[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2439-S2440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


                       THE TULALIP SUPERFUND SITE

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask that a copy of a letter from 
Elliot Laws, EPA Assistant Administrator, on the subject of the Tulalip 
Superfund site be printed in the Record immediately following my 
remarks.
  The letter from EPA clarifies that the Agency fully intends to comply 
with the report language included in the fiscal year 1996 Senate VA-HUD 
and independent agencies report on the Tulalip Superfund site. In 
addition, the letter promises to provide further information on the 
liability of the Tulalip Tribe for the cleanup of the Superfund site.
  The letter follows:
                                                U.S. Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 1996.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: Thank you for inviting us to meet with 
     you on Monday, March 11, 1996, concerning the Tulalip 
     Landfill Superfund Project. This is to summarize the meeting 
     with Timothy Fields, Jr., Deputy Assistant Administrator, 
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and Kathryn 
     Schmoll, Comptroller, and to reiterate the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency's (EPA) commitment to work closely with you 
     and to carefully and thoroughly consider issues you have 
     raised regarding this matter.
       The meeting focused on three key issues you raised: 
     conducting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) with the 
     interested parties, performing a baseline risk assessment, 
     and incorporating the results of these activities into a new 
     review of remedial alternatives for the site. We also 
     discussed EPA's recent decision to issue an Interim Record of 
     Decision (ROD) for the source areas of the site, and other 
     issues relating to allocation of remedial costs.
       EPA has already taken a number of steps consistent with the 
     goals you have laid out. For example, we have engaged the 
     potentially responsible parties (PRPs) and others in an 
     extensive dialogue on Tulalip. The Region extended the public 
     comment period on the proposed remedial action plan from 30 
     days to 80 days, held two public meetings, reviewed and 
     responded to voluminous comments, and thoroughly documented 
     the remedy selection process before publishing the interim 
     ROD. The Agency also generated an extensive record of written 
     communications with the PRPs addressing the cleanup 
     alternatives and the differences between the reviews which 
     the PRPs and EPA have performed. Senior EPA Headquarters 
     management also met with representatives of the PRPs in order 
     to hear and respond to their concerns with the remedy 
     selection process.
       Publishing the interim ROD is part of a comprehensive 
     effort to identify and address all actual and potential risks 
     associated with this site. It is designed to control 
     migration of contaminants from the source areas of the site 
     and follows the Agency's guidance of presumptive remedies for 
     landfills. This allows for a prompt remedy selection process 
     based on a brief site characterization and risk assessment 
     effort.
       Nevertheless, the Agency is currently conducting a full 
     baseline risk assessment to evaluate the off-source portions 
     of the site. Thus, concurrent with this interim action to 
     prevent further environmental degradation, EPA is evaluating 
     the impacts of the site on the surrounding area and the risks 
     associated with those impacts. This baseline risk assessment 
     is scheduled for completion in the Summer of 1996. It will 
     form the basis for the final ROD, which will address all 
     remaining aspects of the site. EPA expects to issue this 
     final ROD in Summer 1997, after receiving and responding to 
     public comment on the risk evaluation. Again, the issuance of 
     the interim ROD was in no way intended to interfere with our 
     ability to address the interests and concerns raised by 
     yourself and by other parties.
       Since, the interim remedy will address the source 
     contamination at the Tulalip site in the most timely and 
     cost-effective manner, EPA designed the baseline risk 
     assessment assuming the interim action would be taken for the 
     on-source areas while continuing investigation of off-source 
     areas. The findings of the baseline risk assessment will be 
     used as the basis for review of the interim ROD, to the 
     extent practicable, and the selection of the final remedy.
       EPA has furthermore initiated an ADR settlement project for 
     Tulalip. In cooperation with many of the principal 
     respondents for the site, the Agency has employed a neutral, 
     third-party facilitator to assist in allocating remediation 
     costs. The PRPs are currently working to establish the 
     criteria which the facilitator will use to assign liability 
     for the costs of the cleanup. We understand that the 
     facilitator will most likely consider a combination of 
     factors in assigning liability which will probably include 
     both tonnage (contribution) and the degree of involvement/
     responsibility for the activities which led to the current 
     site conditions.

[[Page S2440]]

     However, the exact terms of this agreement are the subject of 
     ongoing discussions among the PRPs and their representatives.
       In the meeting, you asked a hypothetical question regarding 
     the Tulalip tribe's liability for a portion of the cleanup 
     costs. With respect to estimates of liability, EPA notes that 
     it has published costs estimates only for de minimis settlers 
     as part of an early settlement offer. If other PRPs have 
     estimates of their potential liability, these may represent 
     their own estimates, made for business and planning 
     purposes. However, they are not EPA estimates, and we have 
     not reviewed or concurred with the assumptions on which 
     they may have been based. Again, these issues relating to 
     liability for cleanup costs are to be resolved through the 
     ADR process. We will provide a further update on this 
     issue to you in the future.
       As a final note, EPA also seriously evaluated the lower-
     cost options which several of the PRPs have supported. These 
     alternatives do not provide a cap for the site and would 
     therefore not comply with the minimum applicable State 
     landfill closure requirements. I have enclosed letters from 
     the State of Washington and tribal representatives that 
     present their views in support of EPA's remedy selection 
     decisions.
       I believe this letter is responsve to the concerns you 
     raised at the March 11 meeting, and I appreciate your 
     continued interest in the Superfund program and the Tulalip 
     Landfill Superfund cleanup.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Elliott P. Laws,
     Assistant Administrator.

                          ____________________