Chaired a hearing. Senator rounds good morning. The subcommittee on superfund Waste Management oversight is meeting today to conduct a hearing entitled oversight of the u. S. Environmental protection agencys Superfund Program. We will hear testimony from witnesses with involvement in cleaning up superfund sites. They will discuss their expenses in working with the epa, state government, and local committees to clean up these sites as well as offer suggestions on how cleanups can be completed quicker and more efficiently while best utilizing taxpayer dollars. Since 1980, the comprehensive environmental sponsor of an Liability Act has been a cornerstone of our hazard Waste Management program. Superfund was enacted by congress to give the federal Government Authority to clean up contaminated and Hazardous Waste sites and is fun to oil spills and natural disasters. The program created a trust fund that is dedicated to cleaning up site and gives the agency to work with and responsible parties to facilitate a site clean up. It allows for two types of cleanup actions. Shortterm removals that require prompt action and longterm remedial spots actions that allow for the permanent reclamation and reuse of the site. Superfund site take many forms. They can be abandoned mine lands, manufacturing facilities, military installations, or chemical facilities. Common contaminants at the site include lead, asbestos, and dioxin, all of which can pose a great danger to human health and can contaminate soil and groundwater. They are located in all the 50 states. These sites pose a risk to human health. They can contaminate the water supplies. Created in 1983, the National Priorities list consists of 1336 site across the country that are a National Priority for cleanups. These sites represent those that does a great risk to human health and the environment. In addition to these sites, there are 53 sites proposed for a listing on the npl. 393 sites have been successfully cleaned up and deleted from the list. While the Superfund Program has been idle to reclaiming previously contaminated sites, cleanups are often delayed due to a complex bureaucracy and delayed decisionmaking that can hinder the process. These delays result in contaminated sites, languishing in communities, at times for decades, while stakeholders and other parties involved in the cleanup determine the best cap forward for the site. These connection not be delayed or halted because of bureaucratic red tape and disagreements among the parties. When these delays occur, it is the citizens and the local communities that the price. When contaminated sites are allowed to languish and no progress is made towards a cleanup, the second teams to pose a potential risk to human health, and valuable you property that could benefit the Community Remains unused. The epa under the leadership of the administrator has made cleaning up sites a priority. Earlier this year the administrator created a task force that was tasked with providing regulations how the fun can be improved. Last week the task force released a report which provided 42 regulations that can commence within one year and are currently within the epas existing authority. These regulations aim to expedite cleanups and remediation, reinvigorate responsible party cleanups, encourage in investment, promote we develop redevelopment. On the same day the report was released, the administrator epaed a memorandum for the to begin implementing 11 of these regulations. Im encouraged that the administrator has making up these sites a priority and i am hopeful that the recommendations provided by the task force will result in programmatic improvements that allow for quicker and more efficient cleanups. The epa should strive to work in a transparent, cooperative fashion with the state and local governments and stakeholders to make certain these sites are cleaned up and can be safely redeveloped with the benefit of the communities in which they are located. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today, and i look forward to hearing their testimony as well. Now i would like to recognize senator harris for her Opening Statements. Senator harris . Senator harris i am pleased to be with you today. This is my first time serving as the Ranking Member for a Committee Hearing in the United States senate. And this hearing speaks to a topic that is part of our core mission of the United States government, just to keep the American People safe. Maketatute was created to sure that anyone that puts Public Health at risk is held accountable for cleaning up the damage they created. This is a matter of basic justice. Communities and families should not have to pay the price for someone elses pollution. This is a matter of basic economic justice. We should clean up our communities so jobs can be created and properties can be used for good. This is a matter of basic opportunity. The notion that all americans should have a chance at a healthy and productive life regardless of where they have to call home. That is why i am glad to behold in this hearing with you, mr. Chairman. We share a common goal of improving the cleanup process to better protect health by restoring contaminated sites. This is something we have a real opportunity to do. I look forward to working with you and the members of our committee to help make it happen. And im heartened to see sean bipartisan interest in figuring out ways to make superfund work better. Our work is guided by two key was laid outat nearly four decades ago to guidance implementation. First, that toxic waste contamination threatens Public Health and requires a conference of cleanup response. Second, that polluters should be held accountable and pay for the damage they cause. While superfund has successfully cleaned up thousands of the most heavily contaminated sites across the country, there are americans whoon live within three miles of the nations more than 1300 superfund sites. Communities and communities of color are disproportionately likely to live near these sites. This is true from the mountains of appalachia to the cities and streets of los angeles. The americans who are most likely to be exposed to toxic waste are the same americans have the fewest resources to deal with the consequences. I think we can all agree that that is wrong. And it is something we need to do more to address. I am concerned by some of the signs i have seen from the epa administrator about the direction the epa will take on super. On one hand, i am encouraged and at last week a Superfund Task force was created which he created and offered 42 recommendations on ways to expedite cleanup. I am heartened by this action. Some of these recommendations may be genuine efforts to help the program operate more efficiently and effectively, and produce Better Outcomes for the people we all represent. On the other hand, other recommendations give me pause, especially in light of the administrators skepticism aside, and prioritization of corporate interest over Public Health. Examples of this include weakening requirements that polluters can show they do the cleanup. 30 you add on top of that, proposed cut for the object upcoming 2018 fiscal year to the superfund account at epa and the 24 proposed cuts that enforces the law, the rhetoric and reality may not add up. We should reject efforts to expedite cleanup if it means cutting corners on health and environmental standards. It means letting polluters off the hook for the risk damage theyve done or shutting out members input from the members of the public that are bearing the brunt of the harm. I look forward to building a hearing with epa officials in the near future and i would like to hear how the agency plans to accelerate the pace of cleanup while significantly cutting the source of funding to do the cleanup. And i look forward to working with you to find ways to make sure this program is working for all americans, regardless of where they live, who they are, or who polluted their community. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I look forward to our hearing today. Thank you, senator harris. Id like to introduce our witnesses today. He is a partner with hyman Miller Schwartz and comb, llp. Jeffrey steers, director of regional operation,. Consultants. Nt welcome to all of you. Your full statements will be made a part of our record today. I would ask that we begin with Opening Statements and if you could limit them to about five minutes, that would be appreciated and we will turn to our first witness today, for a fiveminute introduction. Please proceed. Good morning. Ranking member harris and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this important oversight hearing on implementation. I am an environmental attorney with more than 3 decades of experience working with industry and epa on developing remedies for complex superfund sites across the country. Ive also served as coordinating director of the sediment management workgroup since 1998. Im delighted to be here today to share my experience with the Superfund Program. Know these, i should views are my own and do not represent the views of any particular client or organization. To ensure theed nations most contaminated states sites would be cleaned up. For more than 30 years, epa successfully remitted remediated superfund sites. However, the typical superfund site profile has changed too complex mining instead of river sediment sites, often referred to as mega sites. These megasites are far more complicated, expensive, and expensive than traditional superfund sites, often exceeding 10 to 15 years of study with costs ranging from 150 million 100 million to hundred 50 million. Presenting unique challenges to the Superfund Program. Cleanups oftenle cost more than 1 billion and drag on for decades. Thats why im pleased to see a diligent effort by the new administration to address concerns with the entirety of the superfund process, from initial assessment. This includes the administrators change to the super delegation , calling allmay 9 decisions expected to cost 50 million to be approved by the epa administrator rather than being decided exclusively by the regions. Subsequently, the administrator created a task force may 22 to recommend improvements to the Superfund Program, resulting in the release last tuesday of 42 recommendations designed to achieve a number of worthy objectives, such as promoting the use of alrge and large and complex sites, engaging partners and stakeholders, prioritizing redevelopment, and encouraging Publicprivate Partnerships. Conservative assumptions of the project level that go well andnd the scope of guidance virtually every aspect of the site. His assumptions result in an artificially in later risk that significantly skews the information the administrator will need to does right whether to approve a host remedy. Another issue i am served is that some epa regions ignored the sediment focus. Instead, a component that is technically necessary, especially of the larger sediment sites. Historically some epa regions lowcost sent attrition levels for the sediment which resulting cleanup goals are unattainable because sediments are likely to become recontaminated to the levels above the cleanup goals due to the conditions. In 2005, epa issued a policy guidance document for contaminated sediment sites commonly known as tom contaminated sediment guide straight this represents a comprehensive, technically sound policy, roadmap for addressing complexities associated with contaminated sediment sites. However, the disregard of the sediment guidance and the national contingent to plan requirements, particularly at the regional level, barely limiting the Superfund Program, delaying remediation of impacted sites. So in terms of solutions, i respectfully written as you consider the following recommendations to improve and streamline and investigation. Epa headquarters should require the regions prickly adhere to the sediment guidance at all phases of the site investigation, Risk Assessment, remedy evaluation, and remedy selection stages. Epa should restore its contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group independent review of the regions recommended remedies prior to the national remedy review boards review. Reviews of theb regions proposed remedy should be required to include a specific recommendation of the appropriate remedy for the site. This recommendation will be provided to the administrator remedies, fo sediment expected to cost more than 50 million. This would allow for the agencies most experienced staff to contaminate sites, you have direct impact and recommend a remedy to administrator. Moreover, epas regions should be required to consult with c stack on certain steps within the process, including the scope of the investigation were things often get down. Assumptions for developing Risk Assessment and review of her medial options during the allimportant usability study base. Epa regions should be required to apply wellestablished superfund process of Adaptive Management at the sediment mega site web rather than waiting or years. In contrast, the adaptive approach will accelerate cleanups while achieving a scientifically supportable remedy. Number four, every sediment site must comply with the costeffectiveness requirements of the ncp including a detailed and transparent analysis demonstrating the proportionality between the risk each remedial alternatives and the incremental costs of each such alternative. This way you can balance the benefits and the cost of each remedy under consideration. Formally incorporate a sustainability analysis in its superfund, remedy selection evaluation. Sustainability is consistent with the superfund ncp criteria and should be incorporated into the remedy evaluation. Number 7, existing authority should be used to develop an approach that addresses contaminated sediment sites through collaborative Publicprivate Partnerships. This would build upon the highly successful great lakes legacy siteswhere sites after have been addressed in a very timely and efficient manner. In conclusion, supplementing these recommendations will protect human health and the sedimentnt, accelerate cleanups and redevelop and of adjacent sites and provide for efficient use of resources by ensuring comprehensive effectiveness, saving the apa epa taxpayers money. I look forward to answering your questions. Nadeau. You, mr. I appreciate your testimony. We will turn to our second witness, director jeffrey steers. You may begin. Good morning. My name is jeffrey steers. Virginia dq is a member of the state and territorial solid Waste Management officials, of which i previously served as president. Our membership includes state Program Experts with individual responsibility for the regulation or management of waste and hazardous substances, including overseeing the cleaning of the superfund sites. This forum will appreciate the opportunity to provide oversight of the epas Cleanup Program. While states do not assume primary authority, we play a role in its implementation. The decisions made by congress and those made by epa can have a profound impact on state resources that share a common goal with the federal government in ensuring that human health and environment are mitigated and appropriately addressed in a financially responsible manner. Our association is committed to ensuring this is done in an efficient, costeffective way,. We promote greater state collaboration with our federal partners while ensuring our voice and opinions are not diminished. As long as Member States enjoy a relationship with the epa and does not want to diminish these efforts. We wish to offer the subcommittee some comments and opportunities to enhance the program. States value the relationships with the epa through several types of cooperative agreements, both as individual states and as an association continue to make Great Strides in addressing some of the most contaminated lands in the United States. Mo, stating thee Superfund Program is a vital agency the epa and the cannot have a Successful Program without substantial state involvement. Furthermore, the state supports the input of rural and local governments in the communities in which contaminated sites exist. Opportunities exist for improvements to the program to deal with costly and delayed cleanups that continue to have a negative impact on communities across this nation. While efficiencies can be realized administratively without legislative change, or authority, there exists an opportunity to modernize certain aspects, to acknowledge the roles that the state as c oregulators who operate sophisticated programs across the country. Our members and to some extent our regulator community continue to be challenged with skyrocketing financial obligations associated with remediating contaminated lands. This past week epa released the recommendations of a task horse and superfund appointed by administrator pruitt. Member states are encouraged that the administration recognizes the need for improvements to a program whose purpose is to ensure American Communities are protected from contaminated sites. While states are still reviewing this recently released report, we take note of the fact that the schedule for implementation is aggressive. Given propose reductions in the Agency Staffing and budget, states stand ready t