[Senate Hearing 113-770]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-770
PROTECTING TAXPAYERS AND ENSURING
ACCOUNTABILITY: FASTER SUPERFUND
CLEANUPS FOR HEALTHIER COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 10, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-180 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Oversight
CORY A. BOOKER, NEW JERSEY, Chairman
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JUNE 10, 2014
OPENING STATEMENTS
Booker, Hon. Corey, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey.... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 3
Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York 35
WITNESSES
Breen, Barry N., Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Accompanied By: Judith A. Enck, Region 2
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency............ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Booker............................................... 18
Senator Vitter............................................... 21
Senator Gillibrand........................................... 30
Gibbs, Lois, Executive Director, Center for Health, Environment
and Justice.................................................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Delaney, Joseph, Mayor, Garfield, New Jersey..................... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Spiegel, Robert, Executive Director and Co-Founder of Edison
Wetlands Association........................................... 54
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Bodine, Susan, Partner, Barns & Thornburg........................ 63
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Thompson, Scott, Executive Director, Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality.......................................... 81
Prepared statement........................................... 83
HEARING ON PROTECTING TAXPAYERS AND ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY: FASTER
SUPERFUND CLEANUPS FOR HEALTHIER COMMUNITIES
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Corey Booker (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Booker, Gillibrand and Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COREY BOOKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Good afternoon, everyone.
I am very happy to be chairing this hearing of the
Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Environment and
Public Works. We will come to order.
Senator Inhofe just pointed out I have started off well.
This is the first time I am holding a gavel, so if I make any
mistakes, the Senators decided to be very charitable with me as
I hope you will be as well.
On behalf of Ranking Member Inhofe and members of the
subcommittee, welcome to our witnesses. Thanks to several of
you for traveling long distances. Some of you have traveled
distances I know so well down from New Jersey, so I am
grateful.
Across the United States, we have far too many
unremediated, dangerous Superfund sites sitting in our
neighborhoods, properties that are literally poisoning
residents. The problem is particularly acute in the State of
New Jersey which is both the most densely populated Stated in
America and the State with the most Superfund sites.
Superfund sites on the National Priority List are the most
heavily contaminated properties in the Country and the sites
that pose the greatest potential risk to public health and
environment. These sites endanger the health of our children
and thwart economic development in our communities.
Our purpose today is to look at the impact these
contaminated sites are having on our communities, to look at
ways to speed up the cleanup process and to look at options for
how to bring desperately needed additional funding to the
Superfund Program.
As Mayor of Newark, I have seen firsthand the devastating
impacts that Superfund sites can have on a community. When they
are not cleaned up, contaminated properties are blights in our
American neighborhoods. When these sites are cleaned up, the
opportunities flow for job creation, new tax revenues and most
importantly, for healthier communities.
It has been estimated that 11 million Americans live within
one mile of a Superfund site and that 3-4 million children our
most vulnerable Americans do as well. Let me repeat, that is 3-
4 million children in the United States who live within one
mile of a Superfund site.
The reason that is important is because of what I believe
is a truly chilling statistic. Researchers at Princeton, MIT
and Berkeley, after reviewing hundreds and hundreds of
thousands of birth records, found that babies born to mothers
living within one mile of a Superfund site, prior to that site
being cleaned up, had a 20 percent great incident of being born
with birth defects.
Let me repeat, that is a 20 percent higher rate--20 percent
more babies being born with congenital anomalies like heart
defects or Downs Syndrome, prior to a Superfund site being
cleaned up.
That study is not alone. For example, a 2009 peer-reviewed
research study concluded that autism rates were substantially
higher for children within ten miles of a Superfund site. This
is alarming and unacceptable that we have sites in America
ready to go but for the resources we are not cleaning them up.
Every day that we wait, every month, every year that goes
by, more children are facing these staggering risks, more
parents have to worry about the health of their unborn
children. nationwide, there are hundreds of Superfund sites
that are on the National Priority List where mediation has not
even begun. There are hundreds more sites on the list where
remediation is ongoing but too often at a pace that is slowed
by inefficient funding problems.
Appropriated funding for 2013 and 2014 for the Superfund
Program is at the lowest level of funding in over 25 years.
Adjusted for inflation, we are currently funding the Superfund
Program at 40 percent of 1987 levels. From 1992 to 2000, an
average of 80 Superfund cleanups were completed each year. In
2013, just 14 were completed.
In 2010, the GAO issued a report which found the current
funding levels likely to not be sufficient to meet the needs of
the Superfund Program. Based upon EPA official estimates of
future program costs, the GAO found future funding needed will
be 2.5 times higher than funds appropriated annually for the
program over the past decades.
From the time of the GAO report to today, things have only
gotten worse. Funding has dropped an additional 17 percent
while more sites have been added to the National Priority List.
Today, Senator Boxer and I are requesting that the GAO
update their 2010 report. This week, along with Senator
Menendez, my senior Senator from New Jersey, we will be
introducing the Superfund Polluter Pays Restoration Act of
2014. This bill would reinState the excise tax on polluting
industries, one approved by President Reagan, in order to
provide funding for Superfund cleanups.
Today, I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses
and I look forward to working with Senators on both sides of
the aisle to move forward to address these serious concerns and
issues.
Senator Booker. Before hearing from our witnesses, I will
turn to Senator Inhofe, the Ranking Member, for his opening
statement. Again, I am grateful that you are here, Senator.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We also have an Oklahoman here, Scott Thompson. We go back
many years. He will be on the second panel. I hope we will be
able to return from the votes that are in line right now.
Thank you for holding this meeting. I know the Superfund
Program is a very important one in your State, Mr. Chairman, as
well as in mine. Tar Creek was a big one that we had in
Oklahoma. It is a 40 square mile area in the northeastern part
of the State that was contaminated by lead and zinc mines that
were abandoned back in the 1970's.
The site was added to the National Priority List in 1981
but it rightfully received a lot of attention in 2006 when the
Corps of Engineers released a study showing that the
underground mines were at risk of collapsing.
After a lot of effort on the part of the Oklahoma
delegation, the EPA, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality and several other stakeholders, we successfully got the
at risk people out of the Tar Creek area.
To tell you how serious this was, Mr. Chairman, we had one
elementary school that we found after we did a lot of digging
around to find out where the danger of collapse was, and it
went right under the elementary school and could have happened
at any time.
In a number of the major components of the cleanup, work
had already been completed. While there is more to be done, I
am very appreciative that progress has been made by all the
stakeholders involved.
Superfund sites need to be cleaned up. There is no question
about that but the cleanup process needs to happen in the most
cost effective and fair way possible. Generally, the financing
for Superfund cleanups comes from agreements between the EPA
and the parties responsible for the pollution.
Having the responsible parties pay for the contamination
they cause is the way it should be. This is what happens about
70 percent of the time. In other cases, where the responsible
parties cannot be identified, EPA pays for the cleanup out of
appropriated dollars.
Some, including the Chairman of this Subcommittee, have
called for the reinstatement of the Superfund tax to provide
additional financing to the Superfund list. I understand why
they are putting marker down. The tax is structured in a way
that makes it appear like polluter pays when in reality, it is
not.
There are two things I want to bring to everyone's
attention that I do not think people realize about the
Superfund tax. First, it applies to everyone. By taxing each
barrel of oil produced and imposing a surtax on all income
earned over $1.2 million by corporations, even small businesses
that do not have any risk of contamination are required to pay
the tax.
While I know many think oil, gas and chemical industries
are dirty, I do not believe the EPA has identified a single
responsible party that did not ultimately pay its fair share of
remedial costs at a Superfund site.
The second thing is that in the President's budget, does
not propose to use any of the additional revenue raised by the
Superfund tax, if it is actually imposed, to actually boost
spending in the Superfund Program. This underscores that
problem we have is not funding; it is priorities.
In fact, during the recent years of high appropriations for
the EPA, funding for the Superfund Program remained flat. It
did not go up by any significant amount. The funding went up
for the EPA but not the Superfund portion of that. It makes me
think that the purpose behind the Administration's Superfund
tax proposal is more about imposing more taxes on industry than
it is about cleaning up contaminated sites.
To increase the effectiveness of the Superfund Program, the
EPA needs to be doing more with less. The agency needs to trim
its costs of administering the program so that more funds are
freed up for cleanup work. Once the EPA has demonstrated that
it can do this, it would be reasonable for us to consider
moving funds within the EPA's existing budget to make this
work.
We had several examples before you began serving in this
body, Mr. Chairman. One was in Louisiana where we had a way of
cleaning up a site that was about one-fourth the cost of doing
it through the EPA. We had a difficult time getting this done.
I think we need to look at those opportunities and look at
the cheapest way to get it done as opposed to looking always to
the bureaucracy. As this comes up and we talk about renewing
this, we want to be sure to cover those options.
I will be there with you or against you but we are working
in terms of correcting the problem.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James Inhofe, U.S. Senator
from the State of Oklahoma
Chairman Booker, thank you for taking the time to hold this
hearing. I know the Superfund program is very important to your
state, as it is to mine. Tar Creek is a 40 square mile area in
the northeastern part of Oklahoma that was contaminated by lead
and zinc mines that were abandoned in the 1970's. The site was
added to the National Priorities List in 1981, but it
rightfully received a lot of attention in 2006 when the Corps
of Engineers released a study showing that the underground
mines were at risk of collapsing.
After a lot of effort on the part of the Oklahoma
delegation, Oklahoma's Department of Environmental Quality, EPA
Region 6, and many other stakeholders, we were successfully
able to get all of the at-risk folks out of the Tar Creek area
who were willing to move. A number of the major components of
the cleanup work have already been completed, and while there
is still a lot of work to be done, I'm very appreciative of the
progress that's being made by all the stakeholders involved.
Superfund sites need to be cleaned up, there is no question
about that. But the cleanup process needs to happen in the most
cost effective way possible.
Generally, the financing for Superfund cleanups comes from
agreements between EPA and the parties responsible for the
pollution. Having the responsible parties pay for the
contamination they caused is the way it should be. This is what
happens about 70 percent of the time. In other cases, where the
responsible parties cannot be identified, the EPA pays for the
cleanup out of appropriated dollars. Some, including the
Chairman of the Subcommittee, have called for the reinstatement
of the Superfund tax to provide additional financing to the
Superfund trust fund.
I understand why they are putting this marker down. The tax
is structured in a way that makes it appear like a ``polluter
pays'' tax, when in reality, it is not. There are two things I
want to bring to everyone's attention that I do not think
people realize about the superfund tax. The first is that it
applies to everyone. By taxing each barrel of oil produced and
imposing a surtax on all income earned over $2 million by
corporations, even small businesses that do not have any risk
of contamination are required to pay the tax. While I know many
think the oil, gas, and chemical industries are dirty, I do not
believe the EPA has identified a single responsible party that
did not ultimately pay its fair share of remedial costs at a
Superfund site.
The second is that in the President's budget, he does not
propose to use any of the additional revenue raised by the
Superfund tax to actually boost spending in the Superfund
program. This underscores that the problem we have is not
funding--it is priorities. In fact, during recent years of high
appropriations for the EPA, funding for the Superfund program
remained flat. It did not go up by any significant amount. This
makes me think that the purpose behind the Administration's
superfund tax proposal is more about imposing more taxes on
industry than it is about cleaning up contaminated sites. To
increase the effectiveness of the Superfund program, the EPA
needs to be doing more with less. The agency needs to trim its
cost of administering the program so that more funds are freed
up for cleanup work. Once EPA has demonstrated that it can do
this, it would be reasonable for us to consider moving funds
within EPA's existing budget framework from lower priority,
non-infrastructure related programs to this important program.
I thank the witnesses for appearing today and look forward to
hearing your testimony.
Senator Booker. I want to thank the Ranking Member for his
opening comments.
Maybe as an effort to build some suspense, Senator Inhofe
and I actually need to go do a quick vote. We will have a short
recess and after we vote, I will hustle back here as quickly as
possible. I don't think I will keep up with this guy, but I
will try.
We will reconvene at 3:15 p.m.
[Recess.]
Senator Booker. According to Senate standard time, we are
earlier than we said we would be. Please take note of that for
the congressional Record, please.
Picking up after the opening statements of myself and the
Ranking Member, I am happy that we can actually now move to
Barry Breen, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA. We are very
grateful that you would take time to come down.
Also on your left is Judith Enck who is the Region 2
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
STATEMENT OF BARRY N. BREEN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY: JUDITH A.
ENCK, REGION 2 ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. Breen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you described, I am joined by Administrator Judith Enck
from the Region 2 office. She is here to answer site-specific
and program-related questions for sites in New Jersey, New
York, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
The Superfund Program was established in 1980 to respond to
hazardous waste sites throughout the Nation. The program has a
variety of tools to help protect human health and the
environment. These include shorter term removal actions and
longer term remedial actions.
Each year, more than 30,000 emergencies involving the
release or threatened release of oil or hazardous substances
are reported in the United States. In a typical year, EPA
completes or oversees the completion of some 300 removal
actions.
On the longer term side, while there is no common way to
characterize communities located near Superfund sites, our
analysis of the latest census data found that approximately 49
million people live within three miles of a Superfund NPL site
or Superfund alternative agreement site.
Mr. Chairman, I picked up as well your description of those
who live within a one mile radius and both are relevant ways of
measuring.
Using the three mile radius, the population is more likely
to be minority, low income, linguistically isolated and less
likely to have a high school education than the U.S. population
as a whole. As a result, these communities may have fewer
resources with which to address concerns about their health and
the environment.
The importance of Superfund cleanup is highlighted by
recent academic research. You mentioned it as well, Mr.
Chairman, the article in the American Economic Review that
indicated that congenital abnormalities are reduced by roughly
20-25 percent for those living within 5,000 meters of a site.
As well, Senator Inhofe, you described the Tar Creek
Superfund site and their site actions have helped reduce the
percentage of local children who had elevated blood lead levels
from 35 percent to less than 1 percent. We are enormously proud
to have worked with partners in that respect, including
Executive Director Thompson's Oklahoma DEQ in this matter.
Besides the important health benefits, there are important
economic benefits generated by the Superfund Program. A 2012
study completed by researchers at Duke University and the
University of Pittsburgh found that deletion of a site from the
National Priorities List after cleanup significantly raised the
value of owner-occupied housing within three miles of the site
by between 18 and 24 percent.
The shape of the curve is instructive in that regard. The
study tracks the value changes in property over time, not just
at the time of discovery but as well the time all the way
through to deletion from the NPL.
What we find is that the property value decreases when the
site is proposed for the NPL but then increases by more than a
compensating amount when the site is finalized on the NPL and
then continues to increase as the cleanup progresses.
The market seems to be anticipating the work that the EPA
will do. That is, first announcement of a proposal does have a
draw down in the property value but then over time, the work
much more than makes up for that as we come to completion so
that at the end, when the site is deleted, it has increased in
value by between 18 and 24 percent.
That is residential, owner-occupied and that is the average
but of course what that means is that enables that neighborhood
and community to do that much more--not just on environmental
matters, but throughout the things that government can do.
Working with communities on the future of sites has
resulted in more than 700 Superfund sites in actual, continued
or planned reuse. At the 373 sites that have been studied,
there are more than 2000 businesses generating more than $32
billion in annual sales, providing more than 70,000 jobs and
$4.9 billion in employment income.
While Superfund continues to make progress, there are
challenges. One is that the funding has decreased from the
Fiscal Year 2011 budget of $605 million to the Fiscal Year 2014
budget of $500 million. This has resulted in a continued
backlog of sites.
The President's Fiscal Year 2015 budget requests an
increase of $43 million. The President has also requested that
the Congress reinState the lapsed Superfund tax.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That completes my statement. I and
Regional Administrator Enck will be happy to answer questions
from you or your colleague.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Breen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Booker. I am grateful for that. Why don't I lead
with the questions followed by the Ranking Member and if there
are more, given the limited time we have, we can go back for
another round.
Mr. Breen, thank you again for that great testimony and for
highlighting some of the issues that obviously are resident
with my opening remarks.
The EPA, we know, has the authority to create financial
responsibility requirements. This would require companies
currently managing hazardous substances to demonstrate they
actually have the financial ability to pay for any future
release of a hazardous substance.
It is very important we keep taxpayers off the hook for
cleaning up future Superfund sites. Right now, taxpayers are
often on the hook for the mistakes made in the inability to pay
of past companies.
This would ensure that funding is actually available so
that we don't have the problem we have right now of funding the
Superfund sites. I would like to know the status of the EPA
rulemaking on this issue?
Mr. Breen. In the vernacular, this is called the 108(b)
rulemaking because the statutory authority for it is in Section
108(b). I think it was actually in the original enactment in
1980. It was a very hard problem to approach and very
complicated, easy to frame but complicated to address.
Over the last several years, the EPA has started to address
it and has identified hard rock mining and mineral processing
as the first industries for 108(b) rulemaking. We currently
have that on a scheduled publication of a proposed rule in
2016.
We also have as well items underway in other industries but
I expect the hard rock mining and mineral processing would be
the first rules in this regard.
Senator Booker. What is the timeline on that, do you think?
Mr. Breen. 2016.
Senator Booker. 2016, for all areas?
Mr. Breen. No.
Senator Booker. Just the hard rock?
Mr. Breen. Mr. Chairman, that is right, just the initial
class of hard rock mining and mineral processing. Then there is
more that we expect will be studied as well.
Senator Booker. Ms. Enck, again, thank you so much for
being here and for the work you do in Region 2. I give you
gratitude for the work you do in Region 2, except for Puerto
Rico which I imagine you enjoy going to visit more than perhaps
New Jersey.
I'd like to get an update on the cleanup status of some of
the Superfund sites actually in New Jersey. I am concerned that
there are many hazardous sites in New Jersey that could be
moving forward with cleanup but are not because funding is not
available.
Yesterday, we visited together the Syncon Resins Superfund
site in Kearny, New Jersey. Paints, varnishes and resins were
formerly manufactured at this site. Hazardous chemicals were
found in both the soil and the groundwater. This site has been
on the NPL since 1983.
For the record, could you please give me an update on the
status of this site and when remediation work will begin?
Ms. Enck. Sure. Thank you, Senators. My sincere thanks to
both you and Senator Inhofe for convening this hearing on such
an important topic, especially for New Jersey where, as you
know, we have 149 Federal Superfund sites. I want to talk about
a few that we need resources to address.
Certainly Syncon Resins, which you visited yesterday, I
think really illustrates the challenge that is before us in
this program.
This is a 15-acre site, located on a peninsula right
between the Hackensack River and the Passaic River, so it
floods. During Hurricane Sandy, the groundwater remediation
building filled with water, and needed to stop operating.
We have done a lot of work at the site. It is contaminated
with volatile organic compounds like Solulene and Toulene and
heavy metals such as lead and nickel. It is contaminated with
PCBs and with highly toxic pesticides, DDT and Aldrin.
We have taken our work there very seriously--10,000 people
live within three miles of this site. The closest residents are
in the city of Newark, just one mile away from this site.
We have cut this site into two phases. Phase 1, we have
removed about 13,000 drums, many of them leaking chemicals. We
dealt with storage tanks, there were hazardous waste lagoons on
the site that we were able to remediate, and we installed a
groundwater collection system.
Phase 1 ran us about $21 million. This money came from the
Superfund because the company that created the mess, to use a
technical term, is bankrupt.
We want to get on to Phase 2 of cleaning up this site which
we are working together with the State of New Jersey on but
Phase 2 will cost $24 million. We currently do not have the $24
million available to finish the cleanup.
We have to dig out about 40,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil and there are a number of buildings on the site that are
on top of the contaminated soil, so we are going to have to
demolish the building. We are about $24 million short, so I
can't tell you what the timeline is to finish the job.
Senator Booker. I am going to let the Ranking Member ask
his questions. When I have a chance, I'd like to followup some
more.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Breen, I mentioned this briefly in my
opening remarks. Before we talk about additional money to the
Superfund Program, whether through revenue increases or
additional appropriations, I think we need to understand where
the money we are already appropriating is actually going.
The last report--maybe you know of one more current than
this--was in 1998 when the GAO reported that of all the
Superfund spending, less than half, 46 percent, was actually
used to clean up the contaminated sites. Has this report been
updated since 1998?
Mr. Breen. Senator, I am not aware of an update to the GAO
report of 1998 in that regard.
Senator Inhofe. My concern is with the administrative
efficiency of the EPA because I have been here since before
that time and it hasn't really improved over the last 16 years.
This means the money being appropriated for Superfund is not
being adequately managed or far fewer cleanups are being done.
Do you know if these numbers are any different today? Let
me ask you to do this. Go through each year, you should have
these fairly accessible to you, and let us know what has
happened each year in terms of the percentage of money that is
actually going to the Superfund sites. Could you get that for
us?
Mr. Breen. In fact, Senator, I brought some updated numbers
from the President's Fiscal Year 2014 budget. Actually we are
working off of Fiscal Year 2012 actuals that are reflected in
the Fiscal Year 2014 budget. This would be actual data.
In the actual data, the Superfund Remedial Program called
on 49 percent of the budget and the Superfund Emergency and
Removal Program called on 15 percent so that is 64 percent. The
Superfund Enforcement Program, which draws so much additional
money into the program, is an additional 15 percent so that 64
and 15 is 79 percent.
There are a number of areas that are 1 and 2 percent. There
is an area identified as operations and administration which is
10 percent.
That gives you some sense that roughly of three-quarters of
the money if not more is for actual remediation, removal and
enforcement.
Senator Inhofe. You are familiar with the President's plan
now then?
Mr. Breen. The President's plan.
Senator Inhofe. Budget.
Mr. Breen. The President's budget.
Senator Inhofe. At 0.12 percent on the surtax.
Mr. Breen. Senator, I don't want to miss one chance to
explain one more thing. You identified the need to be as
energetic as we can about saving money. Indeed, we are not
resting on leaving business as usual.
We have the Superfund Remedial Program Review underway in
which we are undertaking even more work. I wouldn't want to
leave you thinking we are just setting aside. For example, we
are looking at work sharing among various organizations within
the EPA and as well, trying to hold down the time.
Senator Inhofe. What position were you in at the time of
the Louisiana example I used? I couldn't remember the name but
I can go back there and get all that stuff because I remember
we had a hearing on that. We had a chance to do it a lot
cheaper by some contractor down there that wasn't able to do
it. Are you familiar with that case?
Mr. Breen. Personally, I am not.
Senator Inhofe. For the record, kind of look that up and I
will do that so we can communicate about that.
My concern is the surtax. I have two concerns. One is the
surtax and the other is taxing people who happen to be in the
oil industry or other industries when they haven't done
anything or created any problem in a Superfund site.
This 0.12 percent surtax would play not only to
manufacturing companies but software companies, financial
service companies, retail companies and some that pose no
threat at all to Superfund. Is that correct?
Mr. Breen. Senator, that portion of the tax is on incomes
above a certain threshold. Many small businesses would not be
subject to that portion of the tax.
Senator Inhofe. I am talking about businesses that have
nothing to do with anything that could result in a Superfund
problem.
Mr. Breen. I think it is the case that there is a
surprisingly wide array of diverse sectors represented in those
for whom Superfund responsibility ultimately is found. It is
actually quite remarkable how many people find themselves as
actual responsible parties. This is a way to recognize that.
Senator Inhofe. It may be a way to recognize that but you
are recognizing a lot more who have not found their way to do
anything like that. The last time that this proposal was made,
this was not even about a surtax. This was merely a tax on
companies only because at that time there were oil or gas
companies. That is where my opposition will come when we are
looking at this.
Thank you.
Mr. Breen. I would just add, the Administration proposal on
this, we actually provided bill language in 2010. It is with
one minor update the same language that the Congress adopted
the last time. We are not changing anything except for an
updated definition.
Senator Inhofe. I was opposed to it then too.
Thank you.
Senator Booker. Senator Gillibrand.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful
to be a part of this hearing. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member,
for holding it.
Superfund is a very serious issue in New York State. I am
grateful to see Judith Enck, who I have worked with for a very
long time. She has provided extraordinary leadership in my own
State of New York. Thank you, Mr. Breen, for joining us.
I have a few questions. I had an opening statement that I
will submit for the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Gillibrand follows:]
Statement of Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand, U.S. Senator
from the State of New York
Chairman Booker, thank you for holding this hearing today
to focus on the EPA's Superfund program, which is so important
to the states we represent. would like to take a moment to
welcome two witnesses to the committee today who both have a
special connection to my State of New York. Judith Enck is the
EPA's Regional Administrator for Region 2, which covers New
York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Regional
Administrator Enck is a native of UpState New York, and has
spent her entire career working to protect the environment of
our state. I am pleased that she is here with us today and I
thank her for her continued leadership.
I would also like to acknowledge Lois Gibbs, who led the
movement to bring awareness to and cleanup Love Canal. We all
know the story of Love Canal, and of the heroic fight that Lois
and her neighbors put up to protect the health of their
families and put right a disastrous wrong. Her activism paved
the way for the creation of the Superfund program, we are
grateful for her continued advocacy to protect children's
health.
Beginning with Love Canal, New York has benefited from the
Superfund program, through which we are cleaning up some of our
most contaminated properties and waterways. Since the program
started, there have been 116 Federal Superfund sites in New
York State, 86 of which are currently still active. These range
from the Hudson River to Onondaga Lake, and dozens of
industrial sites from the tip of Long Island to Niagara Falls.
Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that we are focusing this hearing on
faster cleanups. For the families who live near Superfund
sites, there is nothing more urgent than moving these projects
forward.
One particular community that I have heard from recently is
the Village of Holley, which is located near Rochester. This
village was affected by the spill of 75 gallons of chemicals in
2002, after which residents were forced to relocate because the
ground was too contaminated for them to continue to live in
their homes. The EPA purchased these uninhabitable homes, with
the intent of eventually returning them to the community. While
I appreciate all that has been done to-date by the EPA to
remediate this site, it is now 12 years after the initial
spill, and the village still does not have a clear time-table
for the sale of these homes or the fully finished remediation
of the site. This is just one example of what I'm sure are many
in each of our states.
But we in Congress must also do our part to ensure that the
EPA has all of the resources it needs to do an effective job at
cleaning up Superfund sites. I look forward to working with
you, Senator Booker, and with the other members of this
committee to continue to support this vital program that is
critical to the health and safety of our constituents. I look
forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses today, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Senator Gillibrand. My questions are focused on four
specific Superfund sites in New York State. The first one is
Onondaga Lake cleanup. The lake has a history of pollution from
municipal sewage waste and industrial discharge. In 1994, parts
of Onondaga Lake were placed on the National Priorities List.
Since being listed on the NPL as one of the Nation's most
contaminated sites, efforts to clean up the existing pollution
and mitigate future pollution have made Onondaga Lake the
cleanest it has been in over a century.
Senator Gillibrand. I know that the cleanup activities at
Onondaga have reached a critical point. I would like to make
sure that the restoration of the lake is completed in a timely
manner. Do you see or are there any key obstacles remaining to
finally getting Onondaga Lake off the NPL?
Ms. Enck. Onondaga Lake once had the distinction of the
most polluted lake in the Country. The good news is that it is
coming back and because of that downtown Syracuse is coming
back. I just met last week with the County Executive and we put
our heads together often on how to keep this cleanup moving.
I think we are in pretty good shape. It has taken a long
time. The waste beds that dotted the lake are being cleaned up.
Almost just as important, the huge amount of raw sewage that
went into Onondaga Lake is being addressed.
EPA has been working closely with the city of Syracuse and
the county to promote green infrastructure, a more
environmentally sustainable and often cheaper way to handle
wastewater.
We have worked closely with the Onondaga Nation. I think
the Nation would like to see a more thorough cleanup than is
underway but the massive amount of waste that dots that lake
makes actual removal of a lot of that waste virtually
impossible--30 years of multibillion dollar removals. I think
the Nation is happy with the progress that we have made to
date.
I think in time we could look forward not only to sort of a
process issue of delisting but making Onondaga Lake cleaner and
a real anchor for economic development in downtown Syracuse. It
has been a great cooperative effort with the local government,
the State of New York and EPA.
Senator Gillibrand. Another challenge is the Hudson River.
Can you provide me with an update on how the dredging is going?
What is the current status and what are the next steps?
Ms. Enck. How many hours do you have?
Senator Gillibrand. Thirty seconds.
Ms. Enck. The Hudson River is a real success story. I grew
up on the Hudson River, I think you spent a lot of time on the
river. We heard for 25 years from the PRP, General Electric,
first that PCBs were not a problem; second, that if you do
dredging it was going to cause resuspension; and third, it
wasn't worth spending the money.
None of those things have proven to be true. We are ahead
of schedule. We are about 60 to 70 percent done with dredging
PCBs out of the Hudson River. About 1,000 jobs were created and
Warren and Washington Counties desperately needed those jobs.
There has not been a problem with resuspension and I think
sometime in the future, it is going to be a long time but it
might actually be safe to eat the fish that you catch in the
Hudson. That was the driver on this cleanup.
Senator Gillibrand. The third issue is the Village of
Holley located near Rochester. The village was affected by a
spill of 75 gallons of chemicals in 2002, after which residents
were forced to relocate because the ground was too
contaminated. The EPA purchased the uninhabitable homes with
the intent of eventually returning to the community.
Basically, the Village of Holley needs more clarity from
the EPA on the timeline for completing the remediation. I just
wanted to get your thoughts on whether we can work together to
address these concerns?
Ms. Enck. That is an important site. We expect to have all
of the homes back on the market by the end of this year. I know
that the Village was concerned that there was a pretty
significant relocation. People had to leave their homes.
Now there is a desire to get about 15 homes back on the
market. We want to make sure those homes are safe and we should
have that done by the end of this calendar year.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the record a final question
about combined sewer overflows because there are many Superfund
sites like the Gowanus Canal in New York that have been
negatively affected by the combined sewer overflows In many
cases, fixing the problem is going to be very costly for the
municipalities.
For the record, I will submit two questions about that in
terms of how to help our cities meet those needs.
Thank you.
Senator Booker. Thank you, Senator.
If I can continue, I have some questions about the Carney
site. I'd also like to know about the Horseshoe Road site in
Sayreville, New Jersey.
The site was a former chemical processing site that
produced coal, tar, asbestos, pesticides and other harmful
chemicals. It was placed on the NPL list in 1995.
Could give me an update just on when remediation work will
begin?
Ms. Enck. Horseshoe Road is a highly contaminated site as
you have described. Right next door is the Atlantic Resources
Corporationsite. We have approached this to clean up both sites
almost simultaneously. We have spent $46.5 million in Superfund
dollars. Again, this is an orphan site. We don't have a
responsible party to pay the bill.
We need another $34 million. I cannot tell you today,
Senator, when that cleanup can be completed because I don't
currently have the money to do that because of the shortage of
funds. It seems a little crazy to do it halfway but that is our
fiscal reality with those two sites.
Senator Booker. Again, we have just gone through two sites
that are not having further action taken on them because we
simply don't have the money. Those are sites that are open
sores, so to speak, polluting our area with people living
around them. We know there are people living and residing
within a mile of both of those sites.
Both of those sites, Syncon Resins and Horseshoe are so-
called orphan sites where the polluters are not paying. We are
paying--EPA is paying. Both orphan sites, as we said, are
shovel-ready but remediation hasn't started because of lack of
funding.
The question I have is in a State like New Jersey where
there are well over 100 sites, are there other sites in New
Jersey just like these where but for the lack of funding, we
could be getting them cleaned up?
Ms. Enck. I am afraid the answer is yes. There are other
sites where they are orphan sites. We don't have enough money
to finish the job. What comes to mind right away is South
Jersey Clothing contaminated an old, large dry cleaner
facility, an industrial drycleaner which was contaminated with
PERC.
We have spent $19.6 million on that site. We need another
$2 million to get the job done. I am not sure where we are
going to find that money. Radiation Technology, we have spent
$1.3 million. We need another $2 million.
You will hear shortly from the Mayor of Garfield. I am not
going to get into a lot of detail there other than to say we
have spent $5 million at that site. It is in a residential area
and a wonderful community. Some people think of Superfund sites
as in a field and you just put a fence around them. Garfield is
a vibrant, urban community that has a Superfund site right in
the middle of it.
No remedy has been selected for the final cleanup but we
estimate it will cost tens of millions of dollars. We don't
have that money today for the Garfield site.
I can list others but your premise is absolutely accurate.
Senator Booker. Site after site after site in New Jersey
where we have significant a chemical presence and a tremendous
amount of poison are not being acted upon by the simple fact
that we don't have the resources to act upon them.
Mr. Breen. Senator Inhofe discussed understandably the
concerns about putting taxes on industries. I understand back
in the 1986 reauthorization supported by Republicans colleagues
of the Ranking Member, supported by frankly the Minority Leader
who voted for that, was a tax both on industries across the
board as well as on polluting industries, correct?
Mr. Breen. Yes, sir.
Senator Booker. The President's budget suggests doing it
both ways. I would like your response to focusing on those
polluting industries that produce tar sands, arsenic and the
like, if we focused on those industries having the potential to
cause serious damage, that would create funding to address some
of these issues, if we more narrowly tailored it to the
concerns the Ranking Member addressed?
Mr. Breen. That precise question hasn't been presented to
us for thoughtful review. We would want to be able to get back
to you on that.
Senator Booker. All right.
Let me finish with one more question. Ms. Enck, perhaps you
can take it.
In 2010, the GAO did a report that looked at whether the
level of appropriations over the prior 10 years would be
sufficient moving forward for EPA to perform the needed
Superfund cleanups.
After talking with the EPA regional officials like you, the
GAO concluded that the funds needed for the cleanups were
likely 2-2.5 times greater than the funding being appropriated.
Is that funding shortfall consistent with your experiences in
Region 2. Second, if it is and we do not address this, what
other solutions might we have in New Jersey, if any or if there
are none, please say that?
Ms. Enck. I think the GAO analysis is spot on. If you are
asking me could EPA, Region 2 use twice or two and a half times
more resources to address our backlog of Superfund sites, the
answer is yes, we can absorb that. We would rely on our
professional staff of scientists and engineers to cover more
sites.
It is not only just more sites. Because of these fiscal
constraints, we have had to calibrate the cleanup schedule on
some sites, for instance, the Roebling Steel Superfund site in
Florence Township, again an abandoned site, no PRP to carry the
cost. We have been spreading that out over a long period of
time.
This site was put on the Federal list in 1983. We have
spent $135 million. We are not done, so it really has hindered
redevelopment. If the GAO recommendation was to come true and
we had 2-2.5 times more resources, not only could we tackle
more sites but we could get to the finish line quicker.
We must protect public health. That is our legal
imperative, our science imperative to protect public health and
the environment but we also want to get these sites productive
and back on the tax rolls and being a real asset in communities
rather than just having locked gates around them with do not
enter signs.
Senator Booker. The last part of my question was, say we
don't do anything, Congress continues not to act. What are the
consequences of that?
Ms. Enck. The consequence is the process will be much
slower. I am not going to say that we are not going to put
sites on the list; if there is a public health imperative, we
act but you basically put it on a slower schedule and sites sit
undeveloped.
I really want to rebut the notion that we are not being
efficient with our resources. We are. We have a lot of sites.
We want to cover all of them. If there is not an increase in
funding, Superfund is super slow.
We want to pick up the pace because when we pick up the
pace, it means there is a greater level of public health
protection and greater opportunity for redevelopment at these
sites.
Senator Booker. Mr. Breen, I guess that is the anguish I
feel today and the more I have dug into this issue over the
previous months. I understand and we are going to hear from a
great panel about the economic development aspects. That is a
real issue in a slow economy.
Right smack in the middle of some of our small cities and
communities in New Jersey, you have these areas that could be
producing jobs, tax revenue and the like. I think that is
compelling enough of a reason.
Your mandate, as represented by the Region 2 director, is
for public health. In your remarks, you began talking about the
severe, this isn't bloody noses and a blister or two. These are
health consequences that are devastating and life threatening
to our most vulnerable populations as you pointed out, some of
the poorest communities.
These are things like birth defects and autism which New
Jersey has one of the highest national rates of autism, as well
as the highest number of Superfund sites, these are of real
concern.
You have this mandate to act. My question is you are
telling me right now that you are unable to meet this public
health crisis that you outlined simply because of the lack of
congressional action to provide you with the resources? Is that
what you are saying?
Mr. Breen. Senator, we do have across the Country what we
call unfunded, ready to go, new starts.
Senator Booker. What do you mean by ready to go?
Mr. Breen. Sites that are just waiting for funding in order
to get the cleanup underway.
Senator Booker. Is it a matter of prioritization? Can you
take money from someplace else? Are you guys spending money on
perhaps issues of other EPA enforcement? Can't you just take
some money from someplace else and put it into this?
Mr. Breen. Senator, the President has asked for money to
come into this. The Fiscal Year 2015 budget asks for $43
million more for this and additional dollars as well for the
emergency removal work. We are asking and very much hoping.
Senator Booker. I appreciate the two of you coming and
providing testimony on what I believe are unacceptable public
health crises in our Nation right now in which the anguish and
the pain of families dealing with the health consequences are
made real by numerous studies.
Thank you again, Mr. Breen and Ms. Enck.
I am looking forward to the next panel. It is good to have
you all here. I am deeply grateful that you would take time to
come to this important hearing.
I am going to read who we have before us today and then
begin with statements. First, we have Lois Gibbs, Executive
Director, Center for Health, Environment and Justice, an
organization you founded in 1981. It is not here but I assume
that was when you were about 10 years old.
The most important elected leaders in America are mayors.
We have with us Joseph Delaney, currently serving as Mayor of
the city of Garfield. Thank you very much for being here.
We also have Mr. Robert Spiegel, Executive Director and co-
founder of the Edison Wetlands Association. I am grateful that
you are here.
Also, we have Scott Thompson, currently serving as the
Executive Director for Oklahoma's Department of Environmental
Quality. Scott, if you heard the good things that Senator
Inhofe said about you behind your back, you'd be blushing right
now. I appreciate all the work you have done in the great State
of Oklahoma.
Then we have Ms. Susan Bodine, currently a partner at Barns
& Thornburg. Previously, Ms. Bodine served as the Assistant
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Thank you all for being here. As this is my first hearing,
I want you all to know that you never forget your first time.
Thank you all for being with me for this. You will be
remembered.
Why don't we start with Ms. Gibbs. I would appreciate it,
Ms. Gibbs, if you would share your opening statement with us.
Everyone, please mind your time.
STATEMENT OF LOIS GIBBS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR HEALTH,
ENVIRONMENT AND JUSTICE
Ms. Gibbs. Thank you. I want to thank all the committee
members for inviting me here to speak about a program that is
very near and dear to me.
As you said, I am Executive Director of the Center for
Health, Environment and Justice. We have worked for 12,000
grassroots groups across the Country faced with environmental
health risks.
I began my work as a victim at Love Canal in Niagara Falls,
New York. Over 30 years ago was my first time, Senator, when I
sat at a similar table and spoke to another congressional
committee about the need for funding of programs designed to
assess and cleanup hazardous waste sites.
My community at Love Canal was the impetus for the creation
of the Superfund Program after 20,000 tons of chemicals buried
in the middle of the neighborhood leaked into the surrounding
homes, yards and schools. I spoke then about the health
problems our neighborhood was faced with and how my daughter
and son were home sick with liver, urinary and central nervous
system disease.
It is tragic that now more than three decades later,
American communities face similar health threats to what I
faced at Love Canal. Again, I am here pleading for you to
support an effective Superfund Program.
There is no question about the need for the Superfund
Program or that the program must have a reliable funding to
protect American families and their communities. There is clear
evidence that many families who live near Superfund sites have
suffered from serious adverse health effects, especially the
children.
One study mentioned earlier found 20-25 percent increase in
birth defects from mothers who lived near Superfund sites when
they compared the birth outcomes before and after the cleanup.
It is the citizens and the health effects they suffer that
get lost in the discussion of resource allocations and the
control of Federal programs. Living in a Superfund community
where there has been limited abatement and no clear commitment
of whether the area will ever be livable again is an absolute
nightmare.
The families who live in the Waste Pits River site just
east of the city of Houston, Texas are suffering because of
contaminated fish and crab, common sources of food for these
low wealth families. ATSDR found dioxin levels in the fish that
were unacceptably high for cancer.
After more than 20 years, EPA has decided to leave the
waste in place and cover the pits rather than remove the
contaminated soil and sediment. Why, because the other
alternatives will cost too much money. The agency states it
does not have the money.
Similarly, residents living near the Tremont Barrel
Superfund site in Springfield, Ohio are concerned because
51,000 drums and 300,000 gallons of liquid toxic wastes were
dumped in the landfill which is sitting above an aquifer. The
aquifer provides drinking water for 82,000 people.
If the barrels are left in place, EPA's current preferred
option, this site will threatened the drinking water and public
health for decades. EPA claims removing the barrels would be
too costly.
EPA said the same thing about removing 8,000 tons of highly
radioactive waste buried in the West Lake Superfund site in St.
Louis County, Missouri. The problem with this plan is an
uncontrolled fire at an adjacent landfill that is moving toward
the radioactive waste.
Residents are already suffering respiratory problems from
the landfill fire and are concerned the fire will soon reach
the radioactive waste and add radioactive material to the gases
being released by the fire.
In addition to adverse health problems from contaminated
air and water left for decades, everyone who lives near a
Superfund site suffers from the Superfund stigma and the impact
on property values. Homes of hard working Americans become
essentially worthless. They can't sell them, they can't improve
them, they can't abandon them and they surely don't feel safe
living in them.
No bank will give families a loan against their home, so
they cannot fix the roof, improve their property or even use
the home equity to send their children to college. Property
values drop and the entire neighborhood begins to spiral
downward. Soon homes deteriorate and the neighborhood
deteriorates.
No one will move in. No one can move out. The economic
development comes to a screeching halt. These are not people
looking for a free ride or a handout. They are hardworking,
church going, tax-paying American families victimized by no
fault of their own.
For over 30 years, I have urged, begged and pleaded with
Congress to take care of the innocent families who have fallen
victim to corporate negligence and carelessness. Please, for
the innocent, hardworking American family, their dreams, their
hopes to be able to reach their potential, restore the polluter
pays fees so that there is a reliable source of funding to
provide the necessary cleanup to protect them and their
investment from the worse toxic waste sites in America.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gibbs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Booker. Thank you for that very important
testimony.
We will now move on to the Mayor.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH DELANEY,
MAYOR, GARFIELD, NEW JERSEY
Mayor Delaney. Thank you, Chairman Booker.
I appear before you today on behalf of the people of the
city of Garfield, a community of approximately 35,000 people
located in southern Bergen County in the State of New Jersey.
We are a multiethnic, multicultural and multi-religious
community. We are a microcosm of America itself.
Our city is an old industrial city filled with tired
factory buildings, many of which are beyond their useful life.
Many of those former industrial sites have contamination
problems which are beyond the grasp of local government to
handle.
We also border the Passaic River which is described by many
as one of the most polluted rivers in New Jersey runs from
Newark Bay to the Garfield Dam.
Back in 1983, at the EC Electroplating Factory located in
our community, there was a spill of hexavalent chromium.
Approximately 3,700 gallons of chromium were released into the
earth; 1,056 gallons were recovered with the rest remaining in
our soil.
Over the last 25 years, the New Jersey DEP handled this
site. They made a determination in the late 1980's that no
further action was required and that there were no health
concerns.
In early 1993, Fire Company No. 3, located in the
downstream plume of the undergroundwater table, had to be
closed due to the detection of hexavalent chromium in the
basement of that firehouse facility.
As we have learned, once hexavalent chromium enters a
building and crystallizes, it can be dispersed into the air.
Scientific evidence tells us that if you breathe that dust into
your lungs, it will likely cause cancer.
Approximately 5 years ago in the fall of 2008, our city
manager, Thomas Dutch, was contacted by the United States EPA.
He was told they were taking on the responsibility for the
chromium spill in our city.
His initial meeting with the EPA was productive, based on
the competence and genuine interest of the EPA in helping our
people. We provided them with a list of residents, property
owners and tenants in an effort to get notice out to the
community that the USEPA would investigate and examine homes
and properties in the affected area.
The EC Electroplating facility is located in a densely
populated section of Garfield. Within the spill area, there are
more than 600 separate parcels of property. These include one
and two family homes, multi-family dwellings, an elementary
school, a daycare facility, houses of worship, and industrial
and commercial properties.
We have 6,300 separate parcels of property in our city.
Therefore, almost 10 percent of our community has been
affected. Notification has been made to residents in multiple
languages: English, Spanish, Polish and Macedonian, but not
Gallic. I don't know why Gallic wasn't involved.
We have conducted many public hearings with the EPA to
provide information to our people and to answer their
questions. The EPA's team on the ground in the city of Garfield
has been exceptional. They have answered our concerns
professionally, knowledgeably and competently.
They have given reassurance to a scared populace. Despite
that reassurance, property values in the area have definitely
declined.
With the assistance of the EPA, 400 homes and properties
have been examined. Contaminated properties detected to date
have been cleaned up and monitoring wells have been installed
throughout the affected areas, between 8 and 400 feet deep in
order to fingerprint exactly where the contamination lies below
the surface.
To get to the ground below the ECD Electroplating factory,
demolition of the building on the surface was required. Due to
safety concerns from residents that chromium tainted dust could
be released from the property during demolition, an additional
public hearing was held with the staff and administration of
the K-5 elementary school, one block away from the site, which
included residents throughout the affected area.
The factor itself has now been demolished and contaminated
soil down to the water table has been removed. The site is
fenced and ready for the next phase, removal of the chromium
that sits below the ground in the water table of this
neighborhood.
This clean-up phase will absolutely require funding of the
USEPA initiative in the city of Garfield. We are a Superfund
site. We are a Superfund clean-up priority. We are a community
living in fear that this chromium in our water table may be
impacting the health, safety and welfare of our residents.
Our clean-up need is immediate. I urge your committee to
continue with the necessary funding to address Superfund sites
in the city of Garfield.
On a personal note, I have a grandson with autism. I have a
godson with autism, both born in the city of Garfield. I love
them dearly. I can't say that this caused it, I can't say that
it didn't cause it either. You are absolutely right, especially
these days with the rate of autism and especially in the State
of New Jersey.
I urge you to continue the cleanup in Garfield.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Delaney follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Booker. Mayor, thank you very much, especially for
the personal note at the end. I am grateful for that.
Mr. Spiegel.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT SPIEGEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CO-FOUNDER
OF EDISON WETLANDS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Spiegel. Thank you, Senator Booker.
Good afternoon. My name is Robert Spiegel, Executive
Director and co-founder of the Edison Wetlands Association.
Thank you for allowing me to testify on this extremely
important issue today, one that deeply impacts public health
and the environment.
Before I start my testimony, I would like to say that
cleanups of Superfund sites, not only make communities more
vibrant, they restore community health and welfare but they
also create jobs while the Superfund site cleanup work is going
on, sometimes for several years, good paying jobs, blue collar
jobs and support for jobs in communities where these cleanups
take place.
While they are also good for the environment, they also
stimulate the economy. We have seen that firsthand at many of
the Superfund sites that we have seen cleaned up in New Jersey
and beyond.
The EWA is a nonprofit organization that started in 1989. I
was working as a pastry chef at the time in a catering hall.
The hall's ice carver, John Shersick, who was also a naturalist
and hunter, came into my bakery because he liked the smell of
the baked goods, and asked me a question 1 day, hey, do you
want to come see some green rabbits?
I pretty much was the kind of person that minded my own
business, worked and didn't pay too much attention to the
environment, which in New Jersey is kind of a difficult thing
to do, but green rabbits were a little over the top.
I followed the ice carver onto a site called the Chemical
Insecticide Superfund Site on Whitman Avenue in Edison, New
Jersey. Indeed, the rabbits were green. It was because of a
chemical called DynaSep. What I saw that day was children
playing on the site, homeless people living on the site, people
scavaging wood to build their decks. What they didn't know was
this site was a place that made Agent Orange, the infamous
defoliant used in the Vietnam War.
That day turned me from a pastry chef into somebody that
got involved in Superfund and environmental remediation.
One of the things I wanted to talk about was over the last
10 years, we were able to get the last of the Superfund checks
to clean up that site. Christie Whitman came and delivered that
check. It was the last of the trust fund, the very last check.
It got the site cleaned up.
While we were happy that we got our site cleaned up, we and
the community around us were sad that somebody else didn't as a
result of the fact there was no more Superfund Trust Fund.
I am here today to discuss the trust fund and the reason
why we need it to clean up these so-called orphan sites. Orphan
sites are sites where there is either not anybody to start the
cleanup or there is insufficient money.
It has a rippling effect, not just on orphan sites, but
sites where there is an active, responsible party because we
have a thing called treble damages in Superfund where if a
Superfund polluter refuses to do the cleanup, EPA can step in
and do the cleanup and bill them for up to three times the
cleanup cost.
This big stick was seldom used by EPA but now without a
robust Superfund, that threat is hollow because the polluters
know that EPA cannot take over these cleanups and therefore,
are much less likely to undertake them themselves.
Priorities for cleanups in Superfund communities are now a
race to count the bodies of those who are sick and dying. Only
those communities with the highest body counts are getting the
funding from the EPA for Superfund cleanups. That is not the
promise that was made to the Nation when Superfund was enacted.
It was enacted to address the Nation's hazardous waste sites,
not just the ones with the highest body counts.
New Jersey has a rich industrial legacy which has been both
a blessing and a curse for our State. We have the most
Superfund sites and we have about 25,000 known contaminated
sites. If the Superfund Program was fully funded, by any
objective observer, these fees are modest, we would have the
funds to address the sites that are problematic in New Jersey
and around the Country.
In my research, Congressman Eckhardt's 1979 waste disposal
hearings, survey and final report show conclusively that the
chemical industry used the entire United States as its own
private chemical dump with no town or city being exempted from
industrial practices. It is only fair that they contribute the
modest fees asked of them to clean up the Nation's toxic waste
dumps and nightmare that they created.
I can talk about some of the sites that we work on like the
10 mile Bound Brook where we have active chemical discharge. It
is the most poisoned brook in New Jersey. You can't eat a
single fish out of it, yet the State of New Jersey and the EPA
have no funds to even finish the reports, no less start the
cleanup. We can discuss some of the sites if you like after my
testimony.
I always find it curious that when we need money to build
bombs or wage wars, there is always plenty of money to be
found, but whenever you ask for money for environmental
protection or Superfund site cleanups, there is never a dime in
our budget. I just think our priorities are backward.
This is a direct threat to our national security and towns
and cities across the Country. We need to reauthorize these
modest polluter pays fees so that we have the funds to clean up
the Garfields, the Ringwoods, the Pompton Lakes, the towns
throughout New Jersey and beyond and have the funds needed to
not only create good jobs, but revitalize these communities and
protect public health and the environment.
Thank you, Senator Booker.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spiegel follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Booker. Mr. Spiegel, thank you very much for your
testimony.
Susan Bodine.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN BODINE,
PARTNER, BARNS & THORNBURG
Ms. Bodine. Thank you very much, Chairman Booker, for
inviting me to testify today on protecting taxpayers and
ensuring accountability, faster Superfund cleanups for
healthier communities.
I have I think voluminous testimony in the record so I am
going to try to be very short and make a few highlights. Then I
want to talk about the funding issue.
EPA can protect taxpayers by staying within its statutory
authority, focusing on national priorities, and making sure it
follows its own policies. Headquarters does put out a number of
policies and has a number of expert groups whose role is to
assist the regions in remedy selection, making sure they follow
national policy, and making sure that they are developing
protective and cost effective remedies.
There is a management issue there in that the regions don't
report to the headquarters Superfund Program, there is no line
authority there, so it is more hortatory trying to make sure
the regions are following national policy.
Nonetheless, the policies are there and we do have these
expert work groups of headquarters and regional staff who are
there to assist regions to make sure they are developing cost
effective remedies that stay within the legal authorities.
I want mention the fact that EPA's Superfund Program is
protecting communities. That is, of course, the highest
priority. The agency is focusing on cutting off exposure which
is different from returning to economic reuse. First and
foremost, cutting of exposure, protecting human health at these
sites is happening first. That is the highest priority.
Returning sites to beneficial use can take longer. That may
not be the highest priority in every situation. It is a good
thing, everyone agrees it is a good thing, but from a budgetary
standpoint, protecting human health is absolutely the highest
priority.
Returning sites may lag and that is why you do see in some
of these cases, situations where EPA goes in and screens the
400 homes in Garfield, makes sure the 13 homes with high
exposures are cleaned up and then the site itself, which isn't
presenting exposure issues right now, may lag but that is a
funding issue.
That is a priority issue where returning to economic
development, which everyone agrees is important, isn't as high
a priority as cutting off exposure and protecting people.
In answer to the question could the Superfund Program spent
more money, the Regional Administrator said she could spend
twice as much money. The President didn't ask for twice as much
money; the President's request for 2015 is $1.156 billion for
the Superfund Program. The Deputy Administrator explained how
that was carved up to different offices and different purposes.
Nonetheless, the Superfund Program competes with every
other program within the Federal budget for money. That is true
whether or not the Superfund taxes are reinstated. That is true
whether or not there is money in the Trust Fund, whether or not
there is a huge balance in the Trust Fund.
The reason that the Superfund Trust Fund is on budget, it
is part of the unified Federal budget. It is not off budget,
there are no firewalls. If it were off budget, it would truly
mean that it could not be expended at all for other purposes.
If it were firewalled, this is something this committee
holds near and dear because you have the Highway Trust Fund.
The Highway Trust Fund has firewalls. That means that the
funding in the Highway Trust Fund cannot be used to offset
Federal spending. That is not true of the Superfund Trust Fund.
That is why when the taxes were being collected, the trust
fund was gaining a very large balance. In fact, at the end of
1995, it had a balance of $3.7 billion, whereas the
appropriation for 1995 was $1.4 billion and the appropriation
for 1996 was $1.3 billion.
The trust fund balances and the appropriations have never
tracked. Again, it is because that money is not mandatory
spending, it is not off budget, it is not available, it has to
be appropriated and the money can offset any other spending.
The taxes, you had a bit of discussion on the taxes
earlier, are simply raising revenue. That is policy neutral or
it is morality neutral. You can put an excise tax, a sales tax,
on the sale of chemicals, you can put an excise tax on the sale
of oil, the tax will be passed through and people who buy
products made with chemicals, whether it is a car seat, a bike
helmet or anything else, or people who buy gasoline, are going
to pay more.
You can also put a tax on corporate environmental income.
It is a net income above $2 million. Net income above $2
million it is a tax across the board. Again, that is value
neutral. It is not polluter pays because there is no
determination if these entities are polluters and if a company
produces oil or chemicals and creates a problem, the companies
paying taxes are the ones in business. They are paying for any
cleanup of pollution that they create.
In fact, they are not doing it under Superfund. There is a
whole other program, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act,
RCRA. Ongoing industrial operations are addressed under RCRA
and are not even addressed under Superfund for an ongoing.
Superfund is for the legacy sites.
I have gone way over my time but I just wanted to make sure
that you understood how the trust fund works and what the taxes
are.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bodine follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Booker. Ms. Bodine, that was very helpful. I am a
vegetarian so forgive the analogy, but that had a lot of meat
on it, so I appreciate it.
Scott Thompson?
STATEMENT OF SCOTT THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. Thompson. Good afternoon, Chairman Booker.
I'd like to thank you and Ranking Member Inhofe for
allowing me to speak today.
My name is Scott Thompson, Director of the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality.
My personal involvement with Superfund started in 1984. I
was out pulling samples across Oklahoma, evaluating sites for
the Superfund Program.
I would like to begin by thanking EPA Administrator
McCarthy for bringing a very cooperative atmosphere to working
with headquarters, the regions and the States. I think that is
very healthy.
One program we work in that demonstrates the success of
partnerships between EPA, the States and the local stakeholders
is the Brownfields Program. Information we previously obtained
through the Superfund Site Assessment Program on various
Oklahoma sites allowed us to get expedited redevelopment on
many brownfields properties.
Additionally, the liability releases through the
Brownfields Program have provided the necessary assurances to
entice developers to invest in communities and to spark more
urban renewal.
Two examples of successful, award winning projects include:
one, the Guthrie Green Project in Tulsa which was funded by the
non-profit George Kaiser Family Foundation, and was the
recipient of the 2012 Brownfields Renewal Award; and two, the
Devon Energy Center in Oklahoma City which received the 2012
EPA Region 6 Phoenix Award as well as the 2012 National Phoenix
Award.
Both sites are now vibrant recreational gathering places
that have sparked economic and cultural rejuvenation in Tulsa
and Oklahoma City. These major successes were only possible
through the teamwork of many dedicated partners.
The importance of public funding for the Brownfields
Program cannot be overstated. Its greatest impact is by
removing perceived and real environmental obstacles at sites
and allowing economic redevelopment and encouraging other
private development around those sites.
The program demonstrates that modest public investment can
lead to extraordinary growth that far exceeds the original
scope of the original brownfields project. Due to the major
impact that brownfields funding has had in Oklahoma, the
Oklahoma DEQ strongly supports reauthorization of this program.
The Superfund process, while noble in its goals, is not
without its drawbacks. It takes a very long time to
successfully complete the process and can put a strain on
resources, on communities, on human health and on the
environment.
Our lengthy experience with Superfund sites at the DEQ
strongly indicates the best way to maintain cost effectiveness
and to adequately protect human health and the environment is
to have responsible government oversight of contractors.
One recommendation I have for improving the Superfund
Remedial Program is to look at the Superfund Emergency Response
Program as a model. On-scene coordinators function as onsite
construction and contract managers in a way that is
substantially different than some remedial project managers.
In my experience, RPMs are often removed from onsite
remedial actions. Cost control on remedial projects is at times
managed in an inefficient way in comparison to removal actions.
Remedial actions on National Priorities List sites would
benefit if the RPM model was modified to mirror the OSC model.
Fostering innovative partnerships is another way to ensure
cost efficiencies and to better protect human health and the
environment. One example of such a partnership is the
cooperative agreement between EPA Region 6 and the Quapaw Tribe
which was fully supported by the Oklahoma DEQ.
This groundbreaking agreement provided the tribe with funds
to conduct cleanup of specific tribal property while providing
a platform for the tribe to demonstrate its capability to
protect tribal homelands.
The implementation of this agreement successfully
demonstrated that direct local involvement can be more cost
effective and that local communities have a vested interest in
protecting their homes.
However, an opportunity was missed to continue the cleanup
of adjacent property while the Quapaw Tribe was mobilized in
the field. This would have saved us some remobilization costs
and got the job done quicker. I am fully supportive of
providing matching funds for the Quapaw Tribe to do work on
non-tribal properties because the tribe has demonstrated its
ability to do high quality work.
States have developed robust expertise in implementing
Superfund and have a vested interest in ensuring that Superfund
sites within their borders are adequately cleaned up. It seems
that strong consideration should be given to delegating the
program or portions of the program to the States.
At a minimum, Congress and the EPA should facilitate
cooperation between the various EPA regional offices and
respective State environmental agencies. In my nearly three
decades of working in the Superfund Program, we had our
greatest successes when had strong partnerships with EPA and we
worked as a team.
Again, thank you, Chairman Booker, for allowing me to speak
today. I'd be happy to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Booker. Thank you for that valuable testimony. You
give a lot of gratitude to me but I want to thank our Ranking
Member Inhofe for including you as well. Your testimony is very
valuable.
I'd like to begin the questioning. If any Senators return,
I will allow them to come in.
Ms. Bodine, I really appreciate your comments. In fact, the
issue of the firewall is something my team has been working on.
We will be putting that in the legislation we will be putting
forward.
I also appreciate the truth of the matter that sometimes
these are done in phases. Some of those phases are to deal with
that health urgency we have talked about. I think your point
was right on, spot on.
I am concerned about and am curious to get your input for
the record as to the simple issue of funding. I agree with you
100 percent. You can call it whatever you want, we have lots of
fancy names for revenue in the Senate, as I am quickly
learning, but as you said, it is value neutral, the resources.
That is not my issue. I think that is something that
Congress has to figure out the best way to pay for it or
whether to do anything differently.
My question for you is, do we need more funding? I will be
specific. If we know that stopping the health risk is the
priority, the economic development is secondary, I would agree
with you on that.
The evidence right now is really stunning to me on those
that pose ongoing health risks to families and communities. The
EPA in 2010 noted that 75 of the sites on the NPL nationally
presented what they termed an unacceptable level of human
exposure. What bothers me now is that number is now up to 89
around our Country, posing serious health risks to communities,
much of which are now being documented by academic peer-
reviewed studies.
The response I seem to get from the previous panel is that
some of those sites we are not moving on because we don't have
the resources. In your experience dealing with these issues,
both in the public and private sectors, do we have the
resources needed to deal with the ``unacceptable level of human
risk'' in the expedited fashion that would best protect the
American public?
Ms. Bodine. One of the measures is the human exposure
measure. It is very good that the agency tracks that. They
haven't always in the past and do track that now.
To answer your question, you'd have to know why the human
exposure was still not under control. That is the test. I
strongly believe that EPA does everything it can to cutoff
human exposure as quickly as possible.
Some of the sites not under control that can still cause
human exposure are sites where the exposure is, for example,
fish consumption and there is a fish advisory in place saying
don't eat the fish but nonetheless the agency is aware that
some people do eat the fish. Therefore, it labels the site
human exposure not under control.
Nonetheless, it will take decades and decades to get the
levels down so that the fish consumption advisory can be
lifted. That is a situation where EPA is doing what it can, but
it is going to take a very long time before that can be lifted.
In other situations, communities don't give access. I don't
think every home in Garfield gave access. If the agency can't
get access to the site, they can't do the cleanup, then the
agency is not going to call it human exposure under control
because it is not. Nonetheless, they did everything they could.
Each of those up to 89 sites, you'd have to look and see
why. You are assuming it is funding; I am not assuming. I am
assuming that the agency is doing everything it absolutely can
to get that human exposure under control.
Senator Booker. So you are not representing that all of
these 89 are just because of non-funding related issues. You
are saying you'd have to evaluate them?
Ms. Bodine. Right. I don't know the story. I am not
assuming it is not funding, I would not assume it was funding
either. In fact, I guess I would go further and say I am
assuming it is not funding because I do believe the agency has
and certainly should have if that isn't the case, has its
priorities in place so it is spending money first to eliminate
exposure.
Senator Booker. So the testimony of Judith Enck that she is
ready to move on some of these sites that are considered
unacceptable human risks, she feels we need to address them,
and when she says the only thing stopping her is funding, you
are saying that is not the case?
Ms. Bodine. You are referring to the Regional
Administrator's testimony?
Senator Booker. Yes.
Ms. Bodine. Again, you'd have to look at each story. I am
not going to say it is not accurate. I'd have to look at the
sites to which she was referring.
Senator Booker. You just said that you thought none of them
had to do with funding issues.
Ms. Bodine. That I thought none of them had to do with
funding issues on the human exposure issue. I did agree that
getting sites back into productive use is lagging due to
funding. Sites aren't going to be completed as quickly due to
funding. I think the agency is doing everything it can to get
the exposure under control.
If it isn't, if it is prioritizing economic redevelopment
over human exposure, that is a problem. That is something as an
oversight agency, you should look at.
Senator Booker. Ms. Gibbs, I was out with the EPA Region 2
director on a number of these sites that do have ongoing human
exposure that claim the funding and resources aren't there. In
fact, it really disturbed me that a lot of unanticipated
weather events have further added to the health concerns on the
sites we are not moving on simply because of lack of money.
For example, the flooding we got during Hurricane Sandy at
a lot of these sites aggravated human exposure and the levels
that are very frightening to me. The site I stood on had severe
flooding which then carried much of those contaminants that
were otherwise isolated back into our water table, our drinking
water table in and around the site I was on.
I have testimony from folks out there in the field who do
know the details of all the sites telling me not only is it an
ongoing health risk but it is also now being aggravated by
these once in a hundred year weather events. I seem to see them
now about every other year in New Jersey.
You spoke about the suffering of your children and others
in the Love Canal community from living on top of a Superfund
site. Much of the debate over Superfund focuses on how much it
costs to clean it up.
I don't know how you really measure the costs. As said by
Mr. Spiegel, over the last 30 years you have been involved in
this, you have witnesses the Senate move to help savings and
loans come up with tremendous resources during that crisis. You
have watched bank bailouts, tremendous money during that
crisis. You have watched a war in Iraq spending billions of
dollars every week to deal with that crisis. I have watched
thankfully natural disasters, most recently Sandy, and dealing
with that crisis.
I believe that crises that face our children and their
health and well being, which you have personally experienced,
should be a matter of priority and urgency at the same level if
not more than just a handful of things this body seems to come
up with the resources to deal with.
I'd like to ask, these public health costs, could you tell
me the real nature of those public health costs and risks in
the human terms you have experienced in your 30 years of work?
Ms. Gibbs. I don't have actual numbers but I will tell you
that what is forgotten in this is those human costs. You have
mothers and fathers who have children who have to go to the
hospital. If you look at the Oklahoma site mentioned earlier,
there are children 1-5 who have very high levels of lead. Those
children lost IQ points. What does that cost? Where are those
children going to go? How do they make a living?
It is a bigger societal cost. What does it cost to take
somebody to the hospital for asthma? It is a huge cost. I think
that is what is being forgotten.
My children, fortunately, survived Love Canal. Others did
not. When you have a miscarriage, what is the cost? You have
medical costs associated with it, but what is the cost to
society when a woman loses a child, a child she was ready and
prepared to have a happy life with and then it is gone by no
fault of her own?
I really think the human element of this, in the eye of the
storm is what we call it, when the tornado went through
Oklahoma, when Sandy hit there, when Katrina hit the
agricultural Superfund site in southeast New Orleans, it
creates additional environmental costs because when you take
the agriculture landfill and spread it all out in southeast New
Orleans, you have to go back and test it again, clean it up
again and assess it again.
Without the proper amount of money to totally cleanup these
sites, we are just going to keep on feeding, feeding and
feeding the same problems over again.
I was around when the tax and the polluter pay fees were
established, if I could add one more thing. The income tax part
of the polluter pay fee is the price of a pizza. I know that
sounds very simple because corporations are saying they are
going to go bankrupt.
The fact of the matter is if a company makes a million
dollars, say Exxon, and had to pay the income tax, the old
established tax according to the 1986 bill, on every million
dollars, it would be the price of a cheese pizza. That is what
we are really talking about here.
We are talking about a woman who loses a child, a family
who has a child who no longer can reach its potential because
of IQ loss or other things for the price of a pizza. It
literally is $12 per million dollars. To have so little
disregard for human life, family and property that the other
side would argue that the whole world is going to come crashing
down and our economy for the price of a pizza. That is really
what we are talking about.
My children almost died on me. My church can buy plenty of
pizza and they don't have a lot of money like some of these
larger corporations. I really encourage you.
I don't know the numbers, I know the suffering and I know
it does cost money. My husband made $10,000 a year. My
daughter's hematology clinic cost us $90 a week. That adds up a
lot. You just get trapped.
Senator Booker. Thank you, Ms. Gibbs.
Mr. Spiegel, I want to talk about a specific site with you.
It is a New Jersey Superfund site I am really concerned about.
It is the Ringwood Mine site. That site was listed as a
Superfund site, then it was delisted in 1994. Then in 2006, it
was relisted again.
I know you have worked with the local residents there.
Could you describe the impact that site has had on the local
community, bringing to light the costs we don't often see when
we add dollars and cents? In your response, can you include the
Ramapough Lenape community?
Mr. Spiegel. Sure. Originally, the late Senator Lautenberg
requested that I go up to see Ringwood and assist the community
because the Senator was very concerned about the situation in
Ringwood, the wholesale poisoning of the Ramapough Lenape
Indian Nation.
That is a community that lives in upper Ringwood. They
actually live on the mountains where the iron mines of Ringwood
provided iron for the building of the United States, and have
lived there for 300 years.
They provided the iron that helped to build the dome of the
Capitol in the United States. They mined the iron that made the
first 500 cannonballs shot in the Revolutionary War. They
played a significant part in the Country's success and were
repaid by being wholesale poisoned by toxic waste dumped on
them by the Ford Motor Company from their manufacturing base in
Mahwah, New Jersey.
When I went up to this community, I could not believe what
a beautiful and amazing area this is. It sits above the Wanaque
Reservoir which provides drinking water for 2 million north
Jerseyians, including Newark.
This place is of such immense beauty, when I went up there
and saw the absolute devastation brought on these very proud
and hard working Native American families, I cried my first
night. I went to a meeting and after that, I made a commitment
that I would not leave this community until it was cleaned up.
Every home in the 50 homes in the upper Ringwood area has
either someone who has died, know someone who is currently
dying or has lost a child. I have worked with Vivian Milligan
who is an activist up there who just refuses to give up the
fight. She wants to get her community back.
This is a community that lives off the land like most
Native American communities. They hunt the land, they gather
berries and medicinal medicines and have been there for
hundreds of years. Now their way of life is being threatened.
Senator Booker. Based on your experience in New Jersey, are
there sites with unacceptable ongoing risks of human exposure
that need additional funding? I know you work with the EPA and
have a lot of personal experience with their assessments. I
would appreciate it if you would answer that question.
Mr. Spiegel. Yes, sir. Every single Superfund site that is
not remediated has unacceptable exposures. I have not seen a
Superfund site in New Jersey that does not stop at the fence
line where the chemicals are not running into residential
neighborhoods or waterways, into playgrounds or parks.
There are dozens of sites that we work on day in and day
out that have chemicals that are impacting the health of
children. If you went to Ringwood, you would see firsthand the
absolute misery and death that has been brought upon this
community by no fault of their own, by the poisons dumped by
Ford Motor Company.
It is the only site in the Country that had to be relisted
a second time because of the failure at all levels of
government. The families there want nothing more than you and I
want which is to have a safe place to raise our children and
continue on living.
They can't because right now EPA has not decided whether or
not they are going to clean up the mineshafts or require Ford
to clean up the toxic sledge because of money, plain and
simple. They do not have the money to do it if Ford refuses.
Senator Booker. Regarding the health issues and the Mayor's
testimony, the honesty he gave in his personal comments, that
is a lot of anecdotal evidence. Are you familiar with a lot of
the studies that are coming out now, especially the one done at
Princeton that looked at hundreds of thousands of American
birth records?
I was amazed with the things they control for, age, whether
the people smoked or not and concluded that there was a 20
percent increase in birth defects before cleanups of Superfund
sites compared to after the remediation.
Have you done any kind of analysis of the studies that are
out there that my team was wading through in preparation for
this hearing?
Mr. Spiegel. I have looked at the studies. They study you
are discussing was one that was trying to show the opposite.
They ended up showing that in fact communities where Superfund
sites were cleaned up showed a marked increase in the health of
the children across the board.
It is not rocket science to understand that when you have a
poisoned community and clean it up, that community is not only
going to be more vibrant with better places to live, but the
people are going to be healthier. I have seen community after
community in New Jersey where people who live near these
Superfund sites get sick and die.
I don't have to look at statistics because I go to the
funerals of the families in Ringwood. I go to the funerals of
the families in Pompton Lakes. I go to the funerals of families
that live around the Cornell-Dubilier site and other sites
where we work.
I see firsthand the absolute misery and suffering that
these families go through only because they picked the wrong
zip code to raise their family. Nobody should have to sacrifice
a family member because they picked the wrong zip code and
happen to live near a Superfund site that doesn't have the
funds to be cleaned up.
Senator Booker. Just to conclude with you, Mr. Spiegel, you
work closely with EPA officials. I think you actually have a
degree of respect for those working out there and you have seen
a number of them. I know you worked with Lisa Jackson before
and others.
Is it right to conclude that if these officials had more
resources, they could get the job done a lot quicker? Is that
your conclusion?
Mr. Spiegel. Absolutely. At one site alone, Bound Brook, we
have a ten mile poisoned brook where children are playing that
has an active discharge of chemicals, of PCBs and dozens of
other chemicals.
EPA doesn't even have the funds to put out the study. Mark
Weston, the project manager, can't release the study because
they don't have the funds to finish it. When we talk about
cleanups, when EPA doesn't even have the funds to finish the
investigative work, no less the cleanup, that tells us that we
have a drastic emergency, one in which certainly funding would
go a long way.
Going back to the Oklahoma Director of Environmental
Quality, the emergency removal branch of EPA in Region 2 is by
far the best I have ever seen. They can go in and get the job
done very quickly at sites. They can assess them. We have seen
them work together with the remedial branch to fast track
investigations so that we can get to the cleanups quicker.
If we had more funding in the removal branch, which goes
out first to these imminent threats, and gave them more funding
to be able to go in and get these sites moving quicker, these
sites would be cleaned up quicker.
Senator Booker. Mayor Delaney, thanks again for being here.
We have talked about a lot of the health aspects, but you
and I also were mayors. I was a mayor, you are a mayor. Could
you tell me in general the impacts the Superfund site has had
on your residents in terms of not just health but this is prime
real eState in your city and the loss of that economic
generation, I wonder if you can speak to that as well?
Mayor Delaney. Of course it has an economic impact. I know
a dear friend of a family that lives in the direction of that
plume. They wanted to sell their house and they can't even sell
their house. The house depreciated at least 40 percent since it
was determined they were in that area. That affects everything
from their credit to the way they live, everything they do.
The most important object a person buys is their house.
When your house depreciates that quickly, it throws the whole
family into a tailspin. It is saddening to see the prices and
value of the homes in this area.
Senator Booker. You know this from other mayors. The
opportunities for future economic development onsites where you
could build or have other companies come or what have you, can
you give an understanding, to your knowledge, of what it means
to a community to get back a contaminated area?
Mayor Delaney. It is very important to get back a
contaminated area, to put it back on the tax rolls and see
people back to work in certain areas. We do have contaminated
properties, not Superfund sites, in the city of Garfield where
people are looking to invest and clean it up.
The talk is, let's get this done. There are people who will
definitely thrive once you do cleanup the property and put it
back on the tax rolls.
Senator Booker. Mr. Thompson, the good partnerships you
have between localities is so important and with the Federal
Government in these cleanups. I want to get to your experience
because Mayor Delaney, you have sort of bad experiences in some
sense if this partnership doesn't work like it should.
I think there is some idea in Washington that Congress
should give more control of the Superfund Program to the States
rather than keeping authority or control with the EPA. The EC
Electroplating Factory site in Garfield was managed by the
State for a while. In fact, it was managed from 1983 when the
hexavalent chromium spilled until about 2008.
From your experience, can you tell us what it was like when
the site was managed by the State versus when it was managed by
the EPA?
Mayor Delaney. Honestly, I feel the State dropped the ball.
The State did not do the work that it should have done. I don't
know if they thought the chromium would just disappear. Stuff
like that don't go away. To do nothing is the worse. To do
something is much better.
When the EPA did come in, we saw some progress and that
alone left the residents feeling better, that something
actually was being done right now. Everybody realizes this
stuff just don't disappear.
Senator Booker. Ms. Gibbs, let me ask a concluding
question. You have been fighting this battle for decades. That
means a lot to me as a newbie here in the U.S. Senate that you
have put in that kind of effort.
You worked with the environmental champion that was here
before me who I think a lot of Americans, from those flying on
planes without cigarette smoke, have benefited from that
gentleman's efforts on environmental issues in general.
To see some of these sites go on for decades in the State
of New Jersey, literally in 30 years, an entire generation has
grown up in our State in and around these sites. I wonder if
you could advise a Senator like me on how to solve this
problem?
I am now considering legislation with some of the wisdom
expressed by Ms. Bodine and others of putting a firewall on the
money, looking to legislation that would stop Congress from
having to appropriate it every single year but have those funds
dedicated and focused.
Looking at a funding mechanism, I think that is where the
issue and debate is going to be. It seemed something that was
right for Reagan, that was right for McConnell, that was right
for pretty much 80 of the 100 Senators in 1986, if I remember,
that reauthorized those funding mechanisms.
Now that funding has lapsed. The slowness that we see of
getting these sites remediated to which the testimony of the
previous panel specifically pointed, the slowness is caused, I
think Ms. Bodine was right, by a lot of other factors. Clearly
there are shovel-ready projects right now that were testified
to.
As look to focus on legislation, as this panel will have to
discuss it, and great Senators like Senator Inhofe who has been
focused on these issues for some time, I am wondering in my
heart if you have any final bit of advice for me because with
all due respect, I don't want to be here 30 years from now
dealing with this issue and have my children, who are yet
unborn, be growing up in my State that I love with over 100
Superfund sites moving so slowly.
I am wondering, given the technical aspects of having to
design legislation, if you would have any specific parting
advice on this hearing? Obviously, I would be open to everybody
and look for advice as we try to push forward and actually
solve this problem.
Ms. Gibbs. Thank you for that question.
I think that one of the biggest things is to not have the
fees or the funding mechanism sunset. In 1996, there was
agreement to do the feed stock fee as well as the income tax.
Then after a sunset, we are starting from scratch.
I really think that whether you put firewalls on it or how
you go about it, whatever we are able to do to get money in
there, we need to make sure it does not sunset.
I think one of the keys that Administrator Enck and others
talked about is what we need to have a stable funding mechanism
which is meant for this program.
My other piece of advice is to follow Senator Lautenberg's
lead. He did an extraordinary job of being persistent and a
little aggressive, a heck of a smart man and a mentor whom I
certainly enjoyed working with through my 30 years on
Superfund.
Senator Booker. That is incredibly helpful.
Ms. Gibbs. You could also serve pizza at the meeting.
Senator Booker. What is that?
Ms. Gibbs. You could also serve pizza at your first meeting
to discuss this. Maybe someone will ask why you are eating
pizza.
Senator Booker. That is a very good point.
After Mr. Spiegel's testimony and he told me he was a
pastry chef, I thought maybe he would have brought me something
for this meeting, but that might have violated some of the
rules of ethics. I appreciate you not putting me in that bind
where I value my moral values versus my temptation to consume
carbohydrates.
I want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
those very disturbing health studies I referenced in my opening
statement. They are chilling and disturbing and should be
motivating us as a nation to see this as the crisis it is and
to solve the problem with the collective wisdom of both
parties, especially the study relating to birth defects and
autism.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Booker. Hearing no objection, I would also ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record letters from
Congresswoman Julia Brownley of California and multiple
California mayors and city officials. These letters all support
the complete remediation of the Halaco Superfund site in
Oxnard, California. I think those are important to include in
the record as well.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Booker. I want to thank you all for your time. I
know it takes a lot of energy to come here to Washington and
participate in a hearing but this hearing is of great
importance. The testimony from everyone, I must say, was
invaluable.
Thank you very much.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]