Good morning. Subcommittee on superfund raced the is Waste Management is meeting today to discuss hearing entitled oversight of the us Environmental Protection agencys Superfund Program. Today we will hear testimony from witnesses with extensive involvement cleaning up superfund sites. Our witnesses will discuss experiences working with epa, State Government and local communities to clean up and repurpose these sites as well as offer suggestions how cleanups can be completed quicker and more efficiently while utilizing taxpayer dollars. Since 1980 the comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act has been a cornerstone of the nations hazardous Waste Management program. It was enacted by congress to give the federal government the authority to clean up contaminated and Hazardous Waste sites and respond to environmental emergencies, oil spills and natural disasters. The program created a trust fund dedicated to cleaning up abandoned waste site and give the Agency Authority to work with potentially responsible parties to facilitate a site cleanup. It also allows two types of cleanup actions. Shortterm removal in emergency instances that require prompt action and longterm remedial response actions allowing permanent reclamation and reuse of the site. Superfund sites take many forms. They can be abandoned mine lands, manufacturing facilities, military installations or shuttered chemical facilities. Common contaminants at these sites include lead, asbestos and dioxin all of which can pose a danger to human health and contaminate soil and groundwater. They are located in all of the 50 states and us territories. These sites pose a risk to human health, the environment and contaminate the water supply and prevent valuable land being used to benefit the community. Created in 1983 the National Priority list, consists of 1300 sites across the country. These sites represent those who pose a risk to human health and the environment. In addition to these sites there are 53 sites for listing on npl, 393 sites have been successfully cleaned up and the leader from the lists. A Superfund Program has been vital to contaminated sites, cleanups are often delayed to a complex bureaucracy and delayed decisionmaking that can hinder the cleanup process. These delays resulting contaminated sites, languishing in communities at time for decades, stakeholders determine the best path forward. And bureaucratic lingering through disagreements on the parties. And the local communities pay the biggest price, and no progress made toward the cleanup. And valuable property that could benefit the Community Remains unused. The leadership of administrator pruitt has made cleaning up superfund sites a priority for the agency. Earlier this year administer pruitt established a Superfund Task force past with providing recommendations on how the Superfund Program could be approved. Last week the task force released their report which provided 42 recommendations that can commence with one year and are currently within epas existing Statutory Authority. And reinvigorated responsible party cleanups, encourage private investment, promote redevelopment and Community Revitalization and stakeholders. The same day the report was released administrator pruitt issued a memorandum directing the epa to immediately being implementing begin implementing 11 of these recommendations. I am encouraged that administrator pruitt had made cleaning of these sites a priority and im hopeful the recommendations provided by the task force will result in programmatic improvements allow quicker and more efficient cleanups. The epa should strive to work in a transparent, cooperative fashion in state and local governments and stakeholders to make certain these sites are effectively cleaned up and free developed for the communities in which they are located. I think our witnesses for being here today and look forward to hearing their testimony as well. I would like to recommend senator harris for her opening statement. I am pleased to be with you today. And this hearing certainly speaks to a topic, and keep the American People safe. And superfund, anyone who puts Public Health at risk by releasing Hazardous Waste is held accountable for cleaning up the damage they created. This is a matter of basic justice. Communities and families should not pay the price for someone elses pollution. This is a matter of basic economic justice. We should cleanup our communities so the jobs should be created and properties can be used for good. This is a matter of basic opportunity. All americans should have a healthy and productive life regardless of where they happen to call home. That is why i am so glad to be holding this hearing. We share a common goal of improving the cleanup process, by restoring contaminated sites. Without cutting corners. This is something we have a real opportunity to do. I look forward to members of the Community Helping to make it happen and i am heartened for strong bipartisan interest in figuring out ways to make superfund work better. Our work is guided by tweet through principles, the superfund laid out four decades ago to guide its recommendations. And threaten Public Health and comprehensive cleanup response and second, polluters should be held accountable and pay for the damage they cause. Superfund has cleaned up thousands of the most heavily contaminated sites across the country, there are still 53 million americans who live within three miles of the nation, more than 300 superfund sites. Communities of color are disproportionately likely in these sites. This is true from the mountains of appalachia to cities and streets of los angeles. Those most likely to be exposed to toxic waste are the same americans who had the fewest resources to deal with the consequences. We can all agree that is wrong and something we need to do more to address. I am concerned by some of the signs i have seen about the direction the epa will take on superfund. He considers cleaning up contaminated lands to be a core responsibility of the epa and the task force was created which he created, and to expedite cleanup. I am heartened by this action. Some of these recommendations they 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. In light of the administrators skepticism of science and prioritization of corporate interest over Public Health. Examples of this include weakening requirements that polluters show they can pay for cleanup, agreed to or reduce federal oversight. 30 proposed cut for the upcoming 2018 fiscal year to the superfund account at epa and the 24 opposed cut in the office that enforces the law, the rhetoric and the reality may not add up. We should reject efforts to expedite cleanups if it means cutting corners on health and environmental standards. It or shutting out input from members of the public that are bearing the brunt of the harm. Mister chairman, i look forward to hearing from epa officials and would like to hear how the agency plans to accelerate the pace of cleanup while cutting sources of funding to do that cleanup. 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, mister chairman, i look forward to your hearing. I would like to introduce our witnesses to begin with steven nadaeu. He is a partner with hoglund, miller, schwartz and cohen. And jeffrey steers of the department of Environmental Quality and katherine probst, independent consultant. Welcome to all of you. Your full statements will be made part of the record today. I would ask that we begin with opening statements, limit them to 12 minutes, that would be appreciated. We turn to steven nadaeu for a five minute introduction. Turn your microphone on please. Ranking member harris and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this oversight hearing on implementation of surplus. My name is steven nadaeu, environmental attorney with sweeping decades of experience working with industry and epa on developing remedies with complex sites across the country. I also served as coordinating director of the sediment management workgroup since 1998. Im delighted to be here to share my experience with the Superfund Program. I should note these views are my own and do not represent the views of any particular client or organization. Congress enacted to ensure the nations most contaminated states would be cleaned up. For more than 30 years epa successfully identified and remediated hundreds of superfund sites, typically all the landfills for Industrial Properties or the typical superfund site profile has changed to complex mining instead of river sediment sites referred to as mega sites. These mega sites are more complicated, expensive and timeconsuming than traditional superfund sites often exceeding 10 to 15 years of study with costs ranging from 100 to 150 million which contaminated sites are the result of hundreds of years of urban industrial activity through hundreds of sources presenting unique challenges to the Superfund Program. These largescale cleanups cost more than 1 billion and drag on for decades. That is why i am 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 exchange to the delegation on may 9th, all circular remedial decisions expected to cost 50 million to be approved by the administrator rather than being decided exclusively by the reasons. Subsequently the administrator created a task force to recommend improvements to the program resulting in the release last tuesday at 42 recommendations designed to achieve where the objective is to expedite cleanup and remediation such as promoting the use of phased approach and further incorporating technical and scientifically sound review, engaging partners and stakeholders, prioritizing redevelopment and encouraging Publicprivate Partnerships. Oral and written testimony is consistent with and build upon these regulatory improvements but also identifies additional issues that need to be addressed. There are several steps in the process and each could cause undue delay in putting sites back into productive use. If not conducted according to epa policy. Two of the steps that often cause the most delayed expense, the first is collection of excessive amounts of data rather than focusing on the data needed for decisionmaking. This is driven by a desire to eliminate all uncertainty which is an unachievable goal. The second example is protracted debate that often occurs over appropriate assumptions for determining assessment of risk. Some epa regions impose conservative assumptions that go well beyond scope of what is required by the guidance on virtually every aspect of the site. These assumptions result in an artificially inflated risk to review the information the administrator will need to decide whether to approve the proposed remedy. Another issue is some epa regions have ignored the sediment guidance Risk Reduction focus. The greater dredging component than is typically necessary at the larger sediment sites. Historically, some epa regions have set unrealistically low background concentration levels for the sediment which resulting goals that are unattainable because sediments will become recontaminated the level above the cleanup goals due to the ambient conditions. In 2005 epa issued a policy guidance document for contaminated sediment sites known as contaminated sediment guidance representing a comprehensive technically sound policy roadmap for addressing complexities associated with contaminated sediment sites. However, the disregard of the settlement guidance and the National Contingency plan requirements particularly at the regional level are limiting the effectiveness of the Superfund Program dealing remediation of impact sites and stymieing redevelopment waterways. In terms of solutions i respectfully request the following recommendations to streamline Site Investigation and remedy collection decisions that contaminate settlement sites. Epa headquarters should require the regions to strictly adhere to the in cpn sediment guidance in all phases of site Risk Assessment and remedy evaluation and remedy selection stages that contaminate sediment sites. Epa should restore contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group independent review of the regions recommended remedy prior to the National Remedy Review Board review. In addition, the reviews of the regions proposed remedy should be required to include a specific recommendation of the appropriate remedy for the site. This will be provided the administrator for review of sediment remedies expected to cost 50 million. This would allow the agencys most experienced staff contaminated sites to have direct input and recommend remedy to the administrator. Moreover epas region should be required to consult with the stag on certain steps with the superfund process including scope of the remedial investigations where things get bogged down. Assumptions for developing the Risk Assessment and a review of the remedial options during the allimportant Feasibility Study phase. Epa regions should apply the wellestablished superfund process of Adaptive Management at the sediment mega sites rather than waiting years and decades before beginning construction. This would also solve the most problematic approach to superfund which is attempting to address virtually all the site issues large and small up front in one massive ultraconservative remedy. In contrast the Adaptive Management approach will accelerate while achieving a scientifically supportable remedy. Number 4. Every sediment site should comply with the costeffectiveness requirement of the ncp by including a detailed and transparent analysis demonstrating the proportionality between the anticipated Risk Reduction of each remedial alternative and incremental cost of each such alternative. This way you can balance the benefits and the cost of each remedy under consideration. Epa should manipulate formally incorporated sustainability analysis in superfund evaluation. Sustainability is consistent with superfund ncp criteria and should be in the circular remedy evaluation. Number 7 existing authority should be used to develop an approach that addresses contaminated sediment sites through Publicprivate Partnerships, this would build on highly successful site after sites addressed in a timely and efficient manner. In addition, implement in these protect human health and the environment, xl sediment cleanups and redevelopment of the jason sites. By ensuring costeffectiveness saving the epa and taxpayers money, i want to thank the subcommittee for holding this important hearing and look forward to answer your questions. Appreciate your testimony and return to the second weakness, jeffrey steers, you may begin. Good morning, members of the subcommittee. The virginia department, deq is a member of the associated solid Waste Management. And the 50 states, territories and district of columbia. We have individual responsibility, and management of waste and cleanup of superfunds. The more testimony on oversight Cleanup Program, states approve primary Secular Authority and play a role in the implementation. With profound impact on state resources. And human health and the environment and appropriately addressed in a financially responsible manner. This assures it is done in a costeffective way. We support, greatest in collaboration with federal partners, that are not diminished. We enjoy a positive working relationship with epa and does not wish to discount these collaborative efforts. We wish however to offer the subcommittee comments and opportunities to enhance the program. States value the relationship with epa through several cooperative agreements as individual states and as an association continue to make Great Strides addressing the most contaminated lands in the United States. We support epas memo stating the Superfund Program is a vital function of epa and the agency cannot have a Successful Program without substantial state involvement. Furthermore the state support the input and role of local government in communities in which contaminated sites exist. Opportunities exist for improvements to the program to deal with costly and delayed cleanups that have a negative impact on communities across the nation. Efficiencies can be realized administratively without legislative change and epa authority, there is an opportunity to modernize certain aspects of the statue to acknowledge the role states as coregulators who operate sophisticated programs across the country are members and to some extent regulated community continue to be challenged with skyrocketing financial obligations associated with contaminated lands. This past week epa release recommendations of the