, or the
study, design, and implementation of cleanups, increased from
fiscal year 1987 through 1996, it declined in 1997 and appears
to continue to decline. This trend is in the wrong direction
for a program; that, given its maturation, should be focusing
more of its resources on actual cleanups and less on program
support. Those trends are shown in figure 2 in my prepared
written statement.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn to what is
perhaps the most vexing issue of all, and that is how to deal
with the sites that may still require cleanup. As of the end of
fiscal year 1997, there were still some 1,800 sites judged by
EPA as to be potentially eligible for Superfund. Many of these
sites present risks to human health and the environment.
According to EPA and the States, 73 percent have caused
contamination of groundwater; another 22 percent could
contaminate groundwater in the future. About 32 percent of the
sites caused contamination of drinking water, and another 56
could do so in the future. Ninety-six percent are located in
the populated areas within a half a mile of residences or
places of regular employment. And direct contact with
contaminants may occur at 55 percent of the sites. Over all,
either EPA or the States say that about a quarter of these
sites pose high risks to human health and the environment, and
that is shown in figure 3 of the prepared statement.
Although these sites have been around for a long time, 10
years in most cases, many may not be getting attention. We are
able to confirm that some cleanup activities have taken place
at only about a third of the potentially eligible sites. And,
these were activities not described as final cleanups.
There also appears to be no relationship between how long a
site has been awaiting an NPL decision and the likelihood that
some cleanup has occurred during that time. It is uncertain
when and how most of these sites will, ultimately, be cleaned
up, as shown by figure 4.
EPA and State officials identify 232 sites that might be
placed on the NPL in the future. Officials estimate that a
third of the potentially eligible sites are likely to be
cleaned up under State programs. However, we were also told by
the States that their capability to undertake these cleanups
varies. Half of the States express concerns about their
financial capacity to clean up potentially eligible sites, and
another 20 percent say that their ability to compel responsible
parties to clean up sites was fair to very poor.
Our November report recommends that EPA review its
inventory of sites to determine which of them need immediate
action and which will require long-term cleanup, and, in
consultation with the States, develop a timetable for taking
these actions. Given the long time that many of these sites
have awaited NPL decisions, it is also imperative that EPA
notify the public whether it or the States will assume
responsibility for the sites, whether cleanups are, indeed,
needed, and when the cleanup work can be expected to be done.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, despite the long durations of
cleanups in the past, Superfund is within sight of completing
the construction of cleanup remedies over the next several
years. While recognizing this accomplishment, we believe that
important management issues remain unsolved. More importantly,
EPA and the States need to come to grips with what to do with
the potential NPL sites still waiting final cleanup decisions.
The Superfund re-authorization process gives the Congress an
opportunity to help guide EPA and the States in allocating
responsibility for these sites, and others that may qualify for
the program in the future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Peter F. Guerrero follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter F. Guerrero, Director, Environmental
Protection Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development
Division, General Accounting Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the current status and management of the
Superfund program and the outlook for the program's future. My comments
today are based on a number of reports we have issued in recent years
that relate to three specific issues: (1) progress made toward cleaning
up sites in the program, (2) continuing management problems, and (3)
factors affecting Superfund's future workload. In summary, our work has
shown the following:
<bullet> In the past, we have called attention to the slow pace of
cleanups in the Superfund program. For example, we reported
that cleanups completed in 1996 took an average of over 10
years.<SUP>1</SUP> However, now, 17 years after sites were
first placed on the Superfund list, many of the sites have
progressed a considerable distance through the cleanup process.
Decisions about how to clean up the great majority of these
sites have been made, and the construction of cleanup remedies
has been completed at over 40 percent of the sites. EPA's goal
is to complete the construction of remedies at 1,200 sites by
2005. Work to clean up groundwater will continue at many sites
after remedies are constructed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Superfund: Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of
Hazardous Waste Sites (GAO/RCED-97-20, Mar. 31, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Despite the progress that Superfund has made toward site
cleanups, certain management problems persist. These problems
include the difficulty in controlling contract costs, the
failure to recover certain federal cleanup costs from the
parties who are responsible for the contaminated sites, and the
selection of sites for cleanup without assurance that they are
the most dangerous sites to human health and the environment.
These problems have caused us to include the program on our
list of federal programs vulnerable to waste and abuse.
Furthermore, our analysis indicates that the costs of on-site
work by cleanup contractors represent less than half of the
spending in the program.
<bullet> There is considerable uncertainty about the future workload of
the Superfund program. Resolving this uncertainty depends
largely on deciding how to divide responsibility for the
cleanup of sites between EPA and the states. The number of
sites that have entered the Superfund program in recent years
has decreased as EPA has focused its resources on completing
work at existing sites and the states have developed their own
programs for cleaning up sites. However, according to EPA and
state officials who responded to our survey, a large number of
sites in EPA's inventory of potential Superfund sites are
contaminating groundwater and drinking water sources and
causing other problems and may need cleanup. We have
recommended that EPA work with the states to assign
responsibility for these sites among themselves. The Superfund
reauthorization process gives the Congress an opportunity to
help guide EPA and the states in allocating responsibility for
addressing these sites.
background
In 1980, the Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), creating the
Superfund program to clean up highly contaminated hazardous waste
sites. CERCLA authorizes EPA to compel the parties responsible for the
contaminated sites to clean them up. The law also allows EPA to pay for
cleanups and seek reimbursement from the parties. EPA places sites that
it determines need long-term cleanup action on its National Priorities
List (NPL). As of early 1999, there were 1,264 sites on or proposed for
the NPL. Another 182 sites had completed the cleanup process or were
determined not to need cleanup and had been deleted from the NPL. Once
listed, the sites are further studied for risks, and cleanup remedies
are chosen, designed, and constructed. EPA relies extensively on
contractors to study site conditions and conduct cleanups.
Cleanup actions fall into two broad categories: removal actions and
remedial actions. Removal actions are usually short-term actions
designed to stabilize or clean up hazardous sites that pose an
immediate threat to human health or the environment. Remedial actions
are usually longer term and more costly actions aimed at permanent
remedies.
According to a 1998 report by the Environmental Law
Institute,<SUP>2</SUP> all 50 states have established their own cleanup
programs for hazardous waste sites. In addition to handling less
dangerous sites, some of the state programs can handle highly
contaminated sites, whose risks could qualify them for the Superfund
program. Some states initially patterned their cleanup programs after
the Superfund program but over the years, in an effort to clean up more
sites faster and less expensively, have developed their own approaches
to cleaning up sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1998
Update, Environmental Law Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States accomplish cleanups under three types of programs: (1)
voluntary cleanup programs that allow parties, who are often interested
in increasing sites' economic value, to clean them up without state
enforcement actions; (2) brownfields programs that encourage the
voluntary cleanup of sites in urban industrial areas to enable their
reuse; and (3) enforcement programs that oversee the cleanup of the
most serious sites and force uncooperative responsible parties to clean
up their sites. States generally use their voluntary and brownfields
programs to clean up less complex sites by offering various incentives
to responsible parties, such as reduced state oversight. States
maintain that these programs accomplish site cleanups quickly and
efficiently.
Some states also maintain cleanup funds to pay all or a portion of
the costs of cleanups at sites for which responsible parties that are
able to pay for full cleanups cannot be found. The states vary greatly
in the resources that they have devoted to cleanups. For example, the
1998 Environmental Law Institute study determined that states had
cleanup funds totaling $1.4 billion as of the end of the states' 1997
fiscal year, with 6 states having fund balances of $50 million or more
and 26 states having fund balances of less than $5 million. The study
also reported that states spent a total of $565 million on their
cleanup programs in fiscal year 1997, <SUP>3</SUP> with 2 states
spending $50 million or more and 27 states spending less than $5
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Six states did not report on their spending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
superfund has made progress cleaning up sites
Even though cleanups have taken a long time to accomplish, if it
maintains its current pace, the Superfund program will complete the
construction of cleanup remedies at the great majority of current NPL
sites within the next several years. In our March 1997 report, we said
that cleanups completed in 1996 took an average of 10.6 years. Much of
the time taken to complete cleanups was spent during the early planning
phases of the cleanup process during which cleanup remedies are
selected. We said that less time had been spent on actual construction
work at sites than on the selection of remedies.
Now, however, most NPL sites have been in the cleanup process for a
long time and have moved beyond the remedy selection phase. Last year,
we reported that EPA had completed the selection of remedies at about
70 percent of the NPL sites as of the end of fiscal year 1997.
<SUP>4</SUP> It had plans to complete, by the end of fiscal year 1999,
remedies for about 67 percent of the federally owned or operated sites
and 95 percent of the nonfederal sites that were listed as of the end
of fiscal year 1997. EPA reports that it has completed the construction
of cleanup remedies at 585 sites as of January 1999; will complete
construction at 85 sites in each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000; and
will finish a total of 1,200 sites by 2005. Groundwater cleanups will
continue at many of these sites after the completion of remedy
construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Superfund: Information on the Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241,
Aug. 28, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These completion rates reflect EPA's decision to make the
completion of construction at existing sites the Superfund program's
top priority and to reduce new entries into the program. About 89
percent of the NPL sites were placed on the list between 1982 and 1990.
Figure 1 shows the number of sites listed on the NPL and the number of
sites where the construction of the cleanup remedy was completed during
the years 1986 through 1998.
Figure 1: Numbers of Sites Listed on the NPL and for Which the
Construction of Final Cleanup Remedies Were Completed, 1986 Through
1998
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.074
Source: Compiled by GAO from Environmental Protection Agency data.
Under the Superfund program, in addition to its remedial work, EPA
has conducted removals at 595 NPL sites and 2,591 other contaminated
sites. Cleanup work has also been conducted at sites where construction
of the final cleanup remedy has not yet been completed. At the request
of this committee, we are conducting a review to determine the extent
of this ongoing cleanup activity.
uncorrected problems make superfund a high-risk program
For several years, GAO has included the Superfund program on its
list of federal programs that pose significant financial risk to the
government and the potential for waste and abuse. We included Superfund
on the list because of (1) problems with the management of cleanup
contractors, (2) insufficient recovery of cleanup costs from
responsible parties, and (3) the absence of risk-based priorities for
site cleanups. <SUP>5</SUP> EPA has corrected some of these problems,
but enough remain that we have not yet been able to remove Superfund
from the high-risk list. I would like to review these problems and
EPA's response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ High-Risk Series: Superfund Program Management (GAO/HR-93-10,
Dec. 1992, GAO/HR-95-12, Feb. 1995, GAO/HR-97-14, Feb. 1997, and GAO/
OCG-99-17, Jan. 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Management
First, we raised concerns about several contracting practices. We
said that EPA had a backlog of more than 500 audits of its Superfund
contracts. The purpose of these audits is to evaluate the adequacy of
contractors' policies, procedures, controls, and performance. The
audits are necessary for effective management and are a key tool for
deterring and detecting waste and abuse. The agency has now almost
eliminated its backlog of contract audits.
We also found that EPA was approving contractors' cleanup cost
proposals without estimating what the work should cost. As a result,
the agency could not negotiate the best contract price for the
government. In response, EPA is now developing its own cost estimates
and using them to guide its price negotiations with contractors.
However, EPA was still having problems developing accurate estimates in
about half the cases we recently reviewed. Furthermore, many of the
cost estimators in the EPA regions told us that they lacked the
experience and historical data they needed to do a better job at
developing these estimates. EPA has requested the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, an agency with extensive contracting experience, to conduct
an assessment of EPA's cost-estimating practices and recommend
potential improvements. The assessment is still ongoing and will be
completed in mid 1999. Unless EPA ensures that its regions implement
and sustain corrective measures resulting from this review, problems
can reoccur. EPA has taken similar corrective actions in the past, yet
we continue to find problems with estimates.
Lastly, with respect to contracting, we reported that EPA had
difficulty controlling the overhead, or program support costs, of its
contractors. To ensure that it had enough contractors to conduct
cleanups, EPA hired a large number of contractors--more, it turned out,
than it actually needed. Even though it did not have enough cleanup
work to keep them all busy, it had to pay their overhead costs (i.e.,
the costs of their maintaining the capacity to respond to work
assignments--such as office space). Although EPA cut in half the number
of contractors that it keeps in place, our recent work indicates that
this reduction may not have been enough. We found that, for the
majority of contracts we reviewed, EPA continues to pay overhead costs
ranging from 16 percent to 76 percent of the overall contract's costs,
exceeding EPA's 11 percent target. In addition, persistent high
overhead costs and uncertainty about the future size of the program
raise broader questions about the type and the number of contracts EPA
really needs to have in place.
Cost Recovery
Even though CERCLA makes parties who are responsible for
contaminated sites liable for cleanup costs, we have repeatedly
reported that EPA has not charged responsible parties for certain costs
of operating the cleanup program--mainly indirect program costs, such
as personnel and facilities. EPA has excluded about $3 billion--about
20 percent of the $15 billion it has spent on Superfund through fiscal
year 1997--in indirect costs from final settlements with responsible
parties. In the early years of the program, EPA took a conservative
approach to allocating indirect costs to private parties because it was
uncertain which indirect costs the courts would agree were recoverable
if parties legally challenged EPA. The agency could lose the
opportunity to recover at least a half billion more if it does not soon
reverse this practice. Recently, Superfund program officials have
developed a new way to determine recoverable indirect costs that could
increase EPA's cost recoveries, but the Superfund program has not yet
used this new method because it is waiting for approval from EPA and
the Justice Department.
Priority Setting
The final Superfund issue that we discussed in our high-risk series
is the absence of a system for prioritizing sites for cleanup based on
the risk they pose to human health and the environment. EPA has
partially corrected this problem. In 1995, it created the National
Prioritization Panel to help it set funding priorities for sites at
which remedies had been selected and that were ready for cleanup. The
panel, which is composed of regional and headquarters cleanup managers,
ranks all of the sites ready for cleanup construction nationwide on the
basis of the health and environmental risks and other project
considerations, such as cost-effectiveness. EPA then approves funding
for projects on the basis of these priority rankings.
EPA, however, does not use relative risk as a major criterion when
deciding which of the eligible sites to place on the NPL. <SUP>6</SUP>
In our discussions with EPA managers responsible for assessing sites
for Superfund consideration, we found that the agency relies on the
states to choose which of the eligible sites to refer to EPA for
placement on the NPL. States refer sites after selecting those that
they will address through their own enforcement or voluntary cleanup
programs. The EPA cleanup managers with whom we talked expect that
future sites placed on the NPL will not necessarily be the most risky
but, rather, those that the states find to be large, complex, and
therefore costly, or those without responsible parties willing and able
to pay for the cleanup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A site is eligible for the NPL if it scores sufficiently high
on EPA's Hazard Ranking System, which evaluates a site's potential risk
to public health and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because EPA does not usually track the status of cleanups that take
place outside of the Superfund program, EPA does not know if the worst
sites in the nation are being addressed first. Some EPA regions are
encouraging their states to voluntarily provide EPA with information on
the cleanup status of the sites that the states are addressing and that
EPA considers as potentially posing significant risk.
In addition to our work on the high-risk aspects of the Superfund
program, we have conducted detailed analyses of spending in the program
<SUP>7</SUP>. In summary, we have reported that the share of Superfund
expenditures that go to cleanup contractors for the study, design, and
implementation of cleanups increased from fiscal years 1987 through
1996, but declined in fiscal year 1997. We also reported that between
fiscal years 1996 and 1997, EPA's Superfund costs for administration
and support activities correspondingly increased (see fig. 2). As you
know, we are currently conducting additional analysis of the Superfund
program's expenditures for this Committee and others. We plan to report
on the results of this work in May.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Superfund: Trends in Spending for Site Cleanups (GAO/RCED-97-
211, Sept. 4, 1997) and Superfund: Analysis of Contractor Cleanup
Spending (GAO/RCED-98-221, Aug. 4, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2: Superfund Spending for Contractor Cleanup Work and Other
Program Activities, Fiscal Years 1996-97, Dollars in Millions
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.075
Note: ``Other costs'' includes costs for enforcement activities,
research and development/laboratories, and other directly related
costs.
Source: Superfund: Analysis of Contractor Cleanup Spending (GAO/
RCED-98-221, Aug. 4, 1998).
the future direction of superfund is uncertain
EPA's inventory of potential NPL sites contains sites that have
been awaiting a decision for several years or more on whether they
should be listed on the NPL. EPA and state officials believe that many
of these sites need cleanup work, but the respective cleanup
responsibilities of EPA and the states have not been established.
As of the end of fiscal year 1997, EPA's Superfund database
indicated that the risks of over 3,000 sites had been judged on the
basis of preliminary evaluations to be serious enough to make the sites
potentially eligible for the NPL. EPA classified these sites as
``awaiting an NPL decision.'' Information about the nature and the
extent of the threat that these sites pose to human health and the
environment, the extent of states' or EPA's cleanup actions at the
sites, and the states' or EPA's cleanup plans for the sites is
important to determining the future size of the Superfund program.
We surveyed EPA regions, other federal agencies, and the states to
(1) determine how many of the over 3,000 sites remain potentially
eligible for the NPL; (2) identify the characteristics of these sites,
including their health and environmental risks; (3) determine the
status of any actions to clean up these sites; and (4) collect the
opinions of EPA and other federal and state officials on the likely
final disposition of these sites, including the number of sites that
are expected to be placed on the NPL. We reported the results of our
surveys in two November 1998 reports. <SUP>8</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Hazardous Waste: Unaddressed Risks at Many Potential Superfund
Sites (GAO/RCED-99-8, Nov. 30, 1998, and Hazardous Waste: Information
on Potential Superfund Sites (GAO/RCED-99-22, Nov. 30, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the basis of our surveys, we determined that 1,789 of the 3,036
sites that EPA's database classified as ``awaiting an NPL decision'' in
October 1997 are still potentially eligible for placement on the list.
<SUP>9</SUP> EPA, other federal agency, and state officials responding
to our survey said that many of these sites presented risks to human
health and the environment. According to these officials, about 73
percent of the sites have caused contamination in groundwater and
another 22 percent could contaminate groundwater in the future; about
32 percent of the sites caused contamination in drinking water sources
and another 56 percent could contaminate drinking water sources in the
future; 96 percent of the potentially eligible sites are located in
populated areas within a half-mile of residences or places of regular
em-
ployment; and workers, visitors, or trespassers may have direct contact
with contaminants at about 55 percent of the sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ We refer to these 1,789 hazardous waste sites as ``potentially
eligible sites.'' We consider the 1,234 other sites as unlikely to
become eligible for various reasons. For example, some sites were
erroneously classified as awaiting an NPL decision or do not meet EPA's
criteria for placement on the list. Other sites do not require cleanup
in the view of the responding officials, have already been cleaned up,
or have final cleanup activities underway. Whether potentially eligible
sites are eventually listed depends on, among other things, a final
evaluation by EPA and the states' concurrence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We asked officials of EPA, other federal agencies, and states to
rank the risks of the potentially eligible sites. These officials
collectively said that about 17 percent of the potentially eligible
sites currently pose high risks to human health and the environment,
and another 10 percent of the sites (for a total of 27 percent)
reportedly may also pose high risks in the future if they are not
cleaned up (see fig. 3). For about one-third of the sites, the
officials said that it was too soon or they needed more information to
determine the seriousness of the sites' risks, or they provided no risk
characterization.
Figure 3: Number of Potentially Eligible Sites With High, Average, and
Low Potential Risks
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.076
Source: Hazardous Waste: Unaddressed Risks at Many Potential
Superfund Sites (GAO/RCED-99-8, Nov. 30, 1998).
Officials responding to our surveys said that some cleanup
activities (which they stated were not final cleanup actions) have
taken place at 686 of the potentially eligible sites. These actions
were taken at more than half of the sites that were reported to
currently or potentially pose high risks, compared to about a third of
the sites that have been reported to currently or potentially pose
average or low risks. No cleanup activities beyond initial site
assessments or investigations have been conducted or no information is
available on any such actions at the other 1,103 potentially eligible
sites.<SUP>10</SUP> Many of the potentially eligible sites have been in
state and EPA inventories of hazardous sites for extended periods.
Seventy-three percent have been in EPA's inventory for more than a
decade. No cleanup progress was reported at the majority of the sites
that have been known for 10 years or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Of the 1,103 sites for which no cleanup actions were reported,
both EPA and the states said that they had taken no cleanup actions
beyond initial site assessments at 719 of them. For 336 sites, EPA
officials alone said that their agency had taken no cleanup actions,
but the states provided no information. California, Massachusetts, and
New Jersey accounted for about 85 percent of these sites. Similarly,
for six sites, the states said that they had taken no action, but EPA
provided no information. Neither EPA nor the states provided
information on any cleanup actions that may have occurred at the
remaining 42 of the 1,103 sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is uncertain whether most potentially eligible sites will be
cleaned up; when cleanup actions, if any, are likely to begin; who will
do the cleanup; under what programs these activities will occur; and
what the extent of responsible parties' participation will be. We did
not receive enough information from our survey to determine what
cleanup actions will be taken at more than half of the 1,789
potentially eligible sites and whether EPA or the states will take
these actions (see fig. 4). We are making no forecast of the number
from the group of 1,789 potentially eligible sites that will be added
to the NPL in the future. However, EPA and state officials collectively
believed that 232 (13 percent) of the potentially eligible sites might
be placed on the NPL in the future.<SUP>11</SUP> Officials estimated
that almost one third of the potentially eligible sites are likely to
be cleaned up under state programs but usually could not give a date
for the start of cleanup activities. State officials stated that, for
about two-thirds of the sites likely to be cleaned up under state
programs, the extent of responsible parties' participation is
uncertain. This is important because officials of about half of the
states told us that their state's financial capability to clean up
potentially eligible sites, if necessary, is poor or very poor. In
addition, officials of about 20 percent of the states said that their
enforcement capacity (including resources and legal authority) to
compel responsible parties to clean up potentially eligible sites is
fair to very poor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ However, EPA and the states agreed on the listing prospects
of only 26 specific sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 4: Estimates of the Likely Final Cleanup Outcome for 1,789
Potentially Eligible Sites
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.077
Note: ``Other sites'' includes sites likely to be cleaned up under
other EPA programs (43), sites that either EPA or state programs may
clean up (13), and sites that are reportedly unlikely to be cleaned up
(19).
Source: Hazardous Waste: Unaddressed Risks at Many Potential
Superfund Sites (GAO/RCED-99-8, Nov. 30, 1998).
Our November report recommends that EPA review its inventory of
potential NPL sites to determine which of them need immediate action
and which will require long term cleanup action and, in consultation
with the states, develop a timetable for taking these actions.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, despite the long durations of cleanups
in the past, Superfund is within sight of completing the construction
of cleanup remedies at most of the sites on the NPL. While recognizing
this accomplishment, we believe that management problems and cost
control issues we have reported on for several years remain to be
solved. Because few sites have been admitted to the program in recent
years, the NPL pipeline is clearing out. On the other hand, there are
many sites in EPA's inventory of potential NPL sites that still need
attention and possible cleanup, but EPA and the states have postponed
decisions, sometimes for up to 10 years or longer, on how to address
them.
Over the last two decades, the states have built up the capacity to
deal with site cleanups to varying degrees. Some have substantial
programs, but others have limited resources and report that their
ability to pay for cleanups is poor. Furthermore, not all of the states
have adequate enforcement authority to force responsible parties to pay
for cleanups. Because states generally now have the lead for screening
sites for NPL consideration, future NPL sites may disproportionately
represent complex cleanups for which responsible parties cannot be
found or are unwilling to ante up the full cost of the cleanup. We have
recommended that EPA work with the states to assign responsibility
among themselves for these sites. The Superfund reauthorization process
gives the Congress an opportunity to help guide EPA and the states in
allocating responsibility for addressing these sites.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy
to respond to your questions or the questions of committee members.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Guerrero.
Now, the Chair would note that there are four votes on the
floor. We have about 10 minutes, or less than 10 minutes, to go
and, then, we have a 5-minute vote. So, we will be gone a good
half an hour.
Ms. Kerbawy, could we get your testimony, say, within the
next 5 minutes, or would you prefer that we come back and begin
your testimony then?
Ms. Kerbawy. It really doesn't matter to me. It might take
7 minutes.
Mr. Oxley. Okay, then, why don't we recess, if that is okay
with you. And, then we will return as soon as the votes are
over, which I would think would probably take a total of about
a half an hour.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Oxley. The committee will reconvene.
When we last met several days ago Ms. Kerbawy was just
going to give us her testimony. So, with that, let me recognize
Ms. Kerbawy, representing ASTSWMO.
STATEMENT OF CLAUDIA KERBAWY
Ms. Kerbawy. Thank you very much. Hopefully, you folks had
a good vote.
Good afternoon, and it's getting close to evening. I am
Claudia Kerbawy, Chief of the Michigan Superfund Program. I
have been around this program for quite a while--not quite as
long as it has been in existence, but just about. I had a
little bit of a hiatus for a while working strictly on
brownfields, but now I am back.
I am also the primary spokesperson on re-authorization
issues for the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials, and I am here today representing ASTSWMO.
As the day-to-day implementers of the State and Federal
cleanup programs, the members of ASTSWMO believe we can offer a
unique perspective to this dialog, and thank you for
recognizing the importance of the State perspective. We commend
you for taking this opportunity to review the status of State
and Federal cleanup programs prior to the development of
legislation. I think that will be quite valuable.
The Superfund statute has facilitated cleanup of some of
our Nation's most severely contaminated sites. Perhaps even
more importantly, it has fostered the development of State
cleanup programs, so that today over 40 States have enacted
State Superfund statutes, as well as State voluntary cleanup
programs and the brownfields programs.
As with the Federal Superfund Program, most State programs
have had the benefit of 18 years to grow and mature in
infrastructure capacity and cleanup sophistication. We believe
it is very important that Congress understand the status of
State programs, in order to make a fully informed decision
regarding the future of the Federal Superfund Program.
ASTSWMO recently conducted a study of the accomplishments
of the States' cleanup programs. The association asked States
to provide detailed information on all removal and remedial
actions conducted between January 1, 1993 and September 30,
1977, for each site in the State system, where hazardous waste
cleanup efforts were performed by States directly, were
performed under State enforcement authority, and were done
under voluntary cleanup and property transfer or brownfields
programs. It should be noted that sites listed on the NPL, RICO
corrective actions, and underground and above-ground storage
tank, and other petroleum spills were not included in this
study.
The association received information on over 27,000 sites
from 33 responding States. I should note that the primary
ground rule for the study was that information had to be
reported site-specifically and had to be accompanied by
background data. Estimates and program summaries were not
counted as part of either the individual State or national
totals.
As a result, while this study does not capture the complete
site universe, either on a national or individual State level,
it is the view of ASTSWMO that enough information was obtained
to confirm that a trend has developed demonstrating State
programs have substantially matured and are addressing a
significantly increased number of sites.
Some of the key results of the ASTSWMO study include: The
States are now completing an average of 1,475 sites a year as
compared to 200 completions per year previously, for a total of
6,768 completions. The sevenfold increase in completions can be
attributed to the growth in the State programs, the advent of
the State voluntary cleanup programs, and the development of
State cleanup standards.
On a national basis, States completed approximately 485
removals per year, as compared to 293 per year during the first
12 years of the program. This indicates a substantial increase
in risk reduction in the field.
Today States are addressing an average of approximately
4,700 sites at any given time, as compared to 1,850 during the
first 12 years of the program. This, clearly, shows that State
programs have increased in their capacity to identify and
address more sites.
Only 8.9 percent of the total sites identified by States
were classified as ``inactive.'' As the data indicate, State
capacity to address large numbers of sites has increased
dramatically. Most sites are being actively worked on by
States, either through traditional Superfund programs or
through voluntary cleanup programs. The majority of sites
classified as ``inactive'' are probably of lower relative risk
and not destined for the NPL anyway.
Obviously, the problem of hazardous waste remediation in
this country was much larger than anyone anticipated when
CERCLA was enacted. And, the role the States would play in this
process was vastly underestimated. Today, there are
approximately 1,300 sites listed on the National Priorities
List. And, after 18 years, approximately 90 percent of all the
sites on the NPL now have records of decision signed.
State programs, in just the last 4 years, have completed
6,768 sites and are working on an additional 20,467 sites. The
purpose in stating these numbers is not to compare or compete
with the Federal Government, but to illustrate that the Federal
Government will only be addressing a finite number of sites,
and that the remaining universe of sites is left for the States
to address.
The question before this committee is, what should the
appropriate role of the Federal Superfund Program be in the
future? There are over 40 States with cleanup programs;
however, there will always be States who choose to not develop
a program, and Federal assistance may be warranted there. There
will also be sites which, due to either technical or legal
complexities, or cost a State either can not address or may
prefer to have the Federal Government address--the point I wish
to stress is, with the current status of State programs, the
choice as to whether a site is addressed under the Federal
Government or the State government should be determined by the
State. The Governor should be able to request Federal
assistance or veto a site from being listed on the National
Priority List. And, legislation is needed to accomplish this.
As indicated by both the ASTSWMO and GAO surveys, EPA is no
longer at the center of the site-remediation universe. The
States have, clearly, become the primary regulators for
overseeing site remediation. The NPL should be reserved for
those sites where both the State and Federal Government believe
the expenditure of Federal resources is warranted. The NPL is
no longer reserved for the worst of the worst sites. Rather,
the NPL has shifted to a venue for remediating serious sites
which require Federal resources.
Right now, the Federal Superfund statute technically
applies to any site where a release occurs. However, the
reality is that the States are really responsible for
remediation of all sites which are not on the NPL. The EPA
removal program is able to address some of those sites, but the
program is designed to stabilize sites not ensure complete
remediation. The majority of these sites will never be on the
NPL, and, therefore, EPA does not even have the regulatory
authority to compel responsible-party action or spend money at
these sites to perform the necessary remedial actions.
Consequently, the State is often still responsible for
completing the remediation of a site, even after an EPA removal
action has been performed.
Although the majority of these sites will never be placed
on the NPL, they are still subject to CERCLA liability, even if
a site has been cleaned up to State standards. The potential
for overfile by EPA, and for third-party lawsuits under CERCLA,
clearly inhibits redevelopment of brownfields sites.
We believe it is imperative that Congress seek to clarify
the State and Federal roles and potential liability
consequences under the Federal Superfund Program. States should
be able to release sites from liability once a site has been
cleaned up to State standards, and emergency action should be
the only exceptions to such releases from Federal liability.
We believe the universe of sites to be addressed by State
cleanup programs and the sites eligible for releases from
Federal liability is the non-NPL universe of sites. Some people
will suggest that the non-NPL universe can be divided into two
categories: NPL-caliber and low-risk sites. As the primary
regulators for non-NPL sites, we are here to tell you that
there is no clear line that differentiates these sites. If a
site is not on or proposed for listing on the NPL, the State
should be free to address the site without EPA interference.
We believe legislation is needed in this area, and hope
that Congress chooses to recognize the benefits of State
programs, which have had over 18 years to grow and mature, and
which, clearly, have become the leaders in site-remediation
today.
We look forward to working with this subcommittee as this
issue is debated.
[The prepared statement of Claudia Kerbawy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Claudia Kerbawy, Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
Good morning. I am Claudia Kerbawy and I am the Chief of the
Michigan Superfund program. I am also the primary spokesperson on
reauthorization issues for the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) and am here today
representing ASTSWMO. ASTSWMO is a non-profit association which
represents the collective interests of waste program directors of the
nation's States and Territories. Besides the State cleanup and remedial
program managers, ASTSWMO's membership also includes the State
regulatory program managers for solid waste, hazardous waste,
underground storage tanks, and waste minimization and recycling
programs. Our membership is drawn exclusively from State employees who
deal daily with the many management and resource implications of the
State waste management programs they direct. As the day-to-day
implementors of the State and Federal cleanup programs, we believe we
can offer a unique perspective to this dialogue and thank you for
recognizing the importance of the State perspective.
The Superfund statute has served an important purpose. First, it
has facilitated the cleanup of some of our nation's most severely
contaminated sites; and second, and perhaps most importantly, it has
fostered the development of State Superfund programs and State
Voluntary Cleanup programs. Today, over 40 States have enacted State
Superfund statutes as well as State Voluntary Cleanup/Brownfield
programs. I would like to dedicate the first part of my testimony to
speaking on the accomplishments of State programs. As with the federal
Superfund program, most State programs have had the benefit of 18 years
to grow and mature in infrastructure capacity and cleanup
sophistication. We believe it is very important that Congress
understand the status of State programs, in order to make a fully
informed decision regarding the future of the federal Superfund
program. The second part of my testimony will be devoted to analyzing
the current federal program and providing recommendations for the
future program.
ASTSWMO State Accomplishments study:
The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials recently conducted a study on the accomplishments of State
cleanup programs. The association asked States to provide detailed
information on all short-term removal actions and long-term remedial
actions conducted between January 1, 1993 and September 30, 1997 for
each site in the State system where hazardous waste cleanup efforts
were performed by States directly, under State enforcement authority,
and under State voluntary cleanup and property transfer/brownfield
programs. Sites listed on the National Priorities List, Resource
Conservation Recovery Act corrective actions and underground and above
ground storage tank and other petroleum spills were not included in
this study. The association received information on 27,235 sites from
thirty-three responding States. I should note that the primary ground
rule for the study was that information had to be reported site-
specifically and had to be accompanied by background data. Estimates
were not accepted or counted as part of either the individual State or
national totals for work accomplished.
While this study does not capture the complete site universe either
on a national level or individual State level, it is the view of
ASTSWMO that enough information was obtained to confirm that a trend
has developed whereby on a national level States are not only
addressing more sites at any given time, but are also completing
(construction completes) more sites through streamlined State programs.
State programs have matured and increased in their infrastructure
capacity.
Key results of the ASTSWMO study included:
<bullet> States have completed seven times as many sites per year these
last four and three-quarter years than they did during the
first twelve years of the program. During the first twelve
years of the program, States completed 202 sites per year on
average. Over the last four and three-quarter years, States
have averaged 1, 475 completions per year for a total of 6,768
completions. State managers believe the large increase in
completions can be attributed to the growth of State programs,
the advent of State Voluntary Cleanup programs and the
development of State cleanup standards (i.e., clearly defined
endpoints).
<bullet> States have completed almost twice as many removals per year
during the last four and three-quarter years of the program
than they did during the previous twelve years of the program.
On a national basis, States completed approximately 485
removals per year as compared to 293 per year during the first
twelve years of the program. This doubling of the pace of
removals indicates a substantial increase in risk reduction in
the field.
<bullet> Three times as many confirmed contaminated sites have been
identified and are working their way through the State system
than during the first twelve years of the program. During the
first twelve years of the program, States had approximately
1,850 sites working their way through their systems at any
given time. Today, States are addressing an average of
approximately 4,700 sites at any given time. NOTE: the word
``address'' could refer to site remediation, no further action
designations, or site prioritizations. These findings clearly
show that States programs have matured and State
infrastructures have increased in their capacity to identify
and address more sites.
<bullet> Only 8.9% (2,426) of the total sites identified by States
(27,235) were classified as inactive. As the data indicate,
State capacity to address large numbers of sites has increased
dramatically. Most sites are being actively worked on by States
either through traditional State superfund programs or through
voluntary cleanup programs and it is the professional judgement
of the ASTSWMO membership that the majority of sites classified
as inactive are probably of lower relative risk and not
destined for the NPL due to the triage system employed by most
States.
Analysis of the Current Federal Superfund Program and Recommendations
for the Future:
It is our understanding that when Congress enacted the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) in 1980, commonly known as Superfund, it was envisioned that
there were approximately 400 serious abandoned hazardous waste sites
requiring remediation across the country and that the Superfund program
would have a life-span of perhaps five years. Congress did not provide
for a meaningful role for State programs until 1986 with the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
Obviously the problem of hazardous waste remediation in this
country was much larger than anyone anticipated and the role the States
would play in this process had been vastly underestimated. Today, there
are approximately 1300 sites listed on the National Priorities List.
After 18 years, the Environmental Protection Agency can legitimately
claim that approximately 90% of all sites listed on the National
Priorities List have signed records of decision. State programs in just
the last four years have completed 6,768 sites and are working on an
additional 20,467 sites. The purpose in stating these numbers is not to
compare or compete with the federal government, but to illustrate that
Congress was correct in envisioning that the federal government would
address only a finite number of sites.
As the recent ASTSWMO survey illustrates, State programs have
developed and matured in terms of sophistication and infrastructure
capacity. Only 8.9% (2,426) of the total sites (27,235) identified by
the ASTSWMO survey are classified as inactive. States today employ a
triage system whereby, the worst sites are addressed first. It is,
therefore, the strong belief of the ASTSWMO membership that most sites
that have been identified within a State that could qualify for listing
on the NPL are already being worked on by the State.
We believe the views of our membership were validated by the recent
General Accounting Office (GAO) Report entitled, ``Hazardous Waste:
Unaddressed Risks at Many Potential Superfund Sites''. In this report
the GAO reviewed the status of 3,036 sites which had pre-scored above
28.5 but for a variety of reasons had not been placed on the NPL. Out
of a total of 3,036 sites only 7.6% (232) were estimated by both EPA
and State officials to potentially warrant listing on the NPL. This
confirms that the EPA regional staff had utilized good judgement in not
placing the vast majority of these sites on the NPL; it also confirms
that the hazard ranking system could be improved.
The question before this Committee is what should be the
appropriate role of the federal Superfund program in the future? While
there may be forty plus States with State Superfund programs and
Voluntary Cleanup programs there will always be States who choose not
to develop a program and federal government assistance may be
warranted. There will also be sites which due to either technical or
legal complexity or cost, a State either cannot or may prefer to have
the federal government address. The point I wish to stress is that with
the current status of State programs the choice as to whether a site is
addressed by the federal government or State government should be
determined by the State. A Governor should be able to veto a site from
being listed on the National Priorities List. While it is EPA policy to
routinely seek concurrence from the Governor before a site is listed on
the NPL, it is not mandatory that the concurrence be received. If a
dispute should arise between EPA and a Governor the process within EPA
is to have the Assistant Administrator for OSWER make the final
determination. Frankly, that is not a satisfactory policy.
Fortunately, there are very few sites where the States and EPA
disagree, however, when a dispute does occur the site quickly becomes
high profile and both the State and federal government can lose
credibility. As indicated by the ASTSWMO survey and GAO survey, the
States have clearly become the primary regulators for overseeing site
remediation. The NPL should be reserved for those sites which both the
State and federal governments believe warrant expenditure of federal
resources. If a site has a viable responsible party and a State agency
willing to assume responsibility, the State should have the opportunity
to remediate the site without federal intervention. The NPL is no
longer reserved for the ``worst of the worst'' sites, rather the NPL
has shifted to a venue for remediating sites which require federal
resources. The criteria for listing sites on the NPL may quickly shift
from one of risk based determinations to one based on resource needs.
Legislative change is needed.
Congress also must consider whether they wish to see the role of
the federal Superfund program expanded in the future. The federal
Superfund statute technically applies to any site where a release
occurs. However, the reality today is that States are responsible for
ensuring the remediation of all sites which do not score above 28.5
using EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS)--the cutoff for federal listing
on the NPL. The EPA removal program is able to address some sites which
are not listed on the NPL, but the program is designed to stabilize a
site, not to ensure the full remediation of the site. EPA can not
expend fund money for remediating a site not listed on the NPL.
Consequently, the State is often still responsible for completing the
remediation of a site even after an EPA removal action has been
performed at a site.
It is our belief that Congress needs to decide definitively whether
EPA should retain a role in the remediation of non-NPL sites. While in
practicality EPA has no to little role at these sites and as our survey
indicated, the States are addressing the large universe of non-NPL
sites, the statute still maintains a role for EPA in theory. Although
the majority of these sites (typically brownfield sites) will never be
placed on the NPL, they are still subject to CERCLA liability even
after the site has been cleaned up to State standards. It is our belief
that we can no longer afford to foster the illusion that State
authorized cleanups may somehow not be adequate to satisfy federal
requirements. The potential for EPA overfile and for third party
lawsuits under CERCLA is beginning to cause many owners of potential
Brownfields sites to simply ``mothball'' the properties. We believe it
is imperative that Congress seek to clarify the State-Federal roles and
potential liability consequences under the Federal Superfund program.
States should be able to release sites from liability once a site has
been cleaned up to State standards. In situations which are deemed
emergencies and where the State requests assistance, we believe the
federal government should be able to address the site and if necessary
hold the responsible party liable consistent with liability assigned
under State cleanup law. Emergency actions should be the only
exceptions to such releases from federal liability.
This has been a very contentious issue and we understand that many
in the Administration have raised objections to provisions of this
nature. We do not understand the basis for these objections for several
reasons. First, EPA does not have the ability to compel parties to take
remedial actions at sites not listed on the NPL, except for removal
actions. Second, the majority of these sites will never be listed on
the NPL, therefore, EPA does not have regulatory authority to spend
fund money at these sites to perform the necessary remedial actions.
Third, if a State should release a site from State liability (of
course, all States have standard reopener provisions contained in their
liability releases), and a situation should develop which warrants
federal attention, the State will act responsibly and contact EPA. For
example, the Hoboken site in New Jersey was remediated under the State
Voluntary Cleanup program and a certificate of completion was issued by
the State. Previously unknown mercury was later found to be present at
the site and the State for financial and technical reasons called EPA
in to address the site. The State of New Jersey has remediated over
6,000 sites through its Voluntary Cleanup program and receives 150
applications a month. We recognize that situations such as the Hoboken
site will occur and believe that the recommendation we have offered
adequately addresses the situation. While it is clear in emergency
situations that EPA should have the ability to enter a site, we believe
the second prong of the condition must also be met, i.e., with State
concurrence similar to our recommendation for listing sites on the NPL.
We wish to avoid duplication as much as possible and therefore believe
that if a State is capable of addressing the emergency than there is no
need to utilize EPA's resources. The States have proven they act
responsibly in these situations and it is to the State's advantage to
notify EPA when either the State's financial or technical resources are
not sufficient to adequately address the problem.
We believe the universe of sites to be addressed by State Cleanup
(State Superfund and State Voluntary Cleanup) programs and the sites
eligible for releases from federal liability is the non-NPL universe of
sites. It seems only practical to officially exclude proposed and
listed NPL sites simply for the fact that much work has already ensued
in order to place these sites on the NPL. Some suggest that the non-NPL
universe can be divided into two categories, NPL-caliber and low risk
sites. We are the primary regulators for non-NPL sites and we are here
to tell you that there is no clear line that differentiates these
sites. Many would suggest the bright line should be 28.5 (as determined
by the HRS), but there are two problems with using this arbitrary
cutoff. First, 28.5 is the quantitative scoring factor used to
determine if a site qualifies for placement on the NPL. However, this
figure is based on an archaic hazard ranking system which many EPA and
State managers admit is flawed, so much so, that EPA and State managers
in the GAO study identified only 7.9% of the 3036 pre-scored universe
of sites for potential listing on the NPL. Second, in order to use the
quantitative NPL-caliber designation, States would have to score sites
prior to admitting them to a voluntary cleanup program (a suggestion we
understand one EPA Region has made to a State). Clearly, the pre-
scoring of a site as a condition for entering a State Voluntary Cleanup
program would be a huge disincentive for marketing a State Voluntary
Cleanup program and would not serve to move this large universe of
sites to cleanup nor to facilitate economic redevelopment of
brownfields. Essentially, the program has operated for years on a ``you
know it when you see it basis'' in identifying NPL-caliber sites. This
is bad public policy and should not be acceptable for differentiating
State and EPA roles and for providing certainty to the process. If a
site is not to be listed on the NPL, than the State should be free to
address the site without EPA interference and the site should be
eligible for the same benefits as any other site, such as liability
releases. We believe legislation is needed in this area and hope that
Congress chooses to recognize the benefits of State programs which have
had over 18 years to grow and mature and which clearly have become the
leaders in site remediation today.
Conclusion:
As we understood the subject of today's hearing to be the status of
the current federal Superfund program, I have not outlined ASTSWMO's
recommendations for changes to the federal remedy selection process or
addressed the issue of the State role regarding federal NPL sites
(ASTSWMO's positions on these issues are attached for the record).
Rather, I have focused on both the current and potential scope of the
federal Superfund program in the future. With 90% of all NPL sites
having signed records of decision, we felt a discussion on remedy
selection changes would not be appropriate. EPA has done a good job in
diligently working to remediate the 1300 or so sites listed on the NPL.
They should be commended for their efforts. EPA, however, is no longer
the center of the site remediation universe. The vast majority of sites
are and will continue to be remediated under State auspices. The
question for Congress should be whether to change the law to reflect
today's reality. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee as
this issue is debated.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you very much, Ms. Kerbawy.
Let me begin by asking, Mr. Guerrero--EPA has stated that
the pace of cleanups has increased because the number of
construction-completes have increased over the past few years.
You testified that, when you evaluated the pace of cleanup, you
estimated it takes an average of 10.6 years to clean up an NPL
site. In your view, do the increases in completed constructions
necessarily provide evidence of an accelerated pace of cleanup?
Can you comment on the difference between your estimates and
that of EPA?
Mr. Guerrero. Sure. No, we have not seen convincing
evidence that the pace of cleanups has necessarily improved. We
believe that the increased numbers of cleanups that are being
done is a reflection of the aging of the cases that have been
in the system for many, many years. And, if you remember, I
referred to a figure 1 in my statement, which showed that EPA
had not listed many sites in this decade. Most of the sites,
close to 90 percent of sites, were listed prior to this decade.
And, so, eventually, you would expect that those sites would
get cleaned up, and they are getting cleaned up now.
Mr. Oxley. EPA has made a number of changes to how it
administers the Superfund Program over the past few years. It
calls these administrative reforms. We heard the agency discuss
these in some detail earlier with Mr. Fields. GAO studies the
effectiveness of these reforms. What are your primary findings?
Mr. Guerrero. At the time we looked at it--and this is work
that is now 2 years old, so it is something we would want to
look at currently to get a better read on--but at the time we
looked at it, EPA was unable to document the improvements that
they were claiming they had made as part of that administrative
reform.
Mr. Oxley. Isn't it true that GAO found quantifiable
results for only about 6 out of 45 administrative reforms?
Mr. Guerrero. That is correct.
Mr. Oxley. GAO indicated, in their earlier report, that EPA
was unable to document the effectiveness of many of these
reforms, noting that the agency indicated that results of many
of these reforms were not quantifiable. Has that changed? Does
GAO have any additional information about the effectiveness of
EPA's administrative reforms?
Mr. Guerrero. No, not since that time. And, again, as I
said, we think this is an issue that should be looked at and we
would be happy to do that for the committee.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you.
Ms. Kerbawy, we heard testimony from GAO that the capacity
of State programs to take on greater responsibility may vary by
State, due to issues associated with State funding and
enforcement authority. Can you offer your opinion about the
extent to which State programs may be able to take on greater
responsibility for cleanups in the future?
Ms. Kerbawy. Sure. I think we have seen a definite trend
over the years that the State capacity for dealing with these
sites has increased substantially. We agree with GAO's
percentages; 80 percent of the States have the program
capability with their Superfund laws to deal with the
enforcement issues and the funding issues. I think that,
certainly, the States are showing that they are handling the
vast majority of the sites out there as it is, and those
include sites that have the same level of risk and complexity
as some of the sites on the NPL. There will always be a few
States that will not be able to take on the program; that chose
either not to develop a program or ask for EPA assistance.
That, currently, is the case, I would expect that would be the
case in the future. So, there probably is a role for some
States where EPA would need to play a part.
Mr. Oxley. Your testimony on behalf of the State cleanup
official states that, quote, ``The potential for EPA overfile
for third-party lawsuits under CERCLA is beginning to cause
many owners of potential brownfields sites to simply `moth
ball' the properties.''
You further state that ``The States should be able to
release sites from liability once a site has been cleaned up to
State standards.''
We heard this issue discussed earlier by Mr. Fields, and
you were present, I think, to hear his response. Can you
explain the State's view on this point?
Ms. Kerbawy. Yes. I think that it's really important to
note that, although there are 11 States that have memorandums
of agreement with EPA, which helps to give some assurance that
EPA will not overfile where they are taking action, that is
only 11, and very few States are interested in pursuing a
memorandum of agreement at this time under the current policies
that EPA has. What we see now is that EPA is asking for
specific changes in their programs that would be necessary or
scoring of sites before putting them into a voluntary cleanup
program--all of which significantly complicates and changes the
priorities for the States in dealing with the sites within
their State. Quite frankly, I think that it is very important
to look at the overall issue that MOA's don't bar--they are not
enforceable. So, the potential for a problem still exists out
there.
If Michigan did not have an MOA with EPA right now, I don't
think we would be trying to get one because of what would be
required to be put in there. I think that it is also important
to note that the third-party complications, third-party
contribution actions, are not affected whatsoever by an MOA.
That agreement is between the State and EPA. And, one of the
major issues at the brownfields sites is, not only that EPA
might come in, but that there would be third-party contribution
actions that could be taken against new owners of the site
that, you know, are essentially innocent parties.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you. The Chair's time has expired. Let me
turn to the gentleman from New York, the ranking member, Mr.
Towns.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Guerrero, I would like to focus on the 232 sites that
your testimony indicates might be placed on the NPL list. For
the 39 sites, in the group of 232 where EPA said the NPL
listing was likely, but the State says cleanup or no cleanup,
would you agree that there is more uncertainty in these sites
being listed on the NPL than the 26 where both agencies agree?
Mr. Guerrero. Yes, there is.
Mr. Towns. I understand that you encounter approximately
100 sites from the State of Massachusetts in your graph of
sites, but which final outcome is uncertain because the State
failed to participate in your survey. Am I correct that
Massachusetts did send you written documentation indicating
that virtually all of the Massachusetts sites will be handled
by the State program?
Mr. Donaghy. I can respond to that. Actually, Massachusetts
refused to participate in the survey that we sent out to the
States to find out how they were dealing with the sites that
could make it into the Superfund Program. They said that they
had recently completed a survey for ASTSWMO, and they referred
us to the ASTSWMO questionnaire for information. But, we
weren't able to use the responses that were given to ASTSWMO
because it was an entirely different questionnaire. It was a
one-page questionnaire, a very short sort of survey; whereas,
our own was much more complex and the categories that we used
weren't always consistent with the ASTSWMO survey. So, we
weren't able to integrate the Massachusetts figures into our
overall data on the States.
Mr. Towns. And they used the excuse of the fact that it
would take them too long to prepare and----
Mr. Donaghy. Yes, they said they didn't have the resources
to complete the survey.
Mr. Towns. And they also stated their sites were not to be
listed on the NPL?
Mr. Donaghy. I am not sure that they told us that. They
referred us to the ASTSWMO survey. In response to the ASTSWMO
survey, they probably forecast few sites would make it on to
the NPL; that is right.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Chairman, I have a document here I would
like to place in the record, a letter, also, from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and also the Massachusetts
questionnaire they submitted by GAO. I would also like to
submit all of that, for the record.
Mr. Oxley. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of Environmental Protection
December 24, 1997
Peter F. Guerrero
Director, Environmental Protection Issues
Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
Dear Mr. Guerrero: Through the office of Secretary Trudy Coxe, the
Department of Environmental Protection has received your request to
complete a survey for the General Accounting Office. The survey
requests information on hazardous waste sites in Massachusetts which
have scored 28.5 or greater under EPA's Hazard Ranking System but have
not yet been nominated to the National Priorities List. Such sites are
commonly referred to as PUPS. The list accompanying your letter
contains 195 of these sites for which you request a completed survey.
Your letter suggests that each site specific survey should take a
staff person approximately 10 minutes to complete. Our experience has
been that compiling the information and completing a survey of this
detail will take significantly more time, up to several hours each for
many of the sites. We therefore must inform you that we will not be
able to commit the substantial resources to it will take to complete
this survey.
However, I have enclosed a copy of a joint EPA/ASTSWMO survey which
we completed this past summer regarding the same sites which you are
interested in. In addition, members of my staff met during this past
summer with some members of your staff and discussed the status of PUP
sites in Massachusetts. We informed your staff that the large majority
of those sites were participating in our waste site cleanup program and
did not warrant listing on the NPL at this time. It seemed to come as a
surprise to them that these sites were not sitting idly by because they
had not yet been listed on the NPL, but were, in fact, moving forward
under the state program. We also provided your staff with a printout of
our data base regarding those sites.
I hope you find the enclosed information useful. It is my
understanding that the joint EPA/ASTSWMO survey results will be
available during late spring of 1998. You should contact ASTSWMO for
more information on that.
If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact
me at 617-292-5648.
Very truly yours,
James C. Colman
Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
cc: Ms. Trudy Coxe, Secretary, Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs
Mr. David Struhs, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Protection
Massachusetts PUP Questionnaire Submitted to GAO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Site
Warrant
Site Listing Status
on NPL?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wompatuck State Park................ no in compliance with
state program
SCA Services Landfill............... no in compliance with
state program
Microwave Development Labs.......... no in compliance with
state program
MSM Industries...................... no in compliance with
state program
Royce Aluminum...................... no in compliance with
state program
Vitale Flyash Pit................... no site investigation-
pending enforcement
action
Tremblay Barrell.................... no preliminary assesment-
pending enforcement
action
Sudbury Labs........................ no site investigation-
pending enforcement
action
Old Wharton Road Property........... no remedial investigation-
pending enforcement
actions
Marra Property...................... no preliminary assesment-
pending enforcement
action
Mansfield Bleachery................. no site investigation-
pending enforcement
action
Margetts & Sims Septic.............. no site investigation-
pending enforcement
action
Magic Chemical...................... no preliminary assesment-
pending enforcement
action
Lot Near Hewitt Wool Mill........... no preliminary assesment-
pending enforcement
action
Conrail Yard........................ no preliminary assesment-
pending enforcement
action
Lasco Chemical...................... no site investigation-
pending enforcement
action
Blox Chemical....................... no remedial investigation-
pending enforcement
actions
Berkshire Tannery................... no site investigation-
pending enforcement
action
Airport Septic System............... no site investigation-
pending enforcement
action
Alberox............................. no remedial investigation-
willing low priority
site, prp conducting
response action
Cotuit Landing...................... no remedial investigation-
willing low priority
site, prp conducting
response action
New Bedford Landfill................ no landfill-state solid
waste program
Eastham Sani-Landfill............... no landfill-state solid
waste program
Adams Landfill...................... no landfill-state solid
waste program
Bird Property....................... no remedial investigation-
pending enforcement
actions
Acushnet Landfill................... no landfill-state solid
waste program
Fairhaven Landfill.................. no landfill-state solid
waste program
Belchertown Bulk Carriers........... no cleanup complete under
state program
B&E Tool............................ no cleanup complete under
state program
Benzenold Organics.................. no cleanup complete under
state program
Warren Landfill..................... no cleanup complete under
state program
Timex Clock Co. (FMR)............... no cleanup complete under
state program
Three C Electrical Co. (FMR)........ no cleanup complete under
state program
Stanhome, Inc....................... no cleanup complete under
state program
Roy Bros Haulers.................... no cleanup complete under
state program
Omega Laboratories.................. no cleanup complete under
state program
Northeast Investment Co............. no cleanup complete under
state program
Mashpee Landfill.................... no cleanup complete under
state program
Kytron Circuits Corp................ no cleanup complete under
state program
Cannon's Engineering................ no cleanup complete under
state program
Lamger Chemical Systems, Inc........ no cleanup complete under
state program
Boston Edison/Edgar Station......... no cleanup complete under
state program
Astro Circuits...................... no cleanup complete
understate program
Eastman Gelatine Corp Lime Disp Area no cleanup complete under
state program
Rumford Avenue Landfill............. no landfill-state solid
waste program
Qutney Landfill..................... no landfill-state solid
waste program
Peabody Landfill.................... no landfill-state solid
waste program
Lowell Landfill..................... no landfill-state solid
waste program
Murray-Carver Landfill.............. no landfill-state solid
waste program
East Bridgewater Landfill........... no landfill-state solid
waste program
Barnstable Landfill................. no landfill-state solid
waste program
Andover Town Landfill............... no landfill-state solid
waste program
Indian Head Ski Area................ no no action required
Archembault/Holyoke Sani Landfill... no landfill-state solid
waste program
Hamilton Landfill................... no landfill-state solid
waste program
Groton Screw Machine................ no remedial investigation-
pending enforcement
actions
Finberg Field....................... no no action required
Duralie Company Inc................. no remedial investigation-
pending enforcement
actions
Decor Novelties Inc................. no remedial investigation-
pending enforcement
actions
Crocker Junkyard (FMR).............. no remedial investigation-
pending enforcement
actions
Berkshire Gas Company............... no remedial investigation-
pending enforcement
actions
Auburn Landfill..................... no cleanup complete under
state program
Willow Hill Landfill................ no cleanup complete under
state program
Johns-Manville Sales Corp........... ......... already listed
General Latex and Chem Corp......... ......... already listed
Magnet Corporation.................. no feasibility study-
willing low priority
site, prp conducting
response action
H&L Reed Electroplating............. no remedial investigation-
low priority, prp
conducting response
action
GTE Sylvania........................ no remedial investigation-
low priority, prp
conducting response
action
Drooker Parul....................... no remedial investigation-
low priority, prp
conducting response
action
Star Chemical....................... no cleanup complete under
state program
Phalo Corp.......................... no cleanup complete under
state program
Owens Illinois FPD Worcester Box PLT no cleanup complete under
state program
Norfolk Conveyor Div................ no cleanup complete under
state program
ND Cass Company..................... no cleanup complete under
state program
Monson Chemical (FMR)............... no cleanup complete under
state program
Microwave Assoc. Comm. Co........... no cleanup complete under
state program
James River Inc. Mill #8............ no cleanup complete under
state program
?Hollingsworth & Vose Co............ no cleanup complete under
state program
?Hollingsworth & Vose Co............ no no release
Hercules Landfill................... no cleanup complete under
state program
George Lay Property................. no cleanup complete under
state program
Du Pont Company..................... no no release
Maynard Landfill.................... no landfill-state solid
waste program
Unifirst............................ no already listed
Townsend Highway Department......... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Shafter Landfill.................... no already listed
Robbins Company Inc................. no no action required
West Street Property................ no remedial investigation-
pending enforcement
actions
Kempton Road Site................... no remedial investigation-
pending enforcement
actions
Microfab (FMR)...................... no remedial investigation-
pending enforcement
actions
North Attlebro Landfill............. no landfill-state solid
waste program
Nat'l Steel Service Center Inc...... no no action required
Johns-Manville Asbestos Landfill.... no already listed
Panama St. Property................. no remedial investigation-
pending enforcement
actions
Worcester Spinning & Finishing Co... no no action required
Reclamation Systems Inc Landfill.... no already listed
Kettle Pond......................... no already listed
North Carver Landfill............... no feasibility study-
pending enforcement
actions
Costa's Landfill.................... no remedial design/action-
pending enforcement
actions
Holden Landfill..................... no landfill-state solid
waste program
Action Landfill..................... no landfill-state solid
waste program
Neponset Valley lnd. Park........... no closed under state
program
Raytheon Corp....................... no remedial investigation-
low priority, prp
conducting response
action
W R Grace Daramic Plant............. no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Worcester Tool & Stamping........... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Westfield Gas & Electric Dept....... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Townsend/Textron.................... no site investigation-prp
conducting response
action
Townsend Harbor Rd Property......... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Tech Well Corp (FMR)................ no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Shaw's Plaza........................ no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
SCA/CAL's Landfill.................. no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Rockland Industries Inc............. no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Reliable Elec Finishing............. no remedial design/action-
prp conducting
response action
RCA Corp (FMR)...................... no site investigation-prp
conducting response
action
Raytheon Missile Systems............ no remedial design/action-
prp conducting
response action
Nuclear Metals Inc.................. no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
North Adams Landfill................ no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Kilburn Glass Industries............ no site investigation-prp
conducting response
action
Indian Line Farm.................... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Hybripack Inc (FMR)................. no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Hudson Light & Power................ no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
FMC/Tulco Inc....................... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Electrometals Inc................... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Cumberland Farms Dairy Inc.......... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Crewse & Cook Co (FMR).............. no site investigation-prp
conducting response
action
Compo Industries Inc................ no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Commonwealth Gas Co................. no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Colorado Fuel & Iron................ no site investigation-prp
conducting response
action
Coal Tar Processing Facility (FMR).. no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
C.M. Bracket Co (FMR)............... no site investigation-prp
conducting response
action
Borden Chemical Co.................. no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Bay State Abrasives/Dresser Ind no remedial investigation-
Landfill. prp conducting
response action
BASF Systems Corp................... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Airco Industrial.................... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Agway/Kress Property................ no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Alto-tronics Corp................... no feasibility study-prp
conducting response
action
Microwave Assoc Bldg #6............. no remedial design/action-
prp conducting
response action
Stauffer Chemical Co. (FMR)......... no already listed
Sterling Supply Corp (FMR).......... no remedial investigation-
pending enforcement
actions
Titeflex............................ no feasibility study-prp
conducting response
action
Reichhold Chemicals Inc............. no site investigation-prp
conducting response
action
Paramount Cleaners & Dryers......... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Natick Federal Savings & Loan....... no site investigation-prp
conducting response
action
Merrimun Div of Quamco Inc.......... no remedial design/action-
prp conducting
response action
Lubrix Products Inc................. no site investigation-prp
conducting response
action
JG Grant & Sons Inc................. no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Hoyt & Worthen Tanning Corp......... no site investigation-prp
conducting response
action
Hirons Upholstery................... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Frequency Sources Inc Facility...... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Forbes Lithographic Co (FMR)........ no preliminary assesment-
prp conducting
response action
Fabricare House..................... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Bird & Sons (FMR)................... no preliminary assesment-
prp conducting
response action
Atlantic-Covey Crane Service Inc.... no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Holden Street Fill Area............. no no action required
Huntington Avenue Landfill.......... ......... not on state list
South Boston Naval Annex............ ......... not on state list
Trimount Biotuminous Products....... ......... not on state list
Brazonics........................... no critical compliance
deadline not yet
reached
Freetown Screw MFG Co............... no critical compliance
deadline not yet
reached
Roccos Disposal Area................ no critical compliance
deadline not yet
reached
Waucantuck Mills (FMR).............. no critical compliance
deadline not yet
reached
US Windpower (FMR).................. no possible candidate-not
at this time
Sprague Electric.................... no possible candidate-not
at this time
West Brewster Landfill.............. no landfill-state solid
waste program
West Brewster Sanitary Landfill..... no landfill-state solid
waste program
Easthampton Landfill................ no landfill-state solid
waste program
Easthampton Landfill................ no remedial investigation-
prp conducting
response action
Attlebro Gas Works (FMR)............ no site investigation-prp
conducting response
action
Attlebro Gas Works (FMR)............ no no action required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, one other question I think I
have here, very quickly. One other question--I had a question.
Ms. Kerbawy, I had one question for her.
Ms. Kerbawy, in your testimony today, is it consistent with
your organization's press release, following a survey of the
State program in November 1998, which stated that, ``The vast
majority, in fact, 95.6 percent of the sites listed under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Act Information System do not warrant listings on the National
Priorities List.''
Ms. Kerbawy. Is that consistent with my testimony today?
Mr. Towns. Yes.
Ms. Kerbawy. Yes. I believe it is consistent. Many of the
sites on CERCLA, and I think that the GAO survey also came up
with this result; don't warrant listing on the National
Priorities List because they are being addressed in other
manners or else are lower-risk sites.
Mr. Towns. Let me just switch back over to you, Mr.
Guerrero.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back.
Mr. Oxley. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, and I am sorry, I wasn't here to get the
pronunciation of your name----
Ms. Kerbawy. Kerbawy.
Mr. Shimkus. Kerbawy?
Ms. Kerbawy. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. You were here for the previous panel, and I
wanted to ask, in reference to part of your testimony in which
you indicate Congress should amend Superfund to require the EPA
to receive the concurrence of the State Governor prior to
listing a site on the NPL, can you elaborate on why you believe
it is imperative for State Governors to be given this right of
concurrence?
Ms. Kerbawy. Yes. State programs are really quite well
developed and we have a lot of activity going on at these
sites. Although it is very rare that EPA will want to list a
site that the Governors oppose, when that happens, it can
create great difficulties and tremendous disruption in the work
that needs to be done on a site. We really think that our
programs are very efficient. We are moving a lot of them
through to completion and, when you compare it to--Mr. Fields
mentioned that, if your site is on the National Priorities
List, 8 years to go through the Superfund process. And, that is
a long time and we can address a site faster than that.
We really would prefer to have sites move forward, and if
we are working with a responsible party or we are working on a
site ourselves, to have it go into a listing process will be
very disruptive.
Mr. Shimkus. In my question to Mr. Fields, he had brought
up a case where a site, he mentioned, would affect three
different States, and it was difficult to get the concurrence
of the three surrounding Governors. Do you know of any such
case out there?
Ms. Kerbawy. I am not familiar with any such cases, but I
don't claim to know of every site in the Nation.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Mr. Guerrero, yesterday I spoke to local businesses from
Quincy, Illinois, and I am having my own Superfund experience
in the last 1\1/2\ months. Only two restaurants were named as
PRP's for the Quincy landfill cleanup while Quincy has--
obviously, it is a large community--dozens of local
restaurants. This raises very serious concerns about the EPA's
method of collecting proper data to determine responsibility. I
think it is obvious the EPA has probably included only two
restaurants because they were simply among the businesses that
kept the best records. Does this method of record collection
strike you as somewhat unscientific?
Mr. Guerrero. I am sorry, not being familiar with this
specific case, I can't really comment on the specifics of it.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, let me just put it this way: The site
closed over 20 years ago. What the EPA is attempting to do is
go through municipal landfill records kept by the municipality
to determine the PRP's. They have only cited two to have
judgments against out of the dozens of restaurants, and these
are just mom-and-pop restaurants. If the EPA were to use that
method, would you consider that unscientific?
Mr. Guerrero. It certainly sounds on its face to be unfair.
Again, you know, I can't speak for how EPA did their particular
record search in that case and whether it was exhaustive or
complete or----
Mr. Shimkus. Well, you can tell I have my own axe to grind
on the Quincy area. So, let me just move to other issues in
part of your testimony.
You have consistently reported that less than half of EPA's
spending on the Superfund actually goes to contractor cleanup
work. EPA reports that a larger share of ``spending,'' goes to
clean up work. What is the difference between these estimates?
Mr. Guerrero. The difference is really accounted for by
using different categories. EPA has more categories of expenses
that they consider to be directly related to cleanup. We are
currently doing some work now, looking at those other
categories, to make a better determination what percent of
those categories go directly to site cleanups and what are not
directly related----
Mr. Shimkus. Can you give me an example of that? Are they
going to consider litigation as part of cleanup?
Mr. Guerrero. This is Mr. Barchok, who is doing the work
right now.
Mr. Barchok. What we are doing is looking at it in a little
different way. We are analyzing how much of the money is going
to contract or cleanup work; that is, contractors who study,
design, and implement cleanups. Another categorization of the
expenditures is how much of the expenditures are site-
specific--that is, that are charged to specific sites--and how
much of the money is nonsite-specific. So, it gives you a cut
as to how directly I think, EPA--and, there is some
subjectivity in how you define cleanup. We are trying to take
it to an analytic level and come up with categories of
expenditures and place them in a box and then we allow others,
like yourself, to say, ``What does that mean to you?''
With regard to, I think, the category for enforcement, I
think our current work is showing that, roughly, about 50
percent of that is site-specific and about 50 percent of the
expenditures in that category are nonsite-specific,
administrative in nature.
Mr. Guerrero. The key here is really, in my opinion, not
how you slice this particular pie, but whether what is being
allocated to cleanup work, site-specific cleanup work, is
either increasing or decreasing over time. This is a program
that will soon be entering its third decade. You would expect,
by this point in time, that the large proportion of that
Superfund dollar would be spent onsite cleanup. Unfortunately,
the recent trend shows that does not appear to be the case. So,
no matter how you slice it or dice it, the trend it what is
important, and the trend is moving in the wrong direction at
this time.
Mr. Shimkus. And you went right in to the follow-up
question. And, just based upon the fiscal year's of 1996 and
1997, you are, then, saying that the spending going to
contractors for cleanup has gone down. Can you tell me what the
projection is for the fiscal year 1998?
Mr. Guerrero. Very preliminary information suggests that it
is continuing to decline.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you both for your
patience and your excellent testimony. We appreciate your
indulgence. And, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.313
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.314
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.315
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.316
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.317
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.321
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.322
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.323
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.324
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.325
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.326
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 60198.327