U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

22–274 PDF 2016

OVERSIGHT OF CERCLA IMPLEMENTATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 13, 2016 

Serial No. 114–162 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 126 

WITNESSES

Hon. Ann Wagner, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri ... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri ....................................................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency 

Management, Environmental Protection Agency .............................................. 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Amy Brittain, Environmental Programs Manager, Site Remediation Section, 

Land Protection Division, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, 

on Behalf of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials ....................................................................................................... 63 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Marianne Lamont Horinko, President, The Horinko Group ................................ 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Steven Nadeau, Partner, Environmental Practice Group, Honigman Miller 

Schwartz and Cohn, LLP ..................................................................................... 83 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 

Robert Spiegel, Executive Director, Edison Wetlands Association ...................... 103 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 105 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of July 13, 2016, by Karen J. Baker, Chief, Environmental Division, Department of the Army, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ............................. 128 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF CERCLA IMPLEMENTATION 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Harper, Whitfield, 

Murphy, McKinley, Johnson, Bucshon, Flores, Hudson, Tonko, 

Schrader, Green, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk, Energy and Power; 

Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary; A.T. Johnston, Senior 

Policy Advisor; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and 

the Economy; Tina Richards, Counsel, Environment; Chris Sarley, 

Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Dan Schneider, 

Press Secretary; Jeff Carroll, Democratic Staff Director; Jacqueline 

Cohen, Democratic Senior Counsel; Timia Crisp, Democratic AAAS 

Fellow; Tiffany Guarascio, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and 

Chief Health Advisor; Rick Kessler, Democratic Senior Advisor and 

Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Dan Miller, Democratic 

Staff Assistant; Alexander Ratner, Democratic Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall, Democratic Director of Communications, Outreach, 

and Member Services; Tuley Wright, Democratic Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; and C.J. Young, Democratic Press Secretary. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If I can get my colleagues to take their seats, we 

will call the hearing to order. 

First of all, just for our guests, the way we will operate is we will 

do our opening statements. We do 5 for the chairman, 5 ranking, 

and then the full committee chairman, full committee ranking 

member, so there will be 10 on each side. 

Then, we will turn to our first panel. The first panel will give 

their opening statements. It is the tradition of this committee not 

to engage in questions afterwards. We will receive your testimony 

and then we will bring up the EPA on the overall generic debate 

on the hearing, which is in the Superfund et al, the general Superfund hearing. 

So, with that, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

I would like to welcome everyone this morning. As we take another look today at CERCLA, which is the Superfund law, today 

our focus will be on how the Superfund program is being implemented. Hopefully, our witnesses can share with us what worked 

but, more likely, we will need to take a look at what doesn’t work. 

We also are looking for suggestions on how we make the program 

better. 

CERCLA or Superfund governs the cleanup of hazardous waste 

sites, as well as accident spills and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. The program is 

implemented by EPA in cooperation with the States and tribal governments. And in implementing CERCLA, EPA also delegates certain authority to the Regional Administrators. 

One of the key issues we intend to look at today with Mr. 

Stanislaus is whether the level of delegation is appropriate and 

whether there is adequate oversight of the Regional Administrators 

by the EPA headquarters. 

It has been over 35 years since CERCLA was enacted. A lot has 

changed since then. When CERCLA was enacted, very few States 

had their own cleanup programs. What we are looking at today is, 

after all that time, how is it going? Are sites getting cleaned up in 

a timely manner? And if not, why not? 

We need to assess whether States should have a more significant 

role in CERCLA cleanups, and are there cleanups that are best 

handled entirely by the States? There is a lot of process involved 

with CERCLA cleanups. We need to take a serious look at whether 

that process is working or whether it encourages or impedes timely 

and efficient cleanup. 

I would like to welcome my colleagues, Ann Wagner and Lacy 

Clay. We also welcome back to the committee Mathy Stanislaus, 

the Assistant Administrator from the recently renamed Office of 

Land and Emergency Management. 

And we welcome our second panel, who will walk us through how 

public and private stakeholders also participate in the implementation of the Superfund Program. We welcome Ms. Brittain from the 

State of Oklahoma, who is here on behalf of a good friend of the 

subcommittee ASTSWMO. Ms. Brittain will, hopefully, talk to us 

about how far States have come with developing cleanup programs 

and whether the current role for States in CERCLA cleanup is appropriate. 

We also welcome Ms. Horinko, who is a former head of EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Ms. Horinko has been 

in the trenches at EPA with respect to CERCLA and can share 

with us her opinion of what works and what doesn’t, as well as 

suggestions for moving forward. 

We also have today with us Mr. Nadeau, thank you, an attorney 

with over 30 years of experience, representing potentially responsible parties or, as we know them, PRPs, Superfund sites around 

the country. 

And last but not least, we will hear from Mr. Spiegel, the Executive Director of the Edison Wetlands Association, which has done 

a lot of work restoring hazardous waste sites in New Jersey. 

3 

So, we welcome everyone. 

And just on the aside, with my friends, obviously, and colleagues, 

in the metro St. Louis areas, Members Ann Wagner and Lacy Clay, 

the Nation’s Superfund legacy is part of a response to our nuclear 

legacy, which was implemented to make sure we saved hundreds 

of thousands of lives in the invasion of Japan and development of 

the nuclear weapon and that was successful in saving American 

lives. But there is still a legacy around the country, and my colleagues will talk about the site in St. Louis Metropolitan area. But 

there are sites like these all over the country and it is still part 

of our responsibility to help move forward and remediate these locations as soon as possible. So, I appreciate them being there. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

I would like to welcome everyone this morning as we take another look today at 

CERCLA. Today our focus will be on how the Superfund program is being implemented—hopefully our witnesses can share with us what works but more likely we 

will need to take a look at what doesn’t work. We are also looking for suggestions 

as to how we can make the program work better. 

CERCLA or Superfund governs the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, as well as 

accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into 

the environment. The program is implemented by EPA in cooperation with the 

States and tribal governments and in implementing CERCLA, EPA also delegates 

certain authority to the Regional Administrators. One of the key issues we intend 

to look at today with Mr. Stanislaus is whether the level of delegation is appropriate 

and whether there is adequate oversight of the Regional Administrators by EPA 

headquarters. 

It has been over 35 years since CERCLA was enacted. A lot has changed since 

then. When CERCLA was enacted, very few States had their own cleanup programs. 

What we are looking at today is after all that time—how is it going, are sites getting 

cleaned up in a timely manner and if not, why not? We need to assess whether 

States should have a more significant role in CERCLA cleanups and are there cleanups that are best handled entirely by the States? There is a lot of process involved 

with CERCLA cleanups. We need to take a serious look at whether that process is 

working and whether it encourages or impedes timely and efficient cleanups. 

I would like to welcome my colleagues Ann Wagner and Lacy Clay. We also welcome back to the committee Mathy Stanislaus the Assistant Administrator from the 

recently re-named Office of Land and Emergency Management and we welcome our 

second panel who will walk us through how public and private stakeholders also 

participate in the implementation of the Superfund program. We welcome Ms. 

Brittian from the State of Oklahoma who is here on behalf of a good friend of the 

subcommittee, ASTSWMO. Ms. Brittian will hopefully talk to us about how far 

States have come with developing cleanup programs and whether the current role 

for States in CERCLA cleanups is appropriate. We also welcome Ms. Horinko, who 

is the former head of EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Ms. 

Horinko has been in the trenches at EPA with respect to CERCLA cleanups and 

can share with us her opinion of what works and what doesn’t as well as suggestions for moving forward. We also have with us today, Mr. Nadeau, an attorney with 

over 30 years of experience representing potentially responsible parties or PRPs at 

Superfund sites around the country. And last, but not least, we will hear from Mr. 

Spiegel, the Executive Director of the Edison Wetlands Association which has done 

a lot of work restoring hazardous waste sites in New Jersey. 

So, welcome everyone. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield back my time, and I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. Tonko, from New York. 

4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding today’s very important hearing on the Superfund program. 

I also want to thank our colleagues, Ms. Wagner and Mr. Clay, 

and other witnesses for their testimony here this morning and our 

other witnesses that will, again, offer testimony. 

Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund 

more than 35 years ago but communities across our country are 

still dealing with the legacy of toxic waste. 

EPA has estimated that over 50 million people live within 3 

miles of a Superfund National Priorities List Site or a Superfund 

Alternative Approach site. Despite successful remediation at a 

number of sites, there is still much work to do and too few dollars 

available to do it. 

At our hearing last year, GAO provided testimony that there are 

thousands of contaminated sites on Federal land, the majority of 

which are abandoned mines. Federal agencies do not even have accurate inventories of these sites, let alone a plan or the funding 

needed to clean them up. Agencies feel like they have been left 

holding the bag for the cleanup, despite not being involved in causing the contamination. This is emblematic of the issue with the 

Superfund program. Too much of the burden of cleaning up after 

private entities has fallen upon the public at large. The cleanup of 

Non-Federal National Priorities List Sites is funded by potentially 

responsible parties that are liable for conducting or paying for the 

cleanup. When such parties cannot be identified or are financially 

unable to perform the cleanup, EPA is authorized to pay for it. 

CERCLA created the Superfund Trust Fund for these cases. However, the tax to fund the Trust Fund expired in 1995. For years, 

appropriations from the General Fund have been the largest source 

of revenue for the Trust Fund. There are over 1300 sites on the National Priorities List, with more being added each year, despite declining funding. 

From 1999 to 2013, the total number of non-Federal sites on the 

National Priorities List remained relatively constant, while the 

number of completed projects generally declined on an annual 

basis. This should not come as a completely surprise, since appropriations declined during this time but we cannot lose site of the 

polluter pays principle that has guided this program since its inception. 

Ultimately, I believe there are two steps that must be taken to 

strengthen this given program. First, ensuring that the Trust Fund 

is supported by polluting industries to help clean up existing orphaned sites. Second, to limit the number of new sites being created in the first place, be ensuring that businesses that engage in 

activities that regularly lead to serious contaminations have the financial assets in place before waste is generated to cover the cost 

to clean up a site, should it be necessary. 

With the passage of Superfund, we made a commitment to identify and clean up contaminated properties. We should fulfill that 

commitment but the reality is we need more funding and assurances in order to do it. When sites are cleaned up, the surrounding 

5 

community benefits from a cleaner, healthier environment. And returning abandoned contaminated land to productive use improves 

the local economy. 

So, I again thank all for participating in the hearing this morning. I look forward to your testimony on this important issue. 

And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

looks to the majority side to see if anyone else wishes to make an 

opening statement. 

Seeing none, the Chair then turns to the minority side. The 

Chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for calling this 

hearing to bring much needed attention to the Superfund Program. 

The Superfund Program is critical to cleaning up the most toxic 

sites across our country and these sites are shockingly common in 

my home State of New Jersey. Roughly 50 percent of the population lives within three miles of Superfund site. 

And I want to welcome not only our Missouri colleagues but also 

Bob Spiegel of the Edison Wetlands Coalition, which has been a 

tremendous ally for many years in the fight to ensure fast and 

thorough cleanup of contaminated sites in my home State of New 

Jersey. 

The contaminants at Superfund sites have been shown to cause 

cancer, birth defects, infertility and other serious health problems. 

According to EPA, cleanups through the National Priority List and 

Superfund Alternatives Program have brought human exposure to 

contaminants under control at over 1400 sites around the Nation 

but the impact of Superfund goes well beyond these funded cleanups, thanks to a provision of the law that allows EPA to recover 

treble damages or three times the cost of cleanups when the agency 

carries out a cleanup on its own. And this provision has encouraged 

countless other cleanups. 

But there are still so many sites nationwide and in New Jersey, 

which has more sites than any other State, that will need funding 

for cleanup in the future. Unfortunately, funding for these cleanups 

has dropped dramatically since the Superfund tax expired in 1995, 

meaning fewer cleanups were started and even fewer are finished. 

Too many communities are waiting too long for cleanups. The 

threat that EPA will come in and clean up the site and the threat 

of treble damages is now all but extinguished by the lack of funds 

and the cleanups that are being done, it seems, are not as robust 

as they once were. In many cases, remedies are selected based on 

available funds, rather than risk. 

And I have personally visited many of these sites and have seen 

firsthand the impact a contaminated site can have on a community. 

Nothing but a full and timely cleanup can restore these communities. 

We have to provide the program the resources it desperately 

needs. For years, I have introduced a Superfund Polluter Pays Act, 

6 

which would reauthorize the original Superfund fees and make polluters, not taxpayers, pay the cost of cleaning up Superfund sites. 

Congress needs to reinstate the Polluter Pays taxes so those industries most responsible for polluting our land and water are held responsible for cleaning up our toxic legacy, a legacy that severely affects New Jersey and many other States around the Nation. 

Now, that is only fair because restoring the polluter pays principle to this program would reduce pressures on the Federal budget 

and lead to faster cleanup of these toxic and dangerous sites. 

Now, I understand that reinstating this tax is not within the 

committee’s jurisdiction and some of my colleagues will look for solutions we can offer as a committee to strengthen Superfund. One 

thing we can do within our committee’s jurisdiction is to encourage 

EPA’s efforts to establish financial responsibility requirements to 

the most polluting industries and those requirements can stop the 

proliferation of new orphaned Superfund sites, which hurt public 

health and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. 

But the main problem facing Superfund is the expiration of the 

polluter pays tax and the most important thing we can do in Congress is reinstate. Cleaning up toxic Superfund sites not only reduces health risks, it also helps create jobs during the cleanup and 

allows for redevelopment of the land, once the cleanup is completed. We should also report cleanups of these contaminated sites 

and should ensure that these efforts are appropriately funded. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

I thank the chairman for calling this hearing to bring much needed attention to 

the Superfund program. As many of you know, the Superfund program is critical 

to cleaning up the most toxic sites across our country. These sites are shockingly 

common—in my home State of New Jersey, roughly 50 percent of the population 

lives within three miles of a Superfund site. 

I want to welcome, not only our Missouri colleagues, but also Bob Spiegel of the 

Edison Wetlands Coalition, who has been a tremendous ally for many years in the 

fight to ensure fast and thorough cleanup of contaminated sites in my home State 

in New Jersey. 

The contaminants at Superfund sites have been shown to cause cancer, birth defects, infertility, and other serious health problems. 

According to EPA, cleanups through the National Priority List and Superfund Alternatives program have brought human exposure to contaminants under control at 

over 1,400 sites around the Nation. But the impact of Superfund goes well beyond 

those funded cleanups thanks to a provision in the law that allows EPA to recover 

treble damages—or three times the cost of cleanups—when the Agency carries out 

a cleanup on its own. This provision has encouraged countless other cleanups. 

But there are still so many sites nationwide and in New Jersey—which has more 

sites than in any other State—that will need funding for cleanup in the future. 

Unfortunately, funding for these cleanups has dropped dramatically since the 

Superfund tax expired in 1995, meaning fewer cleanups are started and even fewer 

are finished. Too many communities are waiting too long for cleanups. The threat 

that EPA will come in and clean up a site, and the threat of treble damages, is now 

all but extinguished by the lack of funds. And the cleanups that are being done, it 

seems, are not as robust as they once were—in many cases, remedies are selected 

based on available funds rather than risk. 

I have personally visited many of these sites, and have seen firsthand the impact 

a contaminated site can have on a community. Nothing but a full and timely cleanup can restore these communities. 

We must provide the program the resources it desperately needs. For years, I 

have introduced the Superfund Polluter Pays Act, which would reauthorize the 

original Superfund fees and make polluters, not taxpayers, pay the costs of cleaning 

up Superfund sites. 

7 

Congress needs to reinstate the ‘‘polluter pays’’ taxes so those industries most responsible for polluting our land and water are held responsible for cleaning up our 

toxic legacy, a legacy that severely affects New Jersey and many other States 

around the Nation. This is only fair. Restoring the ‘‘polluter pays’’ principle to this 

program would reduce pressures on the Federal budget and lead to faster cleanup 

of these toxic and dangerous sites. 

I understand that reinstating this tax is not within this committee’s jurisdiction, 

and some of my colleagues will look for solutions we can offer as a committee to 

strengthen Superfund. 

One thing we can do within our committee’s jurisdiction is encourage EPA’s efforts to establish financial responsibility requirements for the most polluting industries. Those requirements can stop the proliferation of new orphan Superfund sites 

which hurt public health and cost the taxpayers millions. 

But the main problem facing Superfund is the expiration of the polluter pays tax, 

and the most important thing we in Congress can do is reinstate it. 

Cleaning up toxic Superfund sites not only reduces health risks. It also helps create jobs during the cleanup and allows for redevelopment of the land once the cleanup is completed. We should all support cleanup efforts of these contaminated sites, 

and should ensure that these efforts are appropriately funded. 

Mr. PALLONE. So, I would yield back, unless one of my colleagues—I yield to Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank my ranking 

member for yielding the time. 

I know we don’t have jurisdiction over that fund, but we do have 

jurisdiction over the EPA. And that is what this hearing is about 

today. I think every Member of Congress around the country had 

problems with the slowness in cleaning up. I know I do in our district, in our community, along with other Members, and Members 

who are here today. So, that is what we are for, and see why we 

can’t move these cleanups along to make our neighborhoods safe. 

And I appreciate your time. Thank you. 

Mr. PALLONE. Any other of my colleagues want time? If not, Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

Now, I turn to our colleagues in the first panel. I am going to 

do it by seniority first. So, I would like to first recognize Congressman Lacy Clay. 

Mr. CLAY. I am going to yield. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You can do that, but you are senior. 

Mr. CLAY. I know. We have an arrangement. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I was messing it up. I was going to use another word but—— 

Mr. CLAY. That is fine. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady, or the 

gentlewoman, from the Metropolitan St. Louis area, Congresswoman Wagner, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. ANN WAGNER AND HON. WM. LACY 

CLAY, REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 

OF MISSOURI 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANN WAGNER 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

my friend and colleague Lacy Clay for yielding. 

Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, full committee 

ranking member, Mr. Pallone, and my other colleagues, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on this very important 

8 

subject over oversight on CERCLA and the EPA’s role in cleaning 

up contaminated sites across the country. 

I would like to speak today about my experience with the West 

Lake Landfill in St. Louis and how the EPA has failed, failed for 

more than 30 years, in its cleanup of nuclear waste dating back to 

the Manhattan Project and World War II. For 3 full decades, the 

CERCLA process, and particularly the EPA, have failed the people 

of St. Louis in the most heartless manner possible. 

Before I share the facts, I want to paint a bleak picture of what 

my constituents are facing. Moms and dads are watching their children suffer from and fight uncommon health afflictions. Local 

school districts are sending kids home with notices of emergency 

procedures related to the hazardous landfill. The county health department started testing nearby residents for respiratory problems 

and developed an emergency plan of its own. 

I cannot possibly imagine what it would be like to open my 

child’s book bag when they got home from school and learned that 

they are subject to extreme health risk or learn about the procedures they have been practicing in their classrooms in the event 

that the radioactive waste reaches fire. This is happening and it is 

happening to the innocent children every day in St. Louis. These 

are the experiences caused by years, years of dereliction and inaction by the EPA. 

In 1990, the EPA listed West Lake on the National Priorities 

List under CERCLA. It wasn’t until 18 years later, in 2008, that 

the EPA was finally able to come up with a decision on what to 

do with the waste at the site. 

After intense public backlash and sharp criticism from the EPA’s 

own National Remedy Review Board, the agency reopened the 2008 

decision and has undertaken additional testing and study. 

In June of this year, just last month, another document prepared 

by the National Remedy Review Board in 2013 was released by the 

EPA stating—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would the gentlelady yield? I am sorry to do that 

but we have got young kids coming in which we want to 

incentivize. Come on in. There are seats, if people can move. This 

is about their future. I love it when we have young adults come in. 

And they were kicking some out and I didn’t want to do that. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Gather around the walls. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is right. 

Mrs. WAGNER. I do want to reclaim my time, however, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, that was another reason why I was interrupting, but you caught me. 

And we are going to be very gracious on time. So, the gentlelady, 

you can resume. Thank you for letting me interrupt. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome. Welcome, young people. It is about your future and the future of all 

of our families and our children in our communities. 

After intense public backlash and sharp criticism from the EAP’s 

National Remedy Review Board, the agency reopened, as I stated, 

a 2008 decision and has undertaken additional testing and study. 

In June of this year, another document prepared by the National 

Remedy Review Board in 2013 was released by the EPA stating 

9 

that removing radioactive waste at the landfill was feasible and 

could reduce long-term risks, contradicting the EPA’s earlier decision to leave the waste in place and capping. 

But simply, Mr. Chairman, the fact that this 2013 document has 

not been available before last month shows the lack of transparency and accountability that the EPA has demonstrated 

throughout this entire process. 

As the Missouri Attorney General stated, and I quote, ‘‘the EPA 

has time and again made promises that failed to deliver results.’’ 

Meanwhile, families suffer as the clock ticks, and ticks, and ticks 

away. 

During this additional testing, discovery of new radioactive materials is consistently found outside of the known containment area, 

bringing considerable doubt in EPA’s management of the site while 

pushing back the time line for action. 

At the same time, a subsurface fire is burning in an adjacent site 

and moving toward the radioactive waste, prompting significant 

and absolutely justifiable concern in the community that the EPA 

has turned a blind eye and failed in its missions to protect our residents. And despite the seriousness of the situation, the EPA has 

still, still not made a decision about what do with the waste, pushing back their self-imposed deadline for releasing a decision time 

after time and year after year. 

Failure after failure while entire communities wait. Forget cleanup and remediation; the EPA can’t even make a decision about 

what to do with the Federal Government’s nuclear waste. They 

have been unable to deliver on deadlines to ensure basic safety in 

preventing the underground fire from reaching the radioactive 

waste. 

In a letter from the International Association of Firefighters, 

they say, and I quote, Firefighters in the area are especially concerned about the dangers posed by the underground smoldering fire 

at the nearby Bridgetown landfill. The proximity of the two landfills creates the potential for firefighters and other emergency personnel to be exposed to radioactive materials during response operations. 

Community leaders, Mr. Chairman, such as Dawn Chapman and 

Karen Nickel who have joined me and are seated right behind me, 

and Ed Smith who couldn’t be with us today have been tirelessly 

raising the alarm for years about the dangers posed by this site. 

I have their testimony, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to submit 

for the record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. We will look at the testimony, but we won’t commit for submission to the record, but we will have to talk to the 

ranking member. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Let me take a quote from Karen Nickel. They 

both are up here of their own expense, their own dime, their own 

nickel because they care so deeply about their communities and 

their families. 

Karen Nickel says, where we thought we would find an ally in 

EPA, instead we found a foe and failure. Dawn Chapman, we deserve to be able to put our children on the school bus without fear 

that a catastrophic event will happen at this land fill and our children will have to be sent to a different location to keep them safe. 

10 

Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that this is the first issue I was 

briefed on after being elected to Congress nearly 4 years ago, and 

it is past time, past time for action. I appreciate their support and 

am asking this committee for help on behalf of all my constituents 

and these leaders, these women and men, and activists who have 

recognized that something must be done to clean up this nuclear 

waste and prevent health and safety concerns. 

That is why I, along with my colleague, Congressman Lacy Clay 

and Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer introduced legislation to 

transfer control of landfill from the EPA to the Army Corps of Engineers Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, 

FUSRAP, which is H.R. 4100. 

Companion legislation in the Senate has already been passed by 

unanimous consent. The Corps has successfully and professional 

managed several of the similar sites in the St. Louis area and 

across the country. This move is supported by the St. Louis community, including SSM Healthcare, which describes itself as, and 

I quote again, the healthcare provider serving the community surrounding the West Lake Landfill. 

Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, the EPA has had 

more than 25 years to understand and resolve the situation at this 

landfill and they have delivered zero, zero results. The Agency has 

undoubtedly lost the trust of the entire community and has lost my 

trust as well. It is time for someone new to step in. EPA has failed 

and CERCLA has failed. And as my constituents and I continue 

our fight, the clock continues to run. 

I would also like to request, Mr. Chairman, to insert into the 

record local letters of support for H.R. 4100, as well as city and 

council resolutions supporting the transfer of West Lake from EPA 

to the Army Corps. And these documents that I have referenced 

today all I would like to submit for the record, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Again, we will take that into consideration with 

the minority. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you very much. Finally, most importantly 

I would like to enter into the record the full testimony of the constituents who were not able to testify on their own today at this 

hearing. I thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Wagner follows:] 

11 

12 

13 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Again, the same statement applies. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from St. Louis, Mr. 

Clay, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WM. LACY CLAY 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Tonko, as well as all of the members of this committee for affording 

Congresswoman Wagner and I the opportunity to come to you 

today and tell our story. 

You know FUSRAP, which is already hard at work across the 

Nation and at several locations in the St. Louis area cleaning up 

our Nation’s legacy of radioactive and toxic contamination from 

weapons production. The bill before you, H.R. 4100, was crafted 

with strong grassroots support from the Missouri Coalition for the 

Environment, Just Moms St. Louis, who were mentioned earlier, 

who are here with us today, and many other civic and environmental activists to address a 74-year-old nuclear legacy in St. 

Louis, which has subjected families to fear and suffering for far too 

long. 

In 1942, the War Department secretly contracted with the 

Mallinckrodt Chemical in St. Louis to enrich yellow cake uranium 

from the Belgian Congo to fuel the Manhattan Project. That enriched uranium prepared with the assistance of Nobel Prize winning physicist, Dr. Arthur Holly Compton of Washington University, was used to fuel our Nation’s first atomic bombs created at 

Los Alamos, New Mexico, under the direction of Manhattan Project 

Director, J. Robert Oppenheimer. That program, which exists from 

1942 to 1945 was essential to winning World War II but the nuclear waste that was generated from the manufacturing of those 

original atomic bombs and others that would follow forged a curse 

of radioactive contamination that is still inflicting pain and suffering on our constituents today. 

After World War II, that waste and several failed attempts to 

clean it up caused dangerous radioactive contamination at sites in 

downtown St. Louis, at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, at 

Latty Avenue in North St. Louis County, at Coldwater Creek, 

which is a tributary which flows into the Mississippi River. 

And finally, in 1973, approximately 50,000 tons of contaminated 

soil from that same nuclear waste was illegally dumped at West 

Lake Landfill in Bridgeton, Missouri, and mixed with other debris. 

That nuclear waste includes radioactive uranium, radioactive thorium, radioactive barium sulfate, and other toxic contaminants. 

Unbelievably, that radioactive toxic mess dumped illegally at West 

Lake 43 years ago is held in an unlined limestone landfill near the 

Missouri River, near a major hospital, near Lambert-St. Louis Airport, near schools, and interstate highways. And most troubling of 

all, is the appalling fact that 1,000 of our constituents live less 

than a mile away from this illegal nuclear waste dump. 

The truth is that if you search far and wide across this country, 

it would be almost impossible to find a dumber, more dangerous, 

more completely irresponsible place to dump nuclear waste than 

West Lake Landfill. 

And if you think this potential environmental disaster couldn’t 

get any worse, you are wrong. For the last 4 years, we have also 

14 

been dealing with a creeping underground landfill fire at the adjacent Bridgeton Sanitary Landfill, which is under the control of the 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. And that underground 

fire is less than 1,000 feet from the buried nuclear waste. 

My friends, the U.S. Government created this radioactive mess 

and then we allowed it to metastasize to other sites, including West 

Lake and we have a clear and unavoidable responsibility to finally 

clean it up. That is what H.R. 4100 is all about. Our legislation 

builds on the highly successful track record of FUSRAP, which is 

already cleaning up the same nuclear waste at other sites around 

St. Louis. It is fiscally responsible because even after the transfer 

of the West Lake to the Army Corps of Engineers, the site would 

remain on the Superfund List, which would preserve revenue 

streams to help fund the cleanup from several potentially responsible parties, including the Department of Energy, Republic Services, and the Cotter Corporation. 

This bill has earned the bipartisan support of Democrats and Republicans, religious coalitions, community activists, and respected 

scientific sources, who believe that a cleanup like this should be 

put in the hands of those who have the strongest possible expertise 

in cleaning up nuclear waste, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

You know a few months ago, this identical legislation introduced 

by our Missouri colleagues Senators Blunt and McCaskill was embraced and approved by a huge bipartisan majority in the U.S. 

Senate. Congresswoman Wagner and I introduced the companion 

bill here. Some of the forces who want to keep this nuclear waste 

in the unlined West Lake Landfill ganged up to stop it. And I am 

greatly disappointed that this commonsense bill has been delayed, 

obstructed, and even deliberately misrepresented by some staff and 

certain members of this committee. 

My friends, after 74 years of negligence by the U.S. Government, 

that is totally indefensible. 

Now, I recognize that there are factions who oppose this bill because of cost concerns. I also know that some oppose this timely 

and wise solution to cleaning up West Lake for purely selfish and 

political considerations but none of that matters to the real people 

who we represent who still live in fear because of the West Lake 

Landfill. 

So, let me say this to all of you. As my colleagues and my friends 

in service to this country when the U.S. Government makes a mistake, when we put citizens at risk, when we disrupt their lives, 

when destroy the peace and property values in these neighborhoods 

and when we allow the health of innocent citizens to be harmed because of our own inaction, we must make it right. 

The U.S. Government created this nuclear mess in West Lake, 

and we have a responsibility to pass this bill and clean it up. And 

I ask you all to search your conscience and realize that these people are suffering, that our community is in harm’s way and need 

to clean it up and give that bill serious consideration. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clay follows:] 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. We thank you 

for your testimony, both of you. We will submit for the record a 

statement by the Corps of Engineers in response, since they were 

raised in your testimony and that will be submitted for the record 

agreed upon by both the minority and the majority. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And we appreciate your testimony, and now we 

will turn to the EPA for the second panel. Thank you very much. 

So, we will start with our first panel, and we welcome back 

Mathy Stanislaus, which is actually a new name. As far as his office, he is the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and 

Emergency Management from the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. Mathy, you have been a friend of the committee 

and been here numerous times. Thank you for appearing, and we 

will recognize you for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MATHY STANISLAUS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking 

Member Tonko, and other members of the committee. I am the Assistant Administrator at the U.S. EPA with Office of Land Emergency Management, which is responsible for, among other things, 

the Superfund Program. 

The Superfund Program protects tens of millions of Americans in 

thousands of communities across the country by first responding to 

the imminent issues of a release, something that is called time-critical and non-time-critical removal actions to protect human health 

and the environment for shorter term response actions. These really effectively serve a safety net to protect communities from the immediate issues of hazardous substances. And these are all done at 

the request of States, local governments, and community residents. 

Over the past 4 years, for example, EPA has conducted or provided oversight for close to 1400 of what we call removal completion. These are the situations of imminent risk to public health and 

a total of close to 800 emergency responses. You know some of 

these include securing and disposing of thousands of containers of 

acids, solvents, and flammable materials in a rural area outside of 

Dexter, Oregon; providing air and water monitoring at train derailment outside Galena, Illinois, spilling more than 300,000 gallons of 

crude oil; removing close to 4,000 cubic yards of asbestos and PCB 

waste from burned out former school buildings in Tazlina, Alaska, 

and managing the collection and disposal of thousands of hazardous and nonhazardous waste items, including drums, tanks, appliance in the aftermath of the Merrimack River flooding in St. 

Louis, Missouri. 

Separately, the Superfund Remedial Program addresses longer 

term at more comprehensive and more complex sites. The EPA’s 

analysis, as was noted earlier, shows that approximately 53 million 

people live within 3 miles of a Superfund NPL site or a Superfund 

Alternative Approach site, roughly 17 percent of the U.S. population, including 18 percent of all children in the U.S. under the 

age of 5. This population is predominately minority and low-income 

and is less likely to have a high school education than the U.S. 

27 

population as a whole. As a result, these communities often lack 

sufficient resources to address health and environmental concerns. 

Sites that the EPA adds to the National Priorities List represent 

the Nation’s most serious uncontrolled and abandoned hazardous 

waste sites. Contaminated sites reflect both legacy practices but 

also recent practices of mismanagement. Of the 112 sites listed on 

the NPL from 2010 to 2016, nearly half have related from recent 

mismanagement of industrial activities. Of the 112 sites, 12 involve 

bankrupt facilities or properties. None of these situations did those 

companies have financial instruments in place to pay for the cleanup. Therefore, these sites will have to be cleaned up by taxpayer 

resources in the future. 

State partnerships is critical to Superfund cleanup efforts. EPA 

has ongoing engagement with the States in the execution and implementation of the Superfund Program, as well as tribes and local 

communities. The EPA requests State or tribal support for any site 

that it seeks to list on the National Priorities List sites, coordinates 

early site assessments. In some cases, the States actually take the 

lead of investigation, along with funding to the States to conduct 

that funding. And development of the cleanup remedies is also 

done with extensive consultation with the State. 

We also recognize that that consultation, that engagement could 

be strengthened and we currently have a process to do that, particularly how we want to make sure that State standards are properly included in our decisionmaking. We have stood up a working 

group working with the States, working with ASTSWMO and the 

ASTSWMO will be talking about that a bit later. 

Community engagement is a real critical component of our program. We want to engage and ensure that communities participate 

in an effective way, in an informed way. We invest in technical assistance so technical assistance providers on behalf of communities 

can digest some fairly complex technical information. 

We seek to present the information in an understandable way so 

communities can really understand the decisions in front of us. 

And EPA is also continuing to utilize every dollar to the greatest 

extent possible. You know obviously, we want to make responsible 

parties pay for that and we have leveraged significant federally enforcement dollars in 2015. EPA has secured commitments on the 

order of $2 billion from responsible parties to conduct the cleanup. 

It still leaves a gap, where the taxpayers have to pay for the orphaned sites, where there is no responsible party or responsible 

parties don’t have financial resource to pay for that. 

You know EPA does have a challenge in the Superfund Program. 

We do have a backlog of sites that we cannot fund because of the 

absence of funding. This is the reason that the President requested 

a bump-up for Superfund resources of $20 million in the fiscal year 

2017 budget. And the administration has also supported the reinstatement of the Superfund tax so that there is a dedicated tax to 

pay for the cleanup, as opposed to the taxpayer paying for that. 

To underscore the value of the investment in the Superfund Program, it returns an investment in health, disease avoided, and the 

increase of property value, and tax revenue from the reuse of these 

properties. We believe it is an investment, not only dealing with 

the legacy of sites but also recent sites, ongoing sites that result 

28 

in mismanagement that, unfortunately, the Federal Government 

Superfund Program has to address. 

With that, I see my time is up. I will close and take questions 

from you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanislaus follows:] 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

Mr. SHIMKUS. We thank you for your opening statement. Your 

full statement is submitted for the record. 

I will recognize myself 5 minutes for the questioning period of 

time. 

So, the former Chanute Air Force Base, which is in Rantoul, Illinois, it is a new part of my congressional district, is a Superfund 

site. BRAC funding for environmental cleanup is limited to Superfund or CERCLA hazardous substances. 

How does Chanute deal with the cleanup of emergent contaminants such as perfluorinated chemicals, PFCs or PFAS that are not 

currently regulated under CERCLA? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. As you know, Chairman, that is being led 

by the Air Force under CERCLA authority and these emergent contaminants perfluor and PFAS can be addressed under the CERCLA 

authority. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, the ability to recruit dollars for the cleanup of 

these remaining contaminants should be able to be deemed through 

the Superfund? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, so just to be clear, it is the responsibility 

of the Air Force. So, in terms of conducting response actions, there 

is no constraint under the CERCLA authority. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, Chanute Landfill leachate has made it into the 

waste water treatment process and the PFCs contaminate the biosolids, which in the past have been spread on local private farm 

ground. What would the mechanism for cleanup be in this circumstance? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I think, following, if I understand your 

question, in the Air Force, following the standard Superfund and 

CERCLA process, we would look at the areas contaminated that 

are contaminated above the certain thresholds. Then, the appropriate cleanup should happen. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. In your opinion, how is the Superfund cleanup 

process working in terms of getting sites cleaned up efficiently and 

in a timely manner? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. I mean, Superfund sites are a complicated 

situation. We come to the sites because of sometimes decades of 

mismanagement. Some of that has been enunciated earlier today. 

We first try to get the responsible parties to pay for that and actually lead the cleanup of those sites and then we oversee whether 

the responsible party does the cleanup or we do the cleanup. Then, 

we do through a process. 

You know, one, we want to make sure that it is technically 

grounded. We want to make sure it is data-driven, so it takes some 

time do that. But we also recognize that we need to bring to bear 

in an ongoing way the best management practices to make sure we 

streamline that. And during my tenure, I have really pushed that 

really significantly. We pushed something we call optimizing. How 

do we build in time and cost savings? And we have done that. 

Looking at contractor savings and we have done that. 

There are lots of examples that we have institutionalized to bring 

out more efficiencies to the Superfund process. But we also recognize more can done as an ongoing commitment and we also are engaging the States in that process. 

45 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, I think the constant refrain, and I think actually one of my colleagues who testified earlier, and I think you will 

hear from many members of the committee is it just takes too long. 

And we deal with long timeframes in a broad portfolio of interests 

of the Energy and Commerce Committee. And we are finding in a 

lot of areas that new technology, efficiencies can be created. That 

is part of some of our other debates. What is EPA doing to try to 

cut down the time line and get more efficient? 

You used the word process. It was kind of weaved into the question. Surely, there must be some things about the process that we 

can improve. 

Again, on the drug debate, we are trying to make sure some of 

these inspections run parallel instead of cumulative. That is cutting down the overall time. I think that is what we are going to 

look forward to hearing is process. How can we change process to 

get this stuff moving quicker? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. I mean there are a lot of things as, Chairman, as you referred to, that we can learn. And one of the things 

we have learned is there are some opportunities to expedite the investigation process. I mean there has been some history, frankly, 

where investigation has gone on too long. And so how do we triangulate the investigation? How do we marry the investigation and 

cleanup? There are some sites that we kind of know earlier on the 

potential remedial options. 

So, we have begun to do this optimization effort to look at those 

opportunities to marry some of those things that may have taken 

more time in the past. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. We will keep encouraging you to be successful at 

that and kind of expedite the process. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko from New York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And you know listening to the 

testimony and hearing about efficiencies that should be embraced 

and management that should be underscored are all important but 

also appropriations. We are appropriators, too. And we need to understand that every action or perhaps inaction in terms of appropriations trickles down, percolates down to the local level and affects human lives. So, we need to bear that in mind. 

The legacy of contaminated orphaned sites in this country is serious and, in some areas, devastating. The number of abandoned 

mines posing serious threats to drinking water sources in the West 

is shocking. Even more shocking is the fact that more orphaned 

sites are still being created. 

As I mentioned, I believe more must be done to prevent sites 

from becoming orphaned in the first place. When Superfund was 

created, Congress required EPA to establish financial assurance requirements for the most polluting industries, to ensure that companies going into business in those industries would be solvent, to 

clean up any contamination they caused. This is a common sense 

approach that protects the American taxpayers. 

Unfortunately, these rule, which were required to be initiated 

decades ago, have not been developed. 

46 

Administrator Stanislaus, do you believe that requiring financial 

assurances incentivizes facilities to manage and store their hazardous waste materials more safely? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Oh, absolutely. And we also want to make sure 

that in the worst case scenario a company goes bankrupt, that 

those financial instruments are in place to pay for the cleanup, as 

opposed to the American taxpayer. 

Mr. TONKO. And when can we expect to see financial assurance 

requirements proposed under the Superfund? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. The first sector was the hard rock mining, 

which was identified because it was the number one taker from the 

Superfund and it also has the highest risk from various analysis 

we have done. The first proposed rule will be done later this year. 

Mr. TONKO. And is that in line with the schedule set out by the 

DC Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year regarding hard rock 

mining? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is correct. 

Mr. TONKO. And has EPA begun considering which other industries are in need of financial assurance rules? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, so we will also be making this decision as 

to whether we want to also do financial assurance for a couple of 

other sectors. 

Mr. TONKO. Including? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Chemical manufacturing, the electric utility industry is two. I believe there is another one that I don’t remember. 

Mr. TONKO. OK and when can we expect requirements to be finalized? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. On the first proposal of hard rock mining? 

Mr. TONKO. Yes, the hard rock mining. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, let me get back to you. I just don’t recall. 

Mr. TONKO. OK and do you envision that these new rules would 

complement existing costs, recovery, and enforcement procedures? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I mean in terms of—is your question, Will 

be it consistent with the current cost recovery procedures? Is that 

your question? 

Mr. TONKO. Well, just would they complement existing cost recovery and enforcement procedures? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I mean, that is absolutely the intention. 

Mr. TONKO. And a 2015 GAO report stated that States agreed to 

add sites to the national priorities list, where they encountered difficulty in getting a potentially responsible party or a PRP to cooperate, or where that PRP went bankrupt. 

Do you believe States may be more likely to add a site to the national priorities list if no responsible party can step up to the pay 

for the cleanup? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I mean I think that is one factor that we have 

heard from the States but not only the factor. You know sometimes 

it is just the magnitude and complexity of the sites as well. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, if that is the case, I think that it is likely that 

the most difficult orphaned sites will continue to find their way to 

the National Priorities List, unless financial assurances are required. Financial assurances were intended to prevent the all too 

common practice of polluting and then declaring bankruptcy, leaving the bill for the taxpayers to pick up. The lack of financial asVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:36 Oct 27, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X162CERCLAOVERSIGHTDOEDITS\114X162CERCLAOVERSIG
47 

surance requirements has exposed the Superfund Program and the 

United States taxpayers to potentially enormous cleanup costs. 

These requirements are long overdue. 

I know that some of my Republican colleagues have opposed 

them in the past but I hope they will join me now in supporting 

them to protect taxpayers and the environment and, obviously, the 

appropriations for some of these programs are essential to be at the 

appropriate level. 

With that, I yield back my time, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes my colleague, the vice chair of the subcommittee, 

Mr. Harper from Mississippi, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Great to see you again. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. You, too. 

Mr. HARPER. And I had a few questions I would like to ask you. 

When selecting the remedy for a contaminated sediment site 

cleanup, does EPA follow the contaminated sediment remediation 

guidance for hazardous waste sites? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. HARPER. How does EPA ensure the timeliness, cost-effectiveness, consistency, and the quality of the sediment site cleanups? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, that is an ongoing responsibility between 

both the regions and headquarters, particularly sediment sites. We 

review everything from the investigation planning to the proposed 

cleanup remedy. 

Mr. HARPER. So, how does EPA ensure that sediment cleanups 

are consistent with the contaminated sediment remediation guidance? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. In our review of the site-specific factors, 

we look at one of the things that headquarters looks at is a consistency with the national guidance. 

Mr. HARPER. Now, we understand that certain authorities are 

delegated from EPA headquarters to the regions. Please explain 

what authority is actually delegated. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure, I mean the delegation to the States goes 

back I think to the mid-1980s or so. You know it was really intended to bring out more efficiency to the process. But that being 

said, we also recognize the need for headquarters review. And so, 

again, everything from the proposed plan, you know the headquarters reviews. We also have additional infrastructure for significant costly remedies. We have a National Remedy Review Board. 

We have a sediment cleanup body. There is a national body of peer 

review experts who also look at that. 

I get briefed on a monthly basis on the sites of controversial complexity. So, there is an ongoing scrutiny, frankly that we do. 

Mr. HARPER. Let me, just so that I am clear, does the Administrator or someone at the EPA headquarters have the final sign-off 

on those remedial decisions? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. The delegation envisions that it be done at the 

regional level. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. But again, that decision is done after significant 

engagement with headquarters. 

48 

Mr. HARPER. Got you. Is there a process in place to ensure that 

the Administrator and you, as the Assistant Administrator for the 

Office of Land and Emergency Management are actively reviewing 

and signing off on remedial investigations proposed by the Regional 

Administrators to ensure that they are consistent and appropriate? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. As I referred to it earlier, so we have an 

ongoing engagement leading up to the proposed planned review, all 

of that. 

Mr. HARPER. So, you are getting a briefing at least once a month. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, on the sites of major issues. 

Mr. HARPER. And how are you drawn into it into a deeper way, 

let us say, on a specific situation? Does that vary case by case? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, again, my technical staff reviews evidence 

from the data and the guidance. And depending on those issues, I 

get briefed on sites. 

Mr. HARPER. Well, let me ask this. If you can recall, are remedies 

proposed by the regions ever changed by you or the Administrator? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. It definitely gets changed through the headquarter involvement, absolutely. 

Mr. HARPER. So, what would draw it to your attention? Are you 

reviewing every proposal or just in an overall briefing of the entire 

review process? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I mean you know I get briefed at various 

levels, depending on the site. Sites are very large, very complex, 

which really are sometimes a precedential nature. Take a hard look 

at that, involving a mixture of proposed future uses, cleanup remedy alternatives. So, all of that goes into the mix of the decisionmaking. 

Mr. HARPER. I want to make sure that I am following you and 

I have got this; that I am understanding what you are telling us. 

Normally, those remedies, they are going to just proceed and you 

are not going to be reviewing every remedy that comes into the 

agency. Am I correct, as far as making the decision how to proceed 

from the start? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, yes. I mean so, again, we have my staff 

reviews, at a technical level, the data and the technical issues. And 

I get briefed at a certain level. And where there are potential areas 

of major significance, then I get more deeply involved, depending 

on the precedential nature of that decision on particular sites. 

Mr. HARPER. And if you don’t like what you see or you don’t 

think it is the right course, then you will pass on that decision. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. Well, sometimes I would ask for taking a 

hard look at an alternative or is there enough data to support this 

decision. It kind of depends on the site. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you Mr. 

Stanislaus. 

I wanted to focus on three concerns, all related to the funding of 

the Superfund program. First, how pays? Second, the delays 

brought about by dwindling funds. And third, a falloff in the quality of cleanups brought about by dwindling funds. 

49 

So, as we all have discussed, the Superfund tax was created to 

cover the cost of cleanup when potentially responsible parties could 

not pay or could not be ID’d. In my view, this fund was the crowning achievement of the Superfund because it ensures that polluters 

paid for cleanups even at orphaned sites. 

And since the funds from that tax were exhausted, funding for 

cleanups at orphaned sites has come through the appropriations 

process, drawing from general treasury funds. That is correct. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is correct. 

Mr. PALLONE. I think that is just fundamentally wrong. The cost 

of cleanup should be paid for those who get rich off contaminating 

these sites. And it is not just a question of fairness. Since the tax 

expired, funding for Superfund cleanups has decreased dramatically by about 45 percent since 1999. 

And I have a list of sites provided by your staff which are waiting for funding. There are about 12 sites on the list that I have. 

And for the communities around these sites—you have the list, Mr. 

Stanislaus, correct? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I am sorry. Say that again. 

Mr. PALLONE. You have the list with the 12 sites? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I am aware of that. I am not sure I have it with 

me right now. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK, well, you are aware of it. 

Well, what I wanted to ask you is for the communities around 

these 12 sites, what is the impact of your limited funding, if you 

would? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I mean it is delayed cleanup, delayed recovery, delayed protection, and delayed economic land use benefits. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. And we just heard a few minutes ago from our 

colleagues from Missouri how serious the effects of these cleanup 

delays can be for the communities. And we also have our colleagues 

speaking about the tension over what remedies should be selected, 

whether pollution should be removed or capped in place. Mr. Spiegel, who is going to testify in the third panel is very familiar with 

how we have to deal with that in a given situation. 

Often, the community around the site wants the pollution removed completely. A lot of times, that is a lot more costly but it 

also ensures, in a way that institutional controls cannot, that there 

will be no future human exposure to these contaminants from the 

site. 

So, Mr. Stanislaus, can you explain how the limited funding 

available for Superfund cleanups affects decisions about how to 

clean up these sites, removal versus capping or whatever? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I don’t think the limited pot of money has 

an influence on the remedy. It has an influence on how many sites 

we can take on every year. 

The remedy selection we go through this process under the underlying regulations where we look at the opportunity to a permanent cleanup, the short- and long-term benefits. So, it all goes 

purely from a technical legal consideration. And I think the relevance of cost is really, as you noted, that we are going to have a 

backlog of sites, as we do right now. 

Mr. PALLONE. But isn’t it true that in many cases—I don’t know 

many cases but certainly in some cases—that you do end up capVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:36 Oct 27, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X162CERCLAOVERSIGHTDOEDITS\114X162CERCLAOVERSIG
50 

ping the site as sort of an interim measure because the funds are 

not necessarily available to do the final cleanup? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, interim remedies are all done for technical 

reasons. Sometimes we do interim remedies to create a temporary 

block of exposure, while we examine the long-term remedy. You 

know so I wouldn’t say that putting in a temporary measure is 

driven by the unavailability of cost. And it could be that the unavailability of funds delay the pace of executing the cleanup. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Well, I appreciate your comments and I appreciate the fact that the chairman had this hearing. 

And I just hope that we will all work together to do the most important thing that we can do and that is reinstate the Superfund 

tax. I remember when it was expiring, I think Gingrich was the 

speaker at the time and President Clinton was very emphatic that 

he wanted to continue it and Speaker Gingrich said no. 

I think we can debate tweaks in policies but, without funding 

these policies are meaningless. So, we are just going to see more 

communities waiting for cleanups and more communities dissatisfied with the cleanups that are being done. So, I really think the 

most important thing is reinstating the Superfund tax. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this 

hearing. 

I was visiting a business in my district a few years ago, and I 

went down there with some folks to see this site on their factory 

that they have not been able to use, part of a warehouse that was 

involved in some Government contract research using some materials that were radiation-contaminated, not in high levels but 

enough that they weren’t supposed to go in them. 

It was some things the size of oil drums and they were filled 

with concrete and rags and they were materials that contained radioactive materials at one time. And they weren’t allowed to touch 

them. 

So, we went down there and visited and talked with the Army 

Corps of Engineers and EPA and said what would it take. They 

said we are going to have to study this, do several studies. I am 

planning on lots of things. It is probably going to take about 11 

years and maybe $1 million or more. 

And I said what will you do with it at the end? We will pick it 

up, we will move it. We will take it to the approved site and there 

they will seal it and bury it. 

In the meantime, the business couldn’t use their building. So, I 

said so well what is to stop them from going out and getting a 

dump truck, put all the stuff in a dump truck, load it in, drive it 

to the same site and just say keep the truck? And they said, well, 

we wouldn’t recommend that because they have to go through the 

studies. 

And I said well, wouldn’t you do the same? And they said well, 

basically, in the end, that is what we are going to do. So, you can 

understand the incredible frustration from business saying why are 

we going to lose out on using this site and having this problem, 

51 

when basically the resolution is the same. I am sure you can understand the appreciate the frustration that people have with taking so incredibly long to do something. 

But let me ask you about some timeframes on this. And, again, 

thank you for being here. We know this is not easy. And we know 

you have got to crack the whip and make some things work and 

we want you to do it right but the public doesn’t understand. 

So, the nature of these sites being cleaned up under CERCLA 

has changed since CERCLA was enacted some 35 years ago. The 

sites remaining to be cleaned up today are more complex, like sediment or mining sites. 

So, do you think that the Superfund program needs to change 

and adapt to deal with the new challenges associated with these 

more complex cleanups? I mean do we need to do something different? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I think we need to specifically call attention to particular differences, a sediment site and a mining site. So, 

for example, a sediment site, the approach of well let us call it 

adaptive management, so we want to move forward with some level 

of immediate cleanup and learn from that. Just because the complexity of sediment sites are much longer, much wider—— 

Mr. MURPHY. So, let me just make sure I understand. So, does 

everybody have to follow the same set of rules regardless of the 

site, then? Or are you saying a mining, a sediment site, a hazardous waste material site versus something buried, is it the same 

rules everybody has to follow all the time that adds to some of the 

timing and burden? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, you know I would say the same basic 

rules. One, you want to fully investigate the site. And then you 

want to select a remedy, based on investigation. 

But the differences I was referring to is that when you are in the 

water, it is far more complex than when you are on land in terms 

of doing cleanup. Sediment sites you tend to have a much wider 

breadth of area, much more complexity in terms of science. You 

have you are in the water, you have a mixture of sediments that 

are buried under sometimes decades of sediment and fill, so a bit 

more complex. 

Mr. MURPHY. Let me ask. When it does involve some radiation 

materials, does that go under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

or is that under you? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I guess, depending on the site. We have 

Superfund sites. 

Mr. MURPHY. Sure. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. And then you have radiological materials and 

that would be under the Superfund Program. 

Mr. MURPHY. And do you review and monitor the efficiency of 

those who are doing those? I know Mr. Johns from this committee 

has an area he talks about in his district, where it has taken years 

to do this, and records may indicate a lot of people are putting in 

overtime who haven’t even put in hours and a massive amount of 

waste. So, I just wonder if you audit those things, too, and say why 

is it taking so long. Is there something in the nature of this particular project? 

52 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I mean what we try to do is, up front, look 

at how do we kind of make sure that the process work is intended 

and build in efficiency to better extend possible—— 

Mr. MURPHY. But you understand efficiency is not a word that 

we think as associated with this agency. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I mean, I think we can agree to disagree 

on certain aspects of it. Because what I have done under my—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, but years, and years, and years is not efficient. So, let me just ask this. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. But this is decades of mismanagement. 

Mr. MURPHY. I appreciate that. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Decades of hazardous substances. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. And getting to understanding the complexity of 

the problem, it is technically challenging. I think every technical 

expert will conclude that discerning the magnitude of the problem 

does take some time. 

Mr. MURPHY. So, let me ask if we could—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is not to say that efficiencies are not important. 

Mr. MURPHY. OK. I would love to be able to meet with you oneon-one to talk about a couple of the sites—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. 

Mr. MURPHY [continuing]. Review that, and then get some more 

in-depth information. 

We want you to be empowered to make this efficient and change 

the mismanagement over time, whether it is on the site or whether 

it is in your agency. And I appreciate that opportunity. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Schrader, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Mr. 

Stanislaus. Thanks for coming here. It is a tough hearing, but it 

is a very important hearing. 

As you know, I am primarily concerned about the Portland 

Superfund site and the Willamette River back home in Oregon. 

And I am concerned a little bit about the data being used, to be 

honest with you. This has been in process for a long time. I appreciate the fact that we are coming to a record of decision, hopefully 

soon. 

But some reservations still remain. I mean it has been clear to 

me that this Superfund site is actually cleaner than some of the 

sites that have been cleaned up. You can swim in the river. No 

problem. You can eat the native fish out of the river. No problem. 

You know I think it is good to do things as well as possible. 

But I would like to see the feasibility study and the proposed 

plan to be based on good science. Right now we are talking about 

nonnative fish being eaten by local residents that are fishing in 

that harbor on an extended basis that is not really very realistic. 

So, I am hoping that as headquarters reviews some of the data, 

they take that into account. We want to have an efficient process. 

I know in 2012 you tried to look at ways to be innovative and 

adaptive to local conditions. And I am not sure I am seeing that. 

53 

My colleague from Mississippi talked a little bit about what role 

the headquarters has. 

To that point, what role do you play in terms making sure there 

is consistency across the country in how these standards are applied so that you don’t have one region getting a little carried away 

and not paying attention to what has being done overall around the 

country so we can allocate the resources most effectively? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. So, the structure we have in place right 

now is we have what I would characterize as some up-front infrastructure. So, we have guidance to promote national consistency in 

terms of cleanup, in terms of remedy selection. And then we have 

site-specific reviews of proposed cleanup above a certain monetary 

amount. So, we have a national body of experts called the National 

Remedy Review Board. We have separately a sediment group that 

looks at sediment sites from a national perspective to provide independent technical review while we are looking at other alternative 

ways of achieving the goals. Have the goals been set appropriately? 

And then based on that, then I get briefed from various periods 

of time in the decisionmaking process. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Now, to that, I guess I am a little concerned because the only solutions I have seen proposed originally and even 

now in the proposed plan is just dredging and capping. I mean it 

seems to me there ought to be other alternatives that we would 

want to consider. 

What role has the State of Oregon played, prior to the release 

of the proposed plan? Have you resolved most or all of the issues 

that the State has brought up? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I believe that is the case. I mean we believe the 

State is an important partner in moving this forward and my understanding is that the proposed plan is aligned with the State’s 

perspective. 

Mr. SCHRADER. All right. I am not sure I 100 percent agree but 

that is OK. 

To the point on cost and realistic assumptions and stuff, how accurate has EPA’s sediment site cost estimates been in the past? I 

would reference in Tacoma a couple of waterways where the costs 

eventually were 3 times and almost 100 percent more in another 

case than what was originally estimated. How accurate do you 

think the estimates are, in general? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I don’t have a comprehensive survey or 

assessment in front of me but I can get back to you on some of 

those sites. 

Mr. SCHRADER. I guess a similar question, then, I would like to 

get that information would be on the estimating how long it takes 

to clean up a site. The time period for the Hudson River dredging, 

how long did you think that was going to take and how long did 

it eventually take? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure, I will get back to you specifically. I think 

the Hudson River was actually widely viewed as successful by 

many, in terms of the timing and the accomplishments there. But 

I will get back to you on the specific timing. 

Mr. SCHRADER. All right. And again, it raised a question because 

I am not sure I am every going to agree with that assessment. 

54 

And the biggest issue from I think, well many issues in the Portland area, but the proposed plan compared to some of the original 

suggestions is exactly the same plan, in terms of dredging, capping, 

natural recovery, and yet the costs were, seemingly, arbitrarily reduced from $1.4 billion down to $750 million with not a lot of 

change what actually is going on. And we are very concerned that 

the local Region 10 is being overly optimistic in its assumptions 

about how it is going to take to do some of this stuff, what affect 

this new landfill location closer to the Superfund site itself is going 

to have. 

So, we are very concerned that unrealistic modeling is going to 

cause some real serious problems for the folks that are willing to 

step up, many that were not there when the original contamination 

occurred, in trying to take care of the place. So, I would hope that 

before the record of decision you guys would re-look at that and 

take that into account. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. 

Mr. SCHRADER. With that, I will yield. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I would like to speak a little bit about the 

change of the cost. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Please. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Clearly, it was driven by looking at some optimization. So, the remedy has, in fact, changed from the proposal, 

the extent of excavation versus capping. So, while the basic elements are the same, the extent of each is what has driven the cost. 

And I have personally reviewed it. I have had my staff personally 

look at it. So, we are going to continue to be involved in it and continue to review the comments. I know there has been a lot of commentary that we are going to take a look at. 

Because we know that various parties, the local government entities and private sector entities have commented as well as the local 

community. 

Mr. SCHRADER. If I could get the Chair’s indulgence, just for 

quick second, if I may. 

Now, I am looking at the proposed plan remedy and the NRB 

remedy. The cost of the proposed plan is $750 million. Originally, 

NRB, $1.4 billion. Dredge volume 1.9 million cubic yards in both 

situations. Construction duration 7 years in both situations. Active 

cleanup areas 290 in the proposed plan, 300, so a mere 10-acre difference there. Natural recovery, 1800 acres in both; 1900 lineal feet 

riverbank remediation, virtually the same I both. 

I am just not sure I have seen any change in the plan to justify 

that reduction in cost. I am just very worried, sir, just very worried. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Stanislaus, 

it is good to see you again. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. You, too. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Your office has been very good to work with over 

the years on some of these matters. 

55 

My district and Congressman Johnson, we share that along the 

Ohio River, is an old area, old mature industries of chemical and 

steel, glass, pottery, that have been ripe over the years for problems with Superfund. So, I think that in my career, or my life as 

an engineer, I have experienced quite a bit of that about the Superfund sites and the contamination that occurs with that. 

Under the Superfund site, there is a concern that, and maybe it 

is valid, is that when a Superfund site is designated as a Superfund site, there becomes a stigma on that area. Would you not 

agree that if you have got land, 100 acres or so that has been designated a Superfund site, that would cause you to be concerned 

about locating a school next door to it? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I think any contaminated site creates a 

concern. We have done studies and I have independent studies that 

show that once a site is cleaned up—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. No, no, I didn’t say that. I say whether it is designated. Once it is designated a site, because I am going to lead 

into it—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. OK. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. Is that I think it has a stigma and 

an effect on other development around it. 

And unfortunately, there was an article that came out earlier 

this year—I would like you to respond it to it—by a conservative 

group, the Daily Caller. But Ethan Barton came out in April of this 

past year and through his investigation, found out, and I think it 

follows a little bit about what some of the other folks have been 

talking about, that these sites that get designated as Superfund 

may not get any attention for years. 

Let me give you some statistics that show up in this. That there 

are two-thirds of the sites that have been designated, nothing has 

been done with it. So, 771 of the 800 sites have been waiting 5 

years for something to be done with it; 154 of those designated 

sites have been waiting 30 years before work has even begun on 

it. And it is a stigma on that community and people are concerned 

about what their water quality, any other air quality, anything else 

that comes with it. And then they found that once it gets designated in cleanup, sometimes, according to that, that it might take 

30 years, 13 years on average to clean up a Superfund site. Look 

54 of them apparently took 20 years, 20 years to clean up and all 

that while the water was contaminated or the air was contaminated with it, the soil contaminated with it. The community was 

stigmatized with it by having this. 

So, Mr. Stanislaus, what can we do to address this problem? Because once we designate this and we put this red mark on a community or a site, why should we be waiting 20 years before something happens with it or 54 years before something begins? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. So—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I am sorry. I don’t mean to blind side you on 

that, but on Barton’s article, have you seen this article at all? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I have not. I will take a look at it. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. If you would, take a look. I would like to hear 

back from you on that. 

So, what is holding it up? 

56 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I would say that the original stigma is the 

mismanagement of site that comes from decades of work. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I understand that, but we can’t go back and redo 

that. But once you have designated it, I want you to do something. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. So 68 percent of sites on the National Priorities 

List have what is called construction completion. So that means all 

of the construction of the cleanup remedy is in place. Now, sometimes, for example, groundwater, groundwater does take decades 

but redevelopment can happen and that does happen once you have 

construction completion. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Completion but you just heard what I said. Some 

of these sites have taken 54 years, on average it is 13. I have seen 

some success and we have had it in the Weirton area, the Business 

Development Corporation with Pat Ford and what he has done out 

there. They took a site that had been abandoned. It was a contaminated site and now they have got people working on it. It is functioning. So, my hat is off to Pat Ford and the whole group up there 

but they have got to get it finished, not Pat Ford but on all these 

others. 

If we have all these sites waiting 20 years, 13 on average, that 

is too long. I want to know what does it take to get it done quicker? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I think ongoing diligence of the management of those sites, I completely agree. However, I don’t think 13 

years is accurate from this perspective. 

So, you can have productive activity at a site while the long-term 

cleanup is going on. There are numerous sites where companies 

have site on a Superfund site where groundwater cleanup or other 

kind of cleanup is continuing. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I have run out of time on that but again, could 

you please get back to me and explain your perspective on Barton’s 

article? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McInerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCINERNEY. Well, I thank the Chair for holding this hearing. I just wanted to respond to Mr. McKinley. If there is no funds, 

then we are not going to be able to get this done. And I think Mr. 

Gingrich did a good job of reducing funds. So, we need to restore 

those funds if we want to get onto those sites. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman will yield, we could start going 

down this route and talk about majorities and I think we best just 

move forwards. 

Mr. MCINERNEY. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that bipartisan comment. 

Mr. Stanislaus, much of the debate around Superfund sites now 

revolves around whether pollution should be removed or controlled 

on site using land restrictions or other institutional controls. In 

most every site now, is that a discussion? Is that a debate? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I think that, broadly, the extent of removal of contaminants, whether you can treat contaminants on-site 

or a mixture of that and leaving things in place, at the end of the 

57 

day, we are driven on preventing ongoing exposure. So, it can happen through a mixture of those. 

Mr. MCINERNEY. Well, as an engineer, I understand what it 

means for pollution at a site to be addressed through engineering 

controls, on the one hand, or institutional controls on the other 

hand. Institutional controls aren’t as clear as engineering controls. 

Can you explain what the difference between those two is? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. Engineering control is really, for example, 

a concrete barrier. Institutional control would be, basically, a legal 

prohibition of doing certain activities. For example, a legal prohibition of digging beyond this kind of a cap for example. 

I do agree with you that making sure that institutional controls 

are effective is one of the things that I have really tried to enforce 

since I have been in this job, really making sure that there is ongoing consultation with the local government to make sure that those 

kinds of institutional controls are actually adhered to and effective 

and/or are enforced. 

Mr. MCINERNEY. Do you think more clarity is needed either in 

revisions to the National Contingency Plan or through guidance on 

making these choices? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I am not sure necessarily an amendment 

to the National Contingency Plan is necessary. I mean just, I am 

trying to remember, 3 or 4 years ago we issued a guidance on the 

whole issue of institutional controls, making sure it is a hard look 

at whether it is effective and implemental, this consultation with 

the local government. So, I think rigor to the use of that in the appropriate circumstance is really important. 

Mr. MCINERNEY. Thank you. So, back to the funding issue. How 

many employees do you have that work on the Superfund sites 

issues? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Let me get back to you with a hard number on 

that. 

Mr. MCINERNEY. OK, are we talking thousands or are we talking 

tens? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I mean it is in the hundreds but I don’t 

want to give a fixed number. Let me get back to on this one. 

Mr. MCINERNEY. All right. How many Superfund site are there? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, on the National Priorities List, we have 

a about 1700 on the National Priorities List. But we get sites to 

our attention on a regular basis. These are just the real-time remedial sites. Every day we have to immediate response because of 

drums left behind, spills happening. So, it is hundreds of sites that 

we kind of manage on a regular basis. 

Mr. MCINERNEY. Well, as my good friend Mr. McKinley said, it 

takes 13 years on average, and I will take your word on that. That 

sounds about right. How many new Superfund sites do we get per 

year? I mean are we keeping ahead of it or are we falling behind 

on the number of Superfund sites? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well you know we, as was noted earlier, we 

have a backlog of about I think 12 to 15 sites that we need funding 

for by the end of this fiscal year. But then in the next fiscal year, 

that could probably be projected to grow to 20 to 25. 

You know the function of the National Priorities List is to identify the highest priority risk sites. And ideally, we have a responVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:36 Oct 27, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X162CERCLAOVERSIGHTDOEDITS\114X162CERCLAOVERSIG
58 

sible party step up and address that. That is not always the case 

because we have bankruptcy or inability or unwillingness that the 

Federal Government has to step in. So, there is a delta, there is 

a gap. 

Mr. MCINERNEY. Well, my district has Superfund sites and I was 

just wondering what you think the cost of the communities and the 

people living in the area is. I mean, Mr. McKinley brought this up. 

It is a black mark on the community. Property values are affected 

and this can go on for generations, basically. So, how can we mitigate these effects on people’s lives? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. Well, yes, I completely agree that delayed 

cleanup means delayed public health benefits and delayed economic 

benefits. Within the constraints I have, I am always given a certain 

flat amount in appropriations and we have this prioritization process based on risk. And we take on those sites based on the limited 

funding. 

Mr. MCINERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Stanislaus, 

thanks for joining us today. 

Are you familiar with the Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group and the National Remedy Review Board? And if so, 

could you please explain what those entities are and how they fit 

into the remedial decisionmaking process? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. So, these are two national group of EPA 

experts to provide independent advice on cleanups. So, the National Remedy Review Board looks at sites, at this moment, 

$50,000 or more, and have independent technical review, peer review, looking at the nature and extent of investigation, the potential cleanup options available to them. 

The Sediment Group looks at, obviously, sediment sites, with a 

similar function. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Well, what is EPA Headquarters doing to ensure that technical recommendations from the National Remedy 

Review Board and the Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory 

Group are being followed and incorporated into remedy decisions? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. So, I mean directly we have headquarters 

presence on both of those bodies. And then the technical comments 

are transmitted to the region itself. 

But then once you come to a proposed plan, we review the proposed plan, in terms of have relevant aspects of those comments 

been incorporated. And just more broadly, have the pertinent guidance and regulations been adhered to in the selection of the proposed remedy? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Are there checks and balances? Specifically, the 

Review Board or the Advisory Group recommends this. Was this included the particular proposal? How are you ensuring that the recommendations are being followed and incorporated? 

I mean I hear what you say about how the process works but I 

didn’t hear the part about how are you making sure that the recommendations are being followed. 

59 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I would say it is in the mix of everything 

else we review. So, the Remedy Review Board would transmit comments technically in nature. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Is there any feedback to the Advisory Group or the 

Review Board on where their recommendations stand? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I would say, typically, there is back and 

forth after the issuance of the recommendation. Sometimes the recommendations are—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am sorry. I guess what I am looking for, is there 

a scorecard? I mean from my military background, when the IG 

comes in and the IG finds these kinds of issues in your Operational 

Readiness Inspection, there is a report that goes back from the organization to the IG to say this is how we have addressed your recommendations or the requirements to mitigate any short falls. Is 

there any kind of score card that ensures that the recommendations from those bodies are being adhered to? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I would say this body does not really function as an IG. It really functions as a science—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I know that. But the recommendations are supposed to be adhered to, right? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. Yes, and so, again, some of those comments 

are can you develop more data in this regard or conduct more sampling in this area before I make the remedy. So, we have reviewed 

that plus broader issues, in terms of adherence to national guidance and regs. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, obviously, you can tell from my questions, 

that the committee is concerned with EPA regions’ compliance with 

both the National Contingency Plan and the sediment guidance at 

sediment sites. 

So, can you tell me the requirements for the regions to document 

how they are following the sediment guidance? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, the sediment guidance lays out almost 

like the how in terms of how should sediment sites be investigated 

and remedy selected. So, ultimately, that just gets imbedded in the 

proposed plan. And then during the proposed plan, then we solicit 

input from both potential responsible parties and the public both 

in terms of have we adhered to the guidance or other aspects of the 

proposed remedy. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK, I am not sure I see the clear connection, but 

my time has run out. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 

Stanislaus, for joining us today and to discuss ways we can improve the Superfund and protect local communities from toxic sites. 

I know you heard from a lot of Members on their particular problems. And in our district in East Harris County, Texas, we are concerned about the San Jacinto River Waste Pits, a toxic site that 

was polluted with dioxin, a cancer-creating chemical, into the river 

in Galveston Bay for decades from the 1960s. This site was added 

as a Superfund site in 2008 at both my urging and Congressman 

Ted Poe. And nearly a decade later, families in East Harris County 

60 

are still waiting for the final decision from the EPA and for some 

piece of mind that the site will be permanently cleaned up. 

Six months ago, a barge pierced the temporary covering over the 

site and that polluted this historic river even more. We do have a 

responsible party who is responsible for that cleanup. 

Last week, the Harris County Health Department sent letters to 

residents near the waste pits advising households not to drink 

their tap water, due to the possible dioxins contaminating local private wells. This area is an unincorporated area, so people have private wells and there are some water districts. It is not in the City 

of Houston or the City of Baytown. It is between those two cities. 

So, Mr. Stanislaus, what is EPA doing in response to the county 

health department’s advisement about the possible pollution of 

ground water that these people drink? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, so we have worked with the county and 

local government officials in terms of the conduct of the sampling. 

In terms of the advisory itself, that is really the province of the 

local government. 

In terms of the long-term remedy, we expect by the end of the 

summer to have a proposed remedy to have a permanent solution 

to that situation. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, I know the local government doesn’t have responsibility for groundwater, though. These people have private 

wells on their own property and even businesses. But if it is being 

polluted by dioxin from this facility, it is actually the responsible 

party who is supposed to clean that up. Is the EPA encouraging 

them to be able to provide bottled water? I don’t know what you 

can do if the groundwater is polluted except remove all that dioxin 

that is there. And I know in that particular region, we have had 

EPA clean up a number of our dumping pits that were there before 

EPA was even created and they have been able to move that soil. 

Although this is actually in the water, so it is going to be even 

more expensive to remove that as much as possible from that site. 

Because to this day, it continues to pollute the San Jacinto River. 

What time line for the final decision? Did you say a final decision 

may be by October? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I think the plan is to present a proposed plan 

later this summer. And they are going to have a series of public 

hearings, public comment period. Based on that, typically anywhere from 60 to 90 days. And then after that time, we would incorporate the comments and make a final decision. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. I, along with our Harris County Attorneys’ Office and the local community organizations such as the Galveston 

Bay Foundation and San Jacinto River Coalition, we have called 

for the EPA to fully dredge and remove the toxins from the San 

Jacinto River. And local residents believe strongly that only the full 

removal of dioxin and toxic chemicals in the Waste Pits will permanently protect their families. 

This is a growing area of Harris County but it is also an industrial area, historically. So, we are concerned that EPA, which used 

a cheaper option that would keep the dioxins in place because a 

stone cap that may erode over time and fail during a major hurricane. In 2008, Hurricane Ike actually went over that facility there 

and the San Jacinto River off of Interstate 10. 

61 

What is the EPA doing to ensure the community’s wishes are 

being fully considered? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, that is definitely something part of our 

current considerations and part of what we would engage the community in the proposed remedy. 

So, typically, we would present a primary or sometimes alternative remedies, with a mixture of complete removal, part removal, 

part and in place and walk through the regulatory criteria for each 

of them. And we will have a public meeting based on that. 

Mr. GREEN. EPA had a hearing like that back in February and 

the community was united on not having a short-term solution. 

The temporary cap is not working. And even if you put a harder 

cap on there, that area is growing with barge traffic. And since it 

is right on the San Jacinto River, where there is a great deal of 

barge traffic because of the energy industry, that is why a permanent solution is the only solution. 

And I appreciate you being here but we are going to keep trying 

to make sure that that site, like the other sites in our East Harris 

County who have been cleaned up, we want it removed and permanently dealt with so the people there can feel comfortable with 

what they are getting out of their groundwater. 

Mr. Chairman, I know I am over time but, as you heard from 

other Members, these are really important issues in our district. 

And I appreciate you being there. We will continue to work with 

EPA to see if we can get a permanent solution. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Stanislaus, for joining us today. 

My first question is this. The States play an important role in 

the Superfund cleanup process. Do you feel that the current role 

of the States in the process is appropriate? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, again, we make sure we view States as 

a partner through this whole process. So, we do some up-front 

sharing of resources, have the State lead on some investigation, 

consult the States on before we list a proposed site. But we also 

recognize the States have raised this issue of whether we are appropriately and effectively incorporating their requirements. 

We have stood up this process with the States. I think you are 

going to hear later from a witness. I think there is more we can 

do, frankly. 

Mr. FLORES. Well, let us take that one step deeper. When 

CERCLA was enacted, very few States had any sort of a cleanup 

program under the Superfund process. And now, practically, every 

State has its own cleanup program. Do you agree now that we 

have—since the States have better infrastructure to deal with this, 

should more sites be cleaned up under State programs, where the 

States take the lead, rather than Superfund? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I think it is a shared responsibility. And 

I think we engage the States. There are certain sites that States 

want to take the lead and that is absolutely appropriate. A lot of 

times the States turn to us, given the complexity and the magnitude of the site. Sometimes it is an imminent situation. 

62 

So, I don’t disagree with you that where the States want to take 

the lead, we absolutely would support that. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And the next question is this. What steps is the 

EPA taking to ensure that any new financial assistance program 

that is developed under CERCLA Section 180(b) reflects real world 

scenarios and is not exaggerating the risk and cost of future liability? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. I mean we are in the process of doing that 

right now. We have engaged both industry, as well as the States, 

particularly the largest States that have significant mining, operations of financial assurance and we want to make sure that neither is there any duplication or preemption. So and our intention 

is to do that. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Mr. Chairman, that is all the questions I have 

and I yield the balance of my time to somebody that needs it or 

I can yield back to you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair, seeing no other Members present, would like to thank 

you, Mathy, for coming. Again, you have been here numerous 

times. 

We would ask that you respond to some of the colleagues who 

have asked specific questions on more details or maybe one-on-one 

conversations on specific sites. We know it is a difficult process. We 

all think we can do better and that is what we will explore in the 

years to come in the next Congress. So, what we might be able to 

do to move the ball down the road a little bit better. 

So, with that, we would like to dismiss you and we will ask the 

next panel to take their seats. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. OK, thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, we have got people coming and going. We will 

let them leave the committee room and we will get started. 

So, we want to welcome the last panel for today. We want to welcome you for your presence and for sitting in all morning. I think 

it is very instructive and we appreciate your expertise. 

We will go for opening statements from the left to the right. I 

have got the introductions here. So, we will start with Ms. Brittain, 

who is in Environmental Programs Manager, Site Remediation Section, Land Protection Division of the Oklahoma of Department of 

Environmental Quality on behalf of our friends at ASTSWMO. So, 

welcome. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. Your full statement is in the 

record. 

63 

STATEMENTS OF AMY BRITTAIN, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS MANAGER, SITE REMEDIATION SECTION, LAND PROTECTION DIVISION, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF 

STATE AND TERRITORIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS; MARIANNE LAMONT HORINKO, PRESIDENT, THE 

HORINKO GROUP; STEVEN NADEAU, PARTNER, ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICE GROUP, HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ 

AND COHN, LLP; AND ROBERT SPIEGEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EDISON WETLANDS ASSOCIATION 

STATEMENT OF AMY BRITTAIN 

Ms. BRITTAIN. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. And I thank you for 

the opportunity to speak at today’s hearing. 

As you said, I manage the Superfund Program for the State of 

Oklahoma but I am here on behalf of the Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, or ASTSWMO. And 

ASTSWMO is an association representing the waste management 

and cleanup programs of 50 States, five territories, and the District 

of Columbia. 

States play a key role in the Superfund process. We work closely 

with EPA to ensure that cleanup of Superfund sites in our States 

are appropriate, efficient, and cost-effective. Additionally, the Association works to address inconsistencies in how the program is 

managed from EPA region to EPA region. 

An ongoing concern for our State members is a process EPA follows to identify State regulations as potential applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements or ARARs. States across the 

country have raised concerns to EPA including inconsistencies in 

ARAR determination from one site to another, lack of written documentation on the rationale used to determine ARARs, and lack of 

early opportunities for the States to have a say in the ARAR list 

of a site. 

Over this past year, EPA has invited representatives from States 

to participate as members of a workgroup to develop tools to improve the ARAR identification process. And ASTSWMO appreciates 

that invitation but we suggest that the next step is for EPA to continue to engage States and to have an open direct dialogue with 

States on policy decisions on whether or not a State regulation is 

an ARAR. Superfund sites should be cleaned up to the same standard as other cleanup sites in our States under our State programs. 

Another growing concern for States is the financial burden that 

we face with operation and maintenance cost, especially on complex, long-term remedies such as groundwater treatment systems. 

Now that Superfund has been around for 35 years, a lot of sites 

are now in this operation and maintenance stage and States are 

obligated to pay 100 percent of operation maintenance costs on 

these sites. States are working with EPA to find ways to optimize 

remedies. EPA has implemented a remedy optimization program to 

try to review sites and look for potential optimizations. And States 

encourage EPA to perform these optimizations as early as possible 

so that cost savings and efficiencies are realized before the financial burden falls entirely to the States. 

64 

Another issues that ASTSWMO is working on are Superfund 

State Contracts. A Superfund State Contract is a binding agreement between the EPA and an individual State that defines the 

terms and conditions for both parties to share remedial cost at a 

specific site. States have concerns with the lack of detailed line 

item documentation on what EPA has spent on a site remedy. 

States get very little information on how the cleanup costs have 

been spent but we are expected to pay for 10 or 50 percent of the 

cost incurred. 

Another issue is the lack of timeliness for final financial reconciliation of these contracts. Many existing contracts have never 

been reconciled. 

Additionally, States have experienced lack of adherence to the 

contract requirements by EPA. 

With input from States, EPA revised the model clauses for 

Superfund State Contracts in late 2015. The new model provisions 

address several concerns of the State. However, many existing contracts will continue to cause problems for States. 

Superfund is a very important program that provides a mechanism for cleaning up properties that pose a threat to human health 

and the environment. State participation in this 

program is critical to success. States are important stakeholders 

because of the financial obligations of MATCH and long-term operation and maintenance. As co-regulators, States want to be real 

and meaningful partners in this process and will continue to work 

with EPA to address challenges. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brittain follows:] 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much and we are happy to have 

you here. 

And now I would like to turn to Marianne Horinko, President of 

the Horinko Group. And for the record, we know that you served 

in the EPA for many, many years and bring a wealth of experience. 

We are glad to have you here. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARIANNE LAMONT HORINKO 

Ms. HORINKO. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member 

Tonko, members of the panel. This is an important hearing and I 

appreciate your raising public attention to this critical environmental program. I will be the first to say, given my years in the 

program, that it has accomplished a great deal in 35 years—controlled exposure at over 1,400 sites, controlled groundwater migration at over 1,100 sites, and most importantly, leveraged billions of 

dollars in private party investment, not just responsible parties, 

but developers, lenders, others who really want to clean up these 

properties and get them back into productive use. 

At the same time, as the chairman said, it is not 1980. Much has 

changed. And so I am going to recommend both some statutory, 

programmatic, and policy topics for oversight for the committee. 

Statutorily, the number one change is the role of States. As we 

have said, in 1908, perhaps only New Jersey had a program. Now, 

virtually every State, and often, many urban cities, such as New 

York City, have their own cleanup programs. So, capacity has increased enormously and yet, Superfund still acts as though it were 

in a vacuum. And certainly, there are ways to sort of patchwork 

solutions but I think a more fundamental reform is needed and 

that the committee should consider actually providing for a statutory change that will allow for a formal State authorization to run 

the Superfund program. All of the other Federal cleanup statutes, 

RCRA, the Underground Tank Program, the Brownfields Program 

have a delegation for States. The States are up and running; they 

are very capable. So, I think it is time to contemplate a statutory 

change to allow States to formally run the Superfund Program. 

Secondly, I think it is important to take a hard look at the National Priorities List. Why are we still listing sites today? Shouldn’t 

the RCRA program have prevented operating industries from mismanaging chemicals? I recommend that the Government Accountability Office take a very careful look at the composition of sites 

coming onto the NPL in the past 5 to 10 years and see are these 

sites all really Federal programs. Are there State and local programs that can remediate these sites in a more expeditious manner? So, I would take a hard look at the composition of the NPL. 

Then I would also the committee to do as it is doing today for 

some accountability. Why have some of these sites been on the 

NPL for 30, 35 years? In the early days of the program, it was very 

easy to put sites on the NPL. People thought, wow, this means a 

lot of money, so States were listing sites at the rate of 80 to 100 

a year. Well, maybe not all those sites would qualify as Superfund 

sites using today’s ranking. So, let’s take a hard look at why some 

of these sites haven’t aged out of the system and also ask other accountability questions and sort of get the agency really thinking 

about deadlines and delivering results. 

71 

Programmatic changes—oh, one last statutory change. And that 

is EPA needs the ability to manage its resources more efficiently. 

Right now, they are constrained from moving full-time equivalence 

people from one region to another. The sites are more mature in 

some regions than other, providing some congressional fix that 

would allow EPA to manage its resources and deploy them more 

efficiently would be very helpful. 

On the policy side, I think the National Contingency Plan is ripe 

for overhaul, in terms of removing a lot of the process that bogs 

it down. If you look at the remedial program and the emergency 

removal program, which only EPA would create a program that is 

akin to picking someone up on the street having a heart attack and 

taking them to the hospital of removal. But it is a program that 

works. It is very effective. Similarly, the Brownfields Program, very 

flexible, very effective. 

So, let’s look at what works and incorporate those changes into 

the National Contingency Plan so sites can get cleaned up and not 

get bogged down in miles and miles of paperwork. 

The other thing that I would recommend is looking at the Six 

Sigma or LEAN process. Some of the EPA regions are piloting this 

in the RCRA Corrective Action Program and it has created a different culture, a culture of accountability, a culture of deadlines, a 

culture of daily looking at how can we fix things and meet our expectations for our customer, the community. So, take a look at that 

LEAN process and see how that can be implemented in Superfund. 

And lastly, cultural changes. Cultural changes are perhaps the 

most challenging to implement because it requires people to think 

differently. Often people don’t embrace change but I think we need 

to try. 

So, I recommend the following two cultural evolutions. The first 

one concerns technology. It has dramatically transformed our lives 

in many ways and transforming institutional controls is one area 

where it is taking place now. EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Region is piloting 

a tool that will create a GPS-enabled app that you can use on you 

smart phone and take anywhere in the country and lat/long a site’s 

property boundaries and then also tell you where is the plume. Is 

it PCE? Is it dioxin? Is it mercury? Where is it going? What rate 

of speed is it going? Essentially, this tool could create a whole army 

of citizen enforcers of the environmental law, which is daunting but 

also very promising. 

So, take a hard look at technology and see how that can help us 

use our resources. 

The other thing I would say is education. EPA has lost many key 

employees to retirement. It is hiring to make up backlog. These 

new risk managers need to learn what we have learned in 35 years 

and how not to repeat the mistakes of the past. So, doing some 

very robust education, I think, would be much needed. 

Lastly, partnerships. I am delighted that the Edison Wildlife 

Group is here because that represents the kind of partnership that 

really I think bring promise to the agency. We have learned that 

we don’t have enough time or resources in the public or private sector. So, partnering with NGOs, educational institutions to do things 

like Region VII is doing where they put a pollinator garden on a 

former recycling Superfund site I think is very promising. 

72 

So, again, I thank the committee for its attention and I commend 

you all for your leadership and I appreciate your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Horinko follows:] 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Steven 

Nadeau, a partner at Honigman. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Your full statement is in the record. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. NADEAU 

Mr. NADEAU. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the committee. Thank you for 

holding this important oversight hearing on the implementation of 

CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund. 

My name is Steven Nadeau, and I am an environmental attorney 

with more than 3 decades of experience with potentially responsible parties at complex Superfund sites across the country and I 

have served as the Coordinating Director for the Sediment Management Working Group since 1998. 

I spent years working with industry and the EPA in developing 

site remedies for complex Superfund sites. I am delighted to be 

here today to share my experience with 

the Superfund program. However, before I do I must say that 

these views are my own and do not represent the views of any particular client or organization. 

Congress enacted CERCLA in response to a growing desire for 

the Federal Government to ensure the cleanup of the Nation’s most 

contaminated sites and to protect the public from potential harm. 

For over 30 years, the EPA has successfully identified and remediated hundreds of Superfund sites, typically old abandoned landfills 

or industrial properties. However, the typical Superfund profile has 

changed from those abandoned landfills and industrial properties 

to complex mining and river sediment sites, often referred to as 

mega sites. These mega sites are far more complicated, expensive, 

and time consuming that traditional Superfund sites. 

Mega sites, such as those involving former mining areas, where 

contaminated sediments are widespread and a costly problem for 

this country. According to the 2004 EPA Office of Inspector General, evaluation of mega sites, hard rock mining sites nationwide 

have the potential to cost between $7 billion and $24 billion. Mining sites present unique challenges to the Superfund Program. Uncertainties about party’s liability, their long-term viability and efficiency, and the effectiveness of existing hard rock mining remedies 

make the challenges insurmountable. 

Similarly, contaminated sediments in our Nation’s waterways, 

which are the result of hundreds of years of urban and industrial 

activity from hundreds and even thousands of sources present 

unique challenges to the Superfund Program. These sites represent 

the future of the Superfund Program. 

And as you can see in a map, there it is. 

84 

85 

The issue of contaminated sediment is not unique to one region. 

Over a hundred potential sites are listed across the country in that 

time frame and many more have been added since. These sites 

present the challenge of addressing the health and environmental 

impacts of ongoing urban industrial use, rather than cleaning up 

discrete releases from specific individual entities, as is in the case 

of the older, traditional Superfund sites. 

For example, large-scale contaminated sediment remediation 

projects on urban rivers, like the Willamette River in Oregon, can 

often involve dozens of PRPs, cost over a billion dollars, and drag 

on for decades. 

To assist EPA regions and managers in making scientifically 

sound risk management decisions at these sites, EPA issued two 

critical policy guidance documents, Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risk at Hazardous Waste Sites and the EPA 

Sediment Guidance. 

The EPA Sediment Guidance was meticulously developed by EPA 

over a 5-year period and was the subject of internal review, comments from EPA regions and extensive public comments. The substance of the sediment guidance presents a comprehensive technically sound policy roadmap for addressing complexities associated 

with contaminated sediments. However, as I describe in greater detail in my written testimony, the EPA’s disregard of the sediment 

guidance and the failure to follow the National Contingency Plan’s 

requirements on, for example, short- and long-term effectiveness, 

implementability and cost-effectiveness, particularly at the regional 

level, are severely limiting the effectiveness of the Superfund Program at sediment sites, delaying the remediation of impacted sites 

and delaying the redevelopment of our Nation’s waterways. 

For example, some EPA regions have ignored the sediment guidance risk reduction focus in its recommendation to use the phased 

approach and instead favor bank-to-bank dredging remedies at 

mega sites. This can lead to more harm than good and delay the 

recovery of the water body for decades due to the releases of contaminants from the sediments themselves during dredging. 

The EPA’s failure to follow the NCP and he sediment guidance 

is causing lengthy and costly delays. The failure to adequately 

characterize and control upstream and adjacent contamination 

sources, which then can result in recontamination, 

implementability issues, such as significant challenges associated 

with rail and highway transport, aging super infrastructure and 

disposal of millions of cubic yards, significant long-term impacts on 

communities trying to use a water body when dredging occurs 24 

hours a day for decades. 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify here today. 

I believe that appropriate application of CERCLA’s NCP provisions 

and the sediment guidance and the recommendations outlined in 

my written testimony, of which there are seven, will help make 

remedy selection decisions at the EPA faster, fairer, and more efficient. Implementing these recommendations will help protect 

human health and the environment, ensure cost-effectiveness, and 

provide for efficient use of our natural resources and save taxpayer 

dollars. 

I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

86 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nadeau follows:] 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

And finally, last but not least, Robert Spiegel, Executive Director 

of the Edison Wetlands Association. Again, you are recognized for 

5 minutes. Your full statement is in the record. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT SPIEGEL 

Mr. SPIEGEL. Sure. And unlike the rest of the speakers here, I 

am not going to try to get my 5 minutes and speak everything I 

have on my testimony because it is entered into the record. I want 

to really just go over a few things, based on what I have heard as 

well as what other people have said. 

My name is Bob Spiegel. I am the executive director of a nonprofit called the Edison Wetlands Association. And, unlike many of 

the people that have spoken here, actually I am not a lawyer. I am 

not an environmental engineer. What I started out as was a pastry 

chef. I went to school for cooking, and I ended up taking a shortcut, 

or I should say a long cut, when I saw the condition of the environment in New Jersey and when I saw just how bad things had gotten in our State. New Jersey has got the distinction of having the 

highest population density. It also has got the highest cancer rate: 

1 in 3 in the State, and that is something that is unacceptable. 

And many of the people that spoke earlier talked about illness 

in communities throughout the State. And it just appears to me 

that you shouldn’t have to die, your family shouldn’t have to get 

sick just because you picked the wrong ZIP Code to live in. And I 

think that it is beholden up this committee and also all our elected 

representatives, both in the House and the Senate and our President to reauthorize Superfund so that we have the funds needed 

to clean these sites up once and for all. 

We work with communities all throughout New Jersey. We work 

with the Ramapough Lunaape, who were featured in an HBO documentary, Mann v. Ford. We have worked with communities large 

and small. And one of the things that we saw was when there was 

a robust Superfund program, the cleanups got done. They got done 

quickly. They were done comprehensively. 

As a matter of fact, we got the last check from the Superfund 

Trust Fund to clean up the chemical insecticide Superfund site. It 

was a site that had green rabbits on it as a result of the chemicals. 

And Congressman Pallone had been to the site many times and 

met some of the people that lived around the site. It was next to 

a roll bakery that made rolls for McDonald’s in the Tri-State area. 

And I went and testified for the widows of those people that 

worked at the roll bakery. 

And because of the amount of attention, we were able to actually 

get a lot of media attention. And Molly Ivins actually put a chapter 

in her book, Bushwhacked dedicated to the green rabbits and the 

yellow streams. Low and behold, Christy Whitman shows up with 

an oversized novelty check and the site now is clean. 

It cost almost $50 million and now the site is actually a dog 

park. We actually used Green Acres money, the first time in the 

State of New Jersey, and bought the property and converted it into 

a dog park and now it is a community asset. It is something that 

brings the community together; something that once made Agent 

Orange and other defoliants that killed servicemen in Vietnam is 

104 

now a clean community asset. Why? Because we had money in the 

Superfund Trust Fund. 

The polluters that caused this problem need to be the ones that 

pay for it. Now, there is other recommendations that I could talk 

about that would make the program better, like using the removal 

program and the remedial program, which I think Ms. Horinko had 

talked about, and we call it ‘‘remove-ial.’’ It is kind of a hybrid 

using the removal program to fast track the cleanup investigation 

work which was done at Raritan Bay Slag and get it up to the 

point where the cleanup work can start. 

So, I would echo that recommendation that you look at the removal program and the remedial program closer and let them do 

the work that they do well and then, that way, we could expedite 

cleanups. 

Another thing that we want to see is there could be more available funding, if only the EPA and the legislators would pierce the 

corporate veil of the companies that are responsible for this pollution. More times than not, we see companies like Ford Motor Company, and Pfizer, and companies that have the wherewithal to 

lobby make decisions that get done in Washington that affect the 

cleanups. They get lower cleanup standards. The cleanups are delayed. And as a result, children get sick and die. 

One of the last things I just wanted to talk about is that when 

you look at the original—oh, the one thing that we didn’t talk 

about was the fact that principle threat waste is a major component and it used to be of all Superfund cleanups. They used to have 

cleanups that used to deal with principal threat waste, which 

meant they took out the highest threat at a site and then sometimes the site would be capped, if they couldn’t get all the waste 

out, but the major threats were removed. That is no longer done. 

Principal threat waste removal at sites is done less and less frequently and I would like to see that trend reversed and the only 

way to do that is with proper funding. 

Just one quick comment. Congressman Eckhardt, during 1979, at 

his waste disposal hearings, in the survey, in the final report, show 

that the chemical industry used our entire country as their own 

private chemical dump. And there was no town that was exempt 

from industry’s practices. And the Superfund sites that they created are listed in that report. You can look at them. In every town 

in every State in the United States in that final report that was 

done in 1979, it lists every single State and every single community 

was a dumping ground. And that is why we have so many Superfund sites today because no one ever thought the magnitude of the 

problem that existed actually turned out to be the case. 

Thank you for letting me come and testify. And I am here to answer questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Siegel follows:] 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. We appreciate your attendance and your testimony. So, I will start with my 5 minutes for 

opening questions. 

First of all, just really for Ms. Brittain and anyone else can 

chime in real quick, the EPA today, and we have heard them numerous times, say they really, they feel the States are valued partners in this process. Do you think States feel that they are valued 

partners in the process? 

Ms. BRITTAIN. I think that there are several parts of the process 

that States do not feel as valued as other parts. And it varies from 

State to State and region to region and how much involvement 

there is. 

But, yes, there are definitely areas that ASTSWMO works on to 

try to encourage State participation in the process. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Does anybody else want to chime in on that? 

Mr. SPIEGEL. Yes, I actually would like to say one thing about 

the State process. We have 25,000 toxic waste sites, besides the 

Superfund sites, in our State and we have no site remediation program. They made it all voluntary. 

So, there really is no oversight. They let the polluters self-regulate in our State and so we really don’t have it. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK, so for the State of New Jersey, you don’t think 

the States do. I don’t want to get into State for State. 

Mr. SPIEGEL. No, but it is a completely voluntary program that 

self-regulates and they dismantled the site remediation program. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. 

Mr. SPIEGEL. The one thing—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Let me just move on. We will get back 

to you. 

Mr. SPIEGEL. Can I just make one point? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It depends how quick. 

Mr. SPIEGEL. OK. Yes, the only thing that I would say that they 

should include more States in—State-recognized Indian tribes that 

are recognized by the State should have a seat at the table, and 

not only federally recognized tribes like the Ramapough Lunaape. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Yes, thank you. 

All right, Ms. Horinko, and you have already laid out where you 

think areas, and so did Mr. Nadeau about different ways we can 

improve the system, we appreciate that. So, I am going to jump to 

my second question for you, Ms. Horinko, because you laid those 

out pretty well. 

Let’s talk about administration reforms. Having come out of the 

EPA, what administration reforms you think could be added to the 

list of how we can improve the Superfund Program? 

Ms. HORINKO. The number one administrative reform to me 

would be looking at ways to streamline the process. I couldn’t agree 

more; the ‘‘remove-ia’’l program was actually piloted in Region III, 

I believe in the late ’80s, early ’90s. 

Mr. SPIEGEL. I thought that was my term. 

Ms. HORINKO. Well, victory has a thousand fathers. But we can 

concur that that program was very successful. It focused on the 

concept that was alluded to earlier. If we know we are going to put 

the stuff in a truck and drive it to a permanent landfill, let’s do 

that. 

118 

So, that would be the number one recommendation I would have, 

is looking at the ‘‘remove-ial’’ program. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Ms. Brittain, do you believe that it would 

make for faster and more efficient and cost-effective cleanup if 

States were authorized to implement CERCLA? 

Ms. BRITTAIN. I think it would be a good thing. And I can speak 

for the State of Oklahoma right now. We often ask for lead on our 

Superfund sites. So, the State takes the lead in performing those 

cleanups. And we have the staff and we have the willingness and 

we are there in the community. 

So, we can get back with you on the other States. So, it might 

depend but yes, there are States that like to take the lead. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Because we have had these hearings on Superfund. This is not our first one and I have been on the subcommittee 

now for 5 1⁄2 years and there is always, I think there is a part of 

this debate is forgotten, is how much the States are asked to pay. 

That is why the bill of sale or what are the actual costs, so that 

you can look at, well, we are going to provide this much, this percentage, what are the real cost drivers? That is issue one. 

Issue two is then the continued review of the site after the EPA 

finishes. Then that is on the State, that cost. 

So, you want to be there at the planning and the execution because you are going to have the burden of the cost infinitum, once 

the site gets removed. Is that correct? 

Ms. BRITTAIN. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Nadeau, States play an important role, as we 

were just discussing, in the cleanup process. Do you think that 

States should be authorized to implement CERCLA? 

Mr. NADEAU. There has been a division of labor where they take 

the lead and then EPA has oversight. I think that part is still important because the sediment guidance and the NCP provide a 

really good roadmap on how to make risk-based decisions. 

And what I wasn’t able to say earlier is that the number one 

problem we have right now is you have sediment guidance in the 

NCP and there is no accountability by the regions to headquarters. 

Mr. Stanislaus pointed out there is a lot of discussion but I don’t 

feel that headquarters even feels it is in their responsibility to direct the regions if they are off the tracks. And that is a serious 

problem because even, for example, on a cost-effectiveness requirement of the NCP requiring a proportionality between the remedy 

and the cost, no one is even running that analysis, even though it 

is a regulation of the U.S. Government. And likewise, it is very important at these sites that the experts in the NRB and in CSAG, 

when those recommendations are made, it is not part of the decision. It is purely voluntary and advisory. And the regions, basically, and many of them, have disregarded the recommendations. 

So, there is no accountability. 

And the length of these studies, if you look at Williamette River 

in Oregon, as Congressman Schrader pointed out, 15 years of 

study, over $100 million before anything is cleaned up. When you 

have five to seven companies that are willing to start tomorrow to 

clean up but, because of the all the bureaucracy and the conservatism of figuring out why this is here and why is that here. This 

is not that complicated. They are complex but you can figure out 

119 

pretty early on in an adaptive management or operable unit staged 

approach. This would be the biggest change that could be implemented. If you can figure out—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, I need to get to my colleagues. You will get 

a chance to follow up. My time is way expired. 

So, the Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to all of our panelists, 

welcome. 

Mr. Nadeau, can you explain the changing profile, if there is 

such a change, of our Superfund sites? In what ways are they becoming more complex? 

Mr. NADEAU. The sediment sites and mining sites, for example, 

are geographically large. When you are dealing with contaminated 

sediments under a river, you can’t see it and get your arms around 

it. Basically, we learned a lot of lessons with land but you can get 

your arms around it, you can see the edges, you can test it. 

Then, with sediment sites, it is mixed. It is moving. You have ongoing sources that are adding. If you clean up a sediment site to 

a level a lot of it being suggested in the Pacific Northwest, let’s just 

pick a number. Let’s say it is ten. There are still 12 or 15 or 100 

parts per million of the same material coming because of other 

sources. 

So, they are complicated but there is no reason it should take 10 

or 15 years to get them done. And there are ways to streamline 

that. And the nice thing about this is we think that the EPA policy 

is right on target; it just has to be applied. And if you apply the 

sediment guidance in good faith, you will get cost-effective streamlined remedies and you won’t need 15 years to do it. 

And if you implement a big dredging project, like as proposed for 

some of the large sites, maybe it is 15 years to get there, but then 

it may be 15 years of dredging. And unlike land sites, another 

counterintuitive part about this, is when you dredge more, no matter how carful you are, it creates a problem. 

And in Commencement Bay in Washington, the State of Washington has looked at data from before dredging started and after. 

And 20 years after the dredging started, the numbers went from 

38 before the problem was fixed to up to as high as 211 in fish and 

then down to now it is 70 or 80, after 20 years. 

So, we have basically made it worse. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Ms. Horinko, do you agree with that assessment? Are the Superfund sites becoming more complex? 

Ms. HORINKO. The nature of the challenge is becoming more complex. And this is intuitive. You think about it, the sites that were 

easy to clean up, the drum sites, the more focused sites were 

cleaned up in the 1980s and the 1990s and the early part of 2000. 

What is left is the very large contaminated watersheds and mining 

sites that it took hundreds of years for them to get that contaminated. And so it is going to take a long time to put them back into 

productive reuse. 

Mr. TONKO. Which types of sites would you recommend be given 

high priority under the Superfund program? 

120 

Ms. HORINKO. It is a hard question to answer because as someone who formerly ran the program, of course all of my sites are important. But I would look at sites where people are exposed immediately. So, where people are actually consuming contaminated fish 

or exposed to chemicals in their water supply. I would immediately 

look at sites where people are exposed. Those should be the highest 

priority. 

Mr. TONKO. And do you believe that States may be inclined to 

list a site on the National Priorities List if there is not a viable responsible party to bill for the site’s cleanup? 

Ms. HORINKO. That may well be the case or, in some States, the 

State will threaten to list as a way to get a recalcitrant responsible 

party to the table. And that is a very valuable strategy. I have seen 

many sites get proposed for the NPL and never go final because the 

PRP woke up and said oh, my goodness, maybe I will snap to attention. So, that is very much a tool. 

Mr. TONKO. And I agree that there may be more we can do to 

empower our State programs. I do not think, however, this solves 

the problem of orphaned sites. I believe complex and expensive 

cleanups, where there is no responsible party, will likely continue 

to be passed on to the Federal National Priorities List and, thus, 

Federal taxpayers. 

With that, Mr. Spiegel, from your experience, if given enough resources, can Superfund sites be returned to productive use? 

Mr. SPIEGEL. We actually work a lot with both Brownfields-toGreenfields and Brownfield redevelopment, where they get a balanced redevelopment along the Raritan River. We are working on 

a very large one right now. It is about 660 acres as the Keasbey 

Redevelopment. And we are getting rateables. They are being 

cleaned up. And there are resources that are coming to these cleanups from both the EPA and from the State because they are generating rateables but it is when groups come together, when there is 

emphasis on certain brownfield redevelopment and we look at balance, I think that works the best, overall, with brining all stakeholders together. 

So, yes, we do see them being cleaned up. 

Mr. TONKO. OK and just quickly, you have the experience to suggest that Superfund Programs have resources challenges. We know 

that there are orphaned sites where there is not a potentially responsible party to clean it up. Are there also sites where a PRP 

does exist but does not engage with the EPA because it knows that 

the EPA does not have the ability to clean up the site and send 

them the bill? 

Mr. SPIEGEL. Yes, we see that more and more often. As Congressman Pallone has said, the responsible parties will do things to stall 

or delay. And oftentimes, they will do things like trying to drag in 

municipalities and try to bankrupt municipalities and so that 

delays the cleanup and then turns the municipality against its own 

residence. 

And so if we could find better ways to pierce the corporate veil, 

we would make more money available for cleanups. We would have 

less delay and we would have more fair cleanups overall, at least 

in New Jersey, if not in the country. 

121 

Mr. TONKO. Well, my time has expired and with that, Mr. Chair, 

I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes my colleague from Mississippi, Mr. 

Harper, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to each of 

you for being here on a very important topic. 

Ms. Horinko, does the National Contingency Plan need to be updated? And if so, do you have suggestions regarding what needs to 

be done? 

Ms. HORINKO. I do, Congressman Harper. I would take a look at 

the copious amount of procedural steps that need to be addressed 

as part of the National Contingency Plan, in order to make longterm remedial decisions. It is stultifying the process. It is bogging 

down the ability of States and local governments, and the regions, 

even, to get the cleanup decision. 

So, that would be the first thing I would look at is all the steps 

in the long-term remedial program. Can those be collapsed and 

made more efficient? 

Mr. HARPER. Right. Your written testimony suggests that the 

role of States in implementing Superfund needs to be seriously reexamined. 

Would you please elaborate and explain what changes may need 

to be made? 

Ms. HORINKO. Yes, the States now have such a deep bench of capability that didn’t exist 35 years ago. Not in every section of the 

country but in many sections of the country they have the capability to manage most of the sites that come our way. 

So, I am not saying do away with the NPL. I am not saying do 

away with the regional presence, by any means. You will always 

need that Federal backstop, but the States are now so robust in 

terms of their capacity that I think that they should be empowered. 

Mr. HARPER. OK, should States be authorized to implement 

CERCLA? 

Ms. HORINKO. I think so. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. How could EPA utilize the process it undertakes for removal action to make remedial actions more timely, 

cost-efficient, and efficient? 

Ms. HORINKO. I would look at the tools that the removal program 

has used over the past 35 years. Instead of the cumbersome RIFS 

process, which is years’ worth of study around the remedial investigation of feasibility tools, I would look at the engineering evaluation and cost assessment and see how we can do in terms of attacking pieces of the problem at a time in these complex watersheds. 

I think doing a one size fits all approach is just bogging things 

down. I think we need to pick some spots where we can make improvements today and implement those changes now. 

Mr. HARPER. Ms. Horinko, your written testimony discusses the 

Six Sigma or LEAN Program and notes that it has been used to 

make the RCRA Program more efficient. 

How could that process be utilized to make CERCLA more efficient? 

Ms. HORINKO. Well, I will commend the EPA for first of all piloting this process and, secondly, trying to do training across all ten 

122 

regions. And I was privileged to attend 3 days of training in Columbus, Ohio, last year, with the Ohio Remedial Project Managers. 

So, I think more awareness, more training. I am working with 

members of industry, who have used Six Sigma LEAN processes in 

their industrial operations, to bring those lessons learned and 

share best practices. So, I think that kind of cultural change is very 

beneficial. 

Mr. HARPER. Well, let’s discuss technology for just a moment. 

How can technology that is available, what is available now, be utilized to make the Superfund Program more efficient? 

Ms. HORINKO. One of the challenges that was discussed earlier 

at this hearing is the integrity of long-term stewardship controls, 

engineering controls, legal controls. 

If you have made a decision that some contamination has to be 

left in place for some period of time because it is just not technically possible to get it out, no matter how hard you try, then you 

need to make sure those engineering controls, institutional controls 

have integrity. And by using technology, such as GIS tools and 

mapping tools and apps on your smart phones, not only EPA and 

the State can ensure that those institutional controls are structurally sound but citizens, real estate agents, neighbors, property 

owners can say wow, I see this plume here. What is being done 

about it? So, it is very empowering. 

Mr. HARPER. You were the Assistant Administrator for OSWER 

and presumably worked on Superfund guidance regarding how to 

clean up contaminated sediment sites during your time at EPA. 

What is your experience with respect to how well EPA is currently applying the guidance? 

Ms. HORINKO. My experience has been that the results today are 

all over the map. Some regions are adhering closely to those adoptive management principles. Some are forging their own path. 

And so the most common complaint I hear is that you get a different remedy, depending on what region of the country you are in 

and that doesn’t seem right to me. 

Mr. HARPER. Well, can you give me a specific example of where 

EPA is doing a good job and perhaps one where maybe they are 

missing the mark? 

Ms. HORINKO. Sure. Sure, the sites where EPA is doing a good 

job tend to be not as controversial, not the ones grabbing the headlines like the Passaic or the Williamette. The Williamette especially because it is so front page news these days, is a site where 

I see the region sort of forging its own path, not necessarily look 

at adaptive management approach. So, I think that is a site where 

some near-term fixes could be made. 

Mr. HARPER. And my time is up. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great questions, Mr. Harper. And I will yield to 

Congressman Schrader from Oregon for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the panelists for being here. 

I guess I will start with Ms. Horinko. I wonder if you could comment a little bit about the State’s role in the EPA Superfund process. 

123 

Ms. HORINKO. I would be happy to do that. As I indicated earlier, 

the States have really matured in terms of their capabilities over 

the past 35 years. And I, when I was Assistant Administrator, 

helped to defer many sites to State attention because they have the 

ability to manage these cleanups. The States also have the ability 

to be much more in tune with their communities because they are 

on the ground. 

So, I think the States can play a very important role in the 

Superfund going forward with legal authority. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you. Again, I am focused a little bit on the 

Portland Harbor, obviously. I am concerned about, you know I hear 

estimates of costs of $50 million to fix this or that or $100 million. 

And here, we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars, if not over 

a billion dollars. 

So, it is a very complex project. Every panelist, including Mr. 

Stanislaus has talked about this is not your grandpa’s cleanup program anymore. Very complex, difficult approaches and hence, the 

adaptive management suggestions that have come out of the agency over the years and stuff. 

So, I would like both Ms. Horinko and maybe Mr. Nadeau talk 

about why Portland is not being used in an adaptive management 

approach. 

Ms. HORINKO. The beauty of adaptive management is that you 

don’t have to do everything at one time. When you are talking 

about ten river miles, you can’t clean up 10 river miles at one time. 

It is just not possible. 

And so adaptive management is let’s try some different projects 

in areas where the risk is greatest. And then test out how that approach worked and then come back and readjust our plan so that 

we are constantly improving, constantly incorporating new science, 

new data. 

It is not let’s study everything forever and then see if we can 

make a decision for all time. Making a decision for all time is very 

difficult. Making a decision for the next 5 years is not that hard 

of a process. 

So, I think that is the key thing that I would like to see applied 

to this site. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you. Mr. Nadeau, do you agree? 

Mr. NADEAU. I think Ms. Horinko has said it very well. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Do you have anything else? 

Mr. NADEAU. It allows you to get started on a cleanup early. Instead of waiting until you think you have the perfect solution, you 

could start early. You can address something in 2 years, or 3 years, 

or 4 years. And then it is a great case study to prove whether the 

remedy is working in combination, typically, of dredging and capping or capping alone. And these are early areas. 

In a site like the Williamette, you could probably reduce 70 to 

80 percent of the risk in an adaptive management mode and then 

monitor it. You may find very well that you have done your job and 

you just monitor it indefinitely. It is much more efficient. You can 

get much more done earlier. And companies are willing to do this. 

Companies want to do the right thing. They don’t want it to drag 

out 15 years. No one is stalling. 

124 

Mr. SCHRADER. No. I know that is not the case. They want to get 

this thing done. They are as tired as everybody. The community, 

the businesses, EPA itself want to get this done. And so I agree 

with that and that sounds like that is a very good approach. 

I am concerned, Mr. Nadeau, you talk about the sedimentation 

guidelines and perhaps not being looked at in a serious way, that 

EPA is not following its own recommendations. Now, I am a little 

bit of a scientist myself, having spent 30 some years in veterinary 

medicine. It seems very logical to me that the dredging does stir 

up a lot of stuff, things that haven’t been put in suspension. 

In some of your written testimony, you talk about a couple of 

sites where once it was all dredged up, now they are still seeing 

more contamination than before the remediation was put into play. 

Could you comment on how the sediment guidance might be 

more helpful for a site like the Portland Superfund site? 

Mr. NADEAU. Well, the sediment guidance right now requires examination of source control so that you don’t get recontamination 

but it also requires your decision to be on a risk-based approach. 

And that also includes the risk of harm by doing an implementation of the remedy. So, no matter how careful you are, you are not 

going to get rid of 100 percent of the problem. 

The newer techniques of capping, which are not new anymore, 

will allow you to seal in a lot of that contaminated sediment, not 

creating this big uncontrolled cloud. So, no matter, everyone’s intent is to get 100 percent. No one is successful at that. 

So, by applying adaptive management, you also get the benefit 

of learning the lessons of what worked under the specific conditions 

of the sites. It will really allow the environment to be remediated 

more quickly and in a very strong protective way and in an costeffective manner. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you both very much, all of you. I really 

hope that EPA looks at the adaptive management guidelines, the 

sedimentation guidelines, before they make their record of decision 

because, again, I think everyone wants to do the right thing. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Pallone for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Bob Spiegel, my constituent for testifying before 

the subcommittee today. He and I have worked for many years on 

Superfund cleanups in New Jersey. 

When he was talking about the green rabbits. that was at the 

CIC site in Edison, which was, at one point, ranked as the worst, 

the most toxic site on the Superfund list. And the used to manufacture Agent Orange. And then they dumped the Agent Orange on 

the site, which is just incredible. 

But anyway, I wanted to ask you some questions. You know we 

talked about how Superfund cleanups are essential for protecting 

public health and funding has been cut considerably over the last 

decade. And the GAO released a report last year looking at funding 

and found that the number of non-Federal Superfund sites increased by 10 percent in the last 15 years, while funding for the 

program in the same period fell from $2 billion to $1.1 billion. And 

125 

obviously, we can’t expect to successfully clean up more sites by 

slashing funding for the program. 

So, Bob, I just wanted to ask you, in your experience, how has 

this drop-off in funding affected cleanups and have you seen delays 

in addressing contamination at specific sites? 

Mr. SPIEGEL. At sites where there are orphaned sites, ones where 

either there is no viable responsible party or one that is recalcitrant, the cleanups have pretty much come to a halt. 

And in a lot of these projects are what they call shovel-ready. In 

other words, all the studies are done. All the work that needed to 

be done to be done to determine the best type of cleanup or the 

most protective cleanup, it is done. They are just waiting for funding. Then, we are being told that the funding is not coming. 

But also, more so, and I think you mentioned this before, sites 

where we do have a viable responsible party, the threat of treble 

damages is no longer a viable threat because they know the U.S. 

EPA is not going to come in. They don’t have the resources to do 

a 10 or a 20, or a $30 million cleanup, which might be what is required, as is in the case of the Ringwood Mine Superfund site, 

where you have drinking water for 2 million people at risk. 

And so Ford has been just dragging their feet with the cleanup, 

when everybody knows that the pink sludge that has been dumped 

in the mines up there and the poisoning of the Ramapough 

Lunaape tribe, that that sludge has to be taken out, in order to 

protect the drinking water for two million people, and to protect 

the ancestral rights of the people that live on the mountain. But 

Ford knows what has to be done but they have the ability to drag 

it out and delay. 

And that is what we seeing more and more, took, is not just with 

orphaned sites but with other sites where there is a PRP that does 

have the resources just delays for no real reason, other than they 

can. 

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate that. Before we run out of time, I 

wanted to deal with this issue of robust and effective cleanups, as 

opposed to capping, for example. And during the first panel, I 

asked Mr. Stanislaus about the drop-off in funding and how has 

that affected the quality of the cleanups. 

So, in your experience, have you seen cost, rather than health 

concerns, influence the remedies selected for cleanups? And do you 

agree with Mr. Stanislaus that the drop-off in funding hasn’t affected the quality of the cleanups? 

Mr. SPIEGEL. I think all you really have to do is to look at the 

remedies that have come out since the Trust Fund has been depleted to look and see what remedies have been chosen and more 

and more remedies in New Jersey and in Region II that I have 

looked at, they are leaving behind the principle threat waste, which 

is what EPA used to always try to remove. Even if they had to cap 

some residual waste, they would remove the principle threat waste 

as a means to get rid of the source. 

And now we are seeing that that is no longer being done across 

the board. I could probably rattle off 20 sites that I know of where 

the principle threat waste is being left behind. It used to be the exception to the rule and now it seems to be the rule. 

126 

And when you put a plastic pool cover on a site, all you are doing 

is creating a future problem because I think the people on this 

panel will agree all caps eventually fail and they require maintenance. So, what you are doing is creating a problem for the future 

and it is always cheaper when you take and you take these costs 

and you expand them out to clean up a site and get rid of the contamination than to have to cap it and monitor it and babysit it forever. 

Caps always fail. It is just a question of when. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, I appreciate all that you do, Bob. Really, 

you know, Mr. Chairman, I know he is my constituent. You would 

just say, ‘‘Oh, you are just saying that because he is your constituent’’ but—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, I am not. 

Mr. PALLONE. No, I know. But, I mean, this guy has been unbelievable. You know he started out in Edison, which is in my district, but the Edison Wetlands Coalition is essentially the main organization in the whole State of New Jersey that deals with these 

sites and tries to seek remedies and do cleanup. So, even though 

he is in my district, he is really the number one guy in the State 

on this issue. 

Mr. SPIEGEL. Come visit our dog park, too, the CIC site and see 

what happens when you have money in the fund. And the dog park 

actually opened last week, so it is something that is—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I look forward to getting my invitation to visit the 

dog park. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Bob. 

Mr. SPIEGEL. It is certainly better than an Agent Orange manufacturer. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Amen. Amen. 

So, thank you. We appreciate your testimony. This committee, especially the subcommittee, we just really had a pretty good successful run on reforming the TSCA. And I think it is somewhat similar. 

I think we all knew program was broken. We all knew we could 

do better. And then that started the process. 

So, I am not sure where I will be in a 5-year process but I do 

think we could better and if we start talking together, maybe we 

can move this process and get some of these reforms and get a 

quick remediation. So, I appreciate my members and having the 

ranking member, especially, Mr. Pallone, stay here for the end. 

That is unique, and that is special, and we appreciate that. 

And with that, I will adjourn the hearing. Thank you for your 

testimony. 

[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Superfund is now some 36 years old, and the truth is some cleanup projects that 

we are working on seem as old as the law itself. The Kalamazoo River cleanup has 

been underway most of the time that I’ve served in Congress, but finally we are seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. While we are by no means finished on the 

Kalamazoo River, we have made some significant headway. 

If red tape were a toxic material, the CERCLA law would be the biggest Superfund site of them all. Today we ask, ‘‘Does it have to be that way?’’ If the Federal 

Government is to have a role, it should be to bring parties together to speed cleanVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:36 Oct 27, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X162CERCLAOVERSIGHTDOEDITS\114X162CERCLAOVERSIG
127 

ups. Instead, CERCLA seems to slow them down. What changes do stakeholders 

suggest to speed things up? How can we make CERCLA more efficient? Can we reduce the red tape? Should the States and communities have a bigger say-so in cleanup plans, and have it sooner? I know that when EPA began to listen to local and 

State stakeholders on the Kalamazoo project, a more workable and acceptable solution began to emerge. 

I thank Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus for returning to the committee. 

He has been one of our most frequent witnesses through the years, and we appreciate his consistent and congenial testimony. 

We are also glad to hear from our panel of stakeholders and experts as well. A 

hearing in this subcommittee would not be complete without the voice of the States 

and other partners. 

We also welcome two of our House colleagues, Ann Wagner and Lacey Clay, who 

will share their frustration over the pace of a cleanup in Missouri. Effective advocates for their constituents, they are willing to think outside the box to find the 

most efficient solution. So are we, and that’s why we are having this hearing. Let’s 

find solutions that produce, not just more process and more delays, but workable, 

effective cleanups. 

All of our Members appreciate the chance to take a deeper dive into these thorny 

issues that impact so many Americans and we are looking for constructive solutions. 

Let’s listen carefully so that we can find them. 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

Æ