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

26–243 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–51 

CLEANING UP OUR NATION’S 

COLD WAR LEGACY SITES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 29, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 29, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Semonite, Lieutenant General Todd T., Commanding General and Chief of 

Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ......................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 16 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Gillibrand ..................................................................................... 16 

Senator Harris ........................................................................................... 17 

Response to an additional question from Senator Sullivan .......................... 19 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse ...................... 20 

Breen, Barry, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency 

Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ...................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 32 

Senator Gillibrand ..................................................................................... 34 

Senator Harris ........................................................................................... 35 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 37 

Frederick, Kevin, Water Quality Administrator, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality ............................................................................................. 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Lukin, Sarah L., Member, Board of Directors, Afognak Native Corporation ..... 63 

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

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sullivan ............................ 74 

Smith, Alexandra K., Nuclear Waste Program Manager, Washington State 

Department of Ecology ........................................................................................ 80 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

(1) 

CLEANING UP OUR NATION’S COLD WAR 

LEGACY SITES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Wicker, 

Fischer, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Cardin, Merkley, Gillibrand, 

Booker, Markey, and Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

Today we are here to talk about the environmental legacy of the 

cold war. 

For decades, the military took the steps needed to protect our nation’s security against the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet 

Union. These steps were necessary and prudent to ensure the safety and security of our nation. 

Just speaking from my home State of Wyoming, we are very 

proud of the role that our State has played in deterring the threat 

that the former Soviet Union posed. 

This involved the development and deployment of Atlas nuclear 

missiles during the early days of the cold war. These missile sites 

were on high alert during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Our servicemen maintained these sites by using vast amounts of trichloroethylene, TCE, to clean rocket fuel lines. These soldiers had no idea 

that decades later that practice would create a serious negative environmental legacy. 

Today there is groundwater contamination from the TCE. Seven 

of these Atlas Missile sites are around the city of Cheyenne area, 

and they have varying degrees of groundwater contamination. The 

city of Cheyenne officials approached me when they found traces 

of TCE in the city’s water wells, and they told me that the Atlas 

Missile Site Number 4 was the reason. 

The Army Corps disputed this claim, and despite their denials I 

forced the Army Corps to do testing that eventually proved that the 

TCE was coming from the Atlas site. 

According to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Atlas Site 4’s TCE concentrations in the groundwater exceed 

2 

240,000 parts per billion, well above a safe drinking limit of 5 parts 

per billion. 

The Atlas site plume of TCE is around 12 miles long and 3 miles 

wide. According to the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality, it is ‘‘one of, if not the largest TCE plume in all of the 

country.’’ 

The Corps has since constructed a water treatment plant that 

ensures that Cheyenne’s water is clean and safe, and has provided 

granulated activated carbon systems for private landowners who 

use well water. 

Atlas 4 is just one of these sites that has large plumes of this 

pollutant. Atlas 1 has a TCE plume that is a mile long and twothirds of a mile wide. Atlas 3’s plume is a mile long and a halfmile wide. 

Over the years, I have heard concerns from my constituents 

about the attitude of regional Corps officials on the ground. Each 

time communities and impacted stakeholders try and engage with 

the Corps on these issues, they have historically been met with an 

unhelpful attitude. Communities want to have the proper testing 

done to know the size and the extent of the plumes, and to where 

the plumes are expanding. They want to know that the Corps will 

live up to their responsibilities and they want adequate funding to 

ensure their safety. 

Now, I hear time and time again from my constituents that they 

feel the Corps just wants to do a quick fix or simply walk away 

from the sites. This needs to change, and I am hoping that this 

new Administration will bring a new attitude. 

I know Wyoming isn’t the only State that has cold war legacy environmental problems. Many States, especially in the West, have 

quite a few sites associated with the cold war. We must honor the 

legacy of our veterans who fought and won this war. The Department of Defense, though, has an obligation to leave States like Wyoming whole; to not only provide for our nation’s safety, but also 

to restore the environment of the communities. 

Senator Carper, I invite you to make an opening statement at 

this point. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks so much for 

holding our hearing today. 

I want to say a special thanks to our witnesses. General, thanks 

so much for spending the time to visit with us yesterday. It was 

just a real joy. We very much appreciate the partnership that we 

have with the Army Corps of Engineer folks mostly in the greater 

Philadelphia area regional office, but also in Baltimore, too. 

Sitting right behind Barry Breen is a fellow who I think is going 

to ride off into the sunset, a colleague of 32 years of service to our 

country at EPA, and his name is Randy Deitz. Randy, would you 

just stand up? Thirty-two years. Nice round of applause for Randy 

Deitz. Thank you for your service. 

[Applause.] 

Senator CARPER. Well, today we are going to hear why simply 

sending barely adequate funding to the EPA and the Army Corps 

3 

of Engineers for cleanup of contaminated Department of Defense 

sites just doesn’t cut it. Instead, we need to fund these agencies to 

the fullest extent possible. 

Over the next 2 hours we are going to discuss the status of cleanup projects at coal or legacy sites under three different programs: 

the Formerly Used Defense Sites, known as FUDS, the FUDS program; the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 

(FUSRAP); and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which we call CERCLA or Superfund. 

Unlike some of the States represented here, our Chairman and 

others, we don’t have the kind of contamination from sites that 

some of our sister States have. Having said that, my father and my 

uncle served in World War II. My wife’s dad was involved in the 

Manhattan Project, which is sort of like related to a lot of what we 

are going to be talking about here today, at least indirectly. So we 

have more than just a passing interest in this. 

During the past 200 years, a number of activities that support 

our country’s military readiness have resulted, as we know, in the 

need for environmental cleanup. These sites, located in just about 

every State, were used for a variety of purposes: training and supporting soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines, as well as testing 

new weapons, warfare capabilities, and energy technologies. The 

people who worked at these facilities helped to develop the nuclear 

weapons that ended World War II, the missiles that kept the Soviets at bay for all those decades, and the rockets that sent men to 

the moon. They often toiled away in secret, on the cutting edge of 

chemistry, nuclear physics, and missile engineering. The legacy 

they left us, though, is one of technological might. 

But it is also a legacy that came at a high environmental price. 

Many of these sites were operated at a time when awareness about 

environmental health and safety paled by comparison to what it is 

today. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation site in Washington State 

was contaminated not just by radioactive material, but as we know 

now, by toxic chemicals. The site was contaminated by substances 

like carbon tetrachloride, which caused liver, kidney, and nervous 

system damage; chromium compounds, which caused cancers and 

other serious health impacts; as well as other substances that were 

not well catalogued or properly disposed of. Contamination at the 

Atlas Missile site in Wyoming included, as the Chairman knows, 

levels of cancer causing trichloroethylene that were so high that 

nearby residents needed to be provided with bottled water and 

have special filters installed on their drinking water wells. 

Thousands of sites across the country need some form of remediation before they are safe to be re-used, and we owe it to the patriots who worked at these sites, and to the communities of people 

who now live and work near them, to remove the health, environmental and safety risks that these sites pose to them. 

I believe in Abraham Lincoln’s philosophy. People used to say, 

Mr. Lincoln, what is the role of Government? And he would respond the role of Government is to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves. This philosophy, I think, is especially applicable to the cleanup of these sites since no cleanup would have 

been needed had our Government not needed the weapons and the 

technology that were developed at those sites. 

4 

There are thousands of Formerly Utilized Defense Sites and 

former Department of Energy sites whose cleanups the Army Corps 

funds, and there are a number of federally owned facilities that 

have been designated Superfund sites whose cleanups are overseen 

by EPA. The need for funding always exceeds the amount of money 

Congress provides because each cleanup poses unique challenges 

and takes anywhere from several years to several decades in some 

cases to complete. Cleaning up these sites has always been a challenge. 

But these sites and the people who live and work near them face 

even greater challenges now because the President’s 2018 skinny 

budget decimates the EPA with a 31 percent budget cut and cuts 

funding for the Army Corps by a billion dollars, almost 20 percent. 

And EPA’s Superfund program I think has been cut by 30 percent 

under this so-called skinny budget, and although EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told our Committee that the EPA needs to provide more assistance to the States, the President’s fiscal year 2018 

budget slashes State environmental grants by a staggering 45 percent, or $482 million. 

In closing, we look forward to hearing from our witnesses today 

about the impacts the so-called skinny budget will have on their 

abilities, your abilities to carry out your Federal responsibilities 

and what the proposed cuts could mean for contaminated sites in 

our home States. I honestly hope to work with our colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle to take a critical look at President Trump’s 

budget proposal and to work with the Administration to ensure 

that these ill advised cuts are not ultimately agreed to. 

Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. Let’s get on with it. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

Before proceeding with the witnesses, I would like to invite Senator Sullivan to make a very important introduction. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

going to have to leave a little bit early because I need to go preside, 

but I want to take the opportunity and really a privilege to introduce one of my constituents who is a witness today, a great Alaskan, Sarah Lukin. Sarah has been working to address legacy contamination and cleanup of former Federal sites throughout Alaska 

for many years, and I want to express my deep appreciation and 

the Committee’s for your willingness to travel so far to provide insights and unique points of view coming from Alaska. 

Sarah hails from Port Lions, Alaska, which is a remote native 

village on Kodiak Island. Now, for my colleagues who have never 

been to Alaska, I want to say, and I am sorry Senator Booker already left, Kodiak Island is about the size of New Jersey, and it 

is a magical place with salmon abundance and the biggest brown 

bears on the planet Earth. So we want to encourage you all to come 

out to that wonderful place and see our great State. 

Sarah is a shareholder and member of the Board of Directors of 

Afognak Native Corporation and a shareholder of Koniag Incorporation. She is an enrolled tribal member of the Native Village of 

Afognak and Native Village of Port Lions, and she has spent years 

advocating for the cleanup of contaminated sites throughout Alaska, but the sites particularly on Alaska Native Corporation lands. 

She earned a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from the UniVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:34 Jul 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26243.TXT SONYA
5 

versity of Alaska, so, Mr. Chairman, we are, I am very excited to 

have her here, and I appreciate you and the Committee inviting 

her. 

Again, Sarah, thank you for traveling literally thousands of miles 

to attend this hearing. I know we are going to learn a lot. Thank 

you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Sullivan. 

Welcome, Sarah. 

As we turn to the witnesses, let me remind the witnesses that 

your entire written statement will be made part of the record. We 

ask you to try to keep your comments to within 5 minutes. 

I would like to first welcome back to the Committee the Commanding General and Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers, Lt. 

General Todd Semonite. Thank you very much for being with us 

today. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL TODD T. SEMONITE, 

COMMANDING GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

General SEMONITE. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished members of the Committee, I am Lt. General Todd Semonite, Commanding General of the Corps of Engineers and the 54th Chief of Engineers. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the role of the Army Corps of Engineers in support of the Department of Defense’s commitment to 

protect the environment and restore contaminated sites from past 

military activities. 

Throughout our nation’s history the Department of Defense, or 

DOD, used land across the United States to manufacture and test 

new weapons to ensure the nation’s military readiness. When these 

lands were no longer needed to support the war fighter, the Department cleaned up the properties using the best practices available at the time and returned them to private or public uses. Today 

DOD is responsible for the environmental restoration of these properties in accordance with current applicable laws and regulations. 

The United States Army Corps of Engineers provides critical 

support to the execution of several programs addressing these activities, and I will quickly walk through all three. 

First, Formerly Used Defense Sites, or FUDS. The Corps is working to clean up munitions dating to World War I and World War 

II eras. FUDS are defined as properties that were formerly owned 

or otherwise possessed by the United States and under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense prior to October 1986. 

The Corps holds the responsibility of executing the FUDS program under the regulatory framework that identifies mechanisms 

for funding and implementing the cleanup activities. The remediation program is generally comprised of several categories, including Installation Restoration Program, which addresses the cleanup 

of hazardous substances; the Military Munitions Response Program, which addresses unexploded ordnance; and finally, the 

Building Demolition and Debris Removal Program that removes 

unsafe buildings and structures. 

The scope and magnitude of the FUDS program are significant. 

Over 10,000 formal DOD properties have been evaluated for the 

6 

FUDS program since its establishment. The Corps has identified 

5,357 cleanup sites at 2,716 different properties where cleanup actions are required. Approximately $7.1 billion have been appropriated to the FUDS program through fiscal year 2016. Through 

this investment, 3,513 sites—or more than 65 percent of the initial 

inventory—are now either closed out or in monitoring status. 

Over the last several years, DOD has annually allocated between $200 million and $225 million to this program. Clearly, there is 

more work to do, with an estimated cost to complete the FUDS program currently projected at $11.8 billion. 

Second program, FUSRAP, another critical program that is executed by the Corps. In 1997, using the FUDS program as a model, 

Congress transferred the management and execution of FUSRAP 

from the Department of Energy directly to the Corps. The FUSRAP 

Program specifically addresses the environmental remediation of 

sites where Manhattan Engineer District or the Atomic Energy 

Commission activities were performed during the 1940s, 1950s, and 

1960s. 

Funded out of the Energy and Water appropriation, the Corps re- ceives approximately $100 million to $110 million annually to execute the FUSRAP Program. Funding is prioritized to projects that 

best support the overall goal of eliminating demonstrable threats 

to public health, safety, or the environment. 

The Corps has completed remediation of 9 sites since the program was transferred from the Department of Energy. Twenty-four 

sites are currently in the FUSRAP Program, representing a cost to 

complete of approximately $1.55 billion. 

Third, and finally, since 1982 the Corps has partnered with the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency for environmental 

cleanup support of large and complex Superfund sites. The EPA relies on the Corps for the environmental engineering expertise and 

access to state of the art environmental technology that is used 

throughout DOD. The Corps provides, on average, about $200 million to $300 million per year worth of remedial design and remedial 

construction support to EPA Superfund projects across the country. 

In summary, the Department of Defense is committed to protect 

human health and the environment by investigating, and if required, cleaning up contamination and munitions hazards that may 

remain on these properties. As my written testimony documents in 

greater detail, the Corps has made significant progress in the 

cleaning up of FUDS and FUSRAP sites. I am proud of the work 

that the Corps has accomplished in delivering these programs to 

the nation, and we remain committed to achieving the cleanup program goals established by DOD and the Army. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and look forward to answering any questions that you and the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of General Semonite follows:] 

7 


26243.001
8 


26243.002
9 


26243.003
10 


26243.004
11 


26243.005
12 


26243.006
13 


26243.007
14 


26243.008
15 


26243.009
16 


26243.010
17 


26243.011
18 


26243.012
19 


26243.013
20 


26243.014
21 


26243.015
22 


26243.016
23 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for your thoughtful testimony. We appreciate you returning to the Committee today. 

Thank you. 

We will now turn to Mr. Barry Breen, who is the Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management, of 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

Thank you for joining us today. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY BREEN, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. BREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, 

and members of the Committee. At the outset, let me just thank 

you for recognizing my colleague, Randy Deitz, at the outset of the 

hearing. We will have a reception for him later today recognizing 

his 32 years of Federal service, and I can’t wait to brag that the 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recognized him 

this morning. Thank you very much. 

At the EPA, focusing on the Superfund program is one of Administrator Pruitt’s top priorities. Extensive data suggests that the 

Superfund program is a premier example of how EPA can accomplish one of its core missions of protecting human health and the 

environment while simultaneously promoting jobs and growth. 

A 2012 peer reviewed study by the National Bureau of Economic 

Research shows that Superfund cleanups reduce congenital abnormalities by as much as 25 percent to families living within 5,000 

meters of a site. Birth defects mean improved health for the whole 

next generation. 

Additionally, we have data on 454 Superfund sites in reuse, 

where about 3,900 businesses are generating $29 billion in sale and 

employing more than 108,000 people earning a combined income of 

$7.8 billion. 

And we improve property values, as well. A 2013 study by researchers at Duke University and the University of Pittsburgh, 

now peer reviewed, analyzed census tract data and found that deletion of sites from the National Priorities List after cleanup raises 

the value of owner occupied housing 3 miles from the site by between 18 percent and 24 percent. Those increased property values 

means that local governments have a more full tax base, and that 

means that they can provide more fire protection, police protection, 

libraries, and schools. So many things that local governments do 

for us can be done better thanks to the Superfund program. Superfund, indeed, can provide tremendous improvements to both human 

health and the economy. 

Since enactment of Superfund, EPA, other Federal agencies, and 

States and tribes have made significant progress. We have assessed 

more than 50,000 sites. The removal program has conducted 15,000 

removals at more than 9,000 sites, and 1,782 sites have been proposed on, listed on, or now deleted from the Superfund National 

Priorities List. More than 90 percent of those have undergone construction activity, or the activity has been completed, or they have 

now been deleted from the NPL. 

24 

Turning to the Federal facilities program, in particular, within 

the larger Superfund, Congress provided for EPA to use the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket to identify Federal facilities that need to be evaluated. EPA updates the Docket 

every 6 months. So far, a little over 2,300 sites are reflected on the 

Docket, and of those 2,300 174 have been listed on the National 

Priorities List among Federal facilities; 140 are DOD, 21 are Department of Energy, and 13 are others. In the last 5 years alone, 

we have completed construction, along with our partners, at 8 of 

these sites; 7 from the DOD, 1 from the Coast Guard. Completing 

construction means that all of the actual construction of the cleanup is accomplished, even though more work is needing to be done. 

Credit for this progress is shared among EPA, States, and the 

Federal agencies themselves. Federal departments and agencies 

pay for the assessment and cleanup of facilities under their jurisdiction; EPA provides assistance and oversight. In the end, the Administrator of the EPA makes the final selection of the cleanup action if the two agencies are unable to agree. We have agreements 

with nearly all sites, and in many cases, States are indispensable 

partners. Tribal governments can also be involved and participate 

in decisionmaking with the other Federal agency responsible for 

the tribal consultation. 

At most Federal facility sites field staff relationships are strong. 

The CERCLA framework has worked effectively for more than 25 

years. It has a proven track record and provided a consistent foundation. Because States are most often parties, States are able to 

participate as well. 

In conclusion, protecting human health and the environment 

through continuing, and perhaps expanding on, the cleanup and 

reuse activities remains among Administrator Pruitt’s top priorities. 

Thank you again for the invitation to join you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Breen follows:] 

25 


26243.017
26 


26243.018
27 


26243.019
28 


26243.020
29 


26243.021
30 


26243.022
31 


26243.023
32 


26243.024
33 


26243.025
34 


26243.026
35 


26243.027
36 


26243.028
37 


26243.029
38 


26243.030
39 


26243.031
40 


26243.032
41 


26243.033
42 


26243.034
43 


26243.035
44 


26243.036
45 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Breen. We 

appreciate your time here today and your testimony, so thank you. 

I am next going to turn to Mr. Kevin Frederick, who is the Water 

Quality Administrator for the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 

I would like to let folks know that Mr. Frederick previously managed the groundwater section for the Water Quality Division in 

Cheyenne. He oversaw the day to day permitting, compliance, inspection, and monitoring activities involving the Underground Injection Control Program, the Groundwater Pollution Control Program, and the Federal Facilities Corrective Action Program. 

Prior to joining the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality, he has worked in the energy, minerals, and oil and gas industry. In 2007 Mr. Frederick received an EPA Region 8 Environmental Achievement Award for leadership in groundwater management. So this is a man who clearly knows from which he speaks. 

He currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Groundwater 

Protection Council and the Groundwater Research and Education 

foundation; degrees in geology and geophysics from the University 

of Wisconsin at Madison and is a Wyoming licensed professional 

geologist. 

Thank you so much for traveling from Wyoming to Washington 

to testify to be with us today. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN FREDERICK, WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATOR, WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

Mr. FREDERICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. 

Good morning, Ranking Member Carper and honorable members 

of the Committee. My name is Kevin Frederick. I am the Water 

Quality Administrator for the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, and I thank the Committee for inviting the State 

of Wyoming to share its perspective on environmental cleanup of 

cold war legacy sites. 

Wyoming is home to 38 Formerly Used Defense Sites. My comments today focus on those that have had the most significant environmental impact, which are the 7 former Atlas Missile sites in 

southeast Wyoming. 

The Atlas Missile was the first fully operational strategic missile 

developed by the U.S. and was designed for deployment of nuclear 

warheads during the cold war era of the late 1950s and early 

1960s. Missile sites were used for the housing, readiness, and potential launch of nuclear missiles. The Atlas Missile sites played a 

crucial role in protecting the safety and security of the American 

people and ensured the military readiness of the United States 

armed forces. However, some of the sites have, and continue to 

cause serious environmental problems. 

The Atlas used liquid rocket fuel propellant for fuel and liquid 

oxygen as the oxidizer. Trichloroethylene, or TCE, a known carcinogen, was used to clean the rocket fuel tanks, engines, and lines 

to prevent accidental explosions. Spent TCE drained into a series 

of unlined pits and channels, and into the subsurface. The amount 

of TCE that may have been released into the subsurface and into 

groundwater ranges from hundreds to thousands of gallons at each 

46 

site. It takes as little as two teaspoons of TCE to contaminate an 

Olympic size swimming pool full of water, more than 660,000 gallons. A number of factors make TCE very difficult, expensive, and 

time consuming to clean up. 

Groundwater within the Ogallala aquifer underlying some missile sits has been impacted with TCE at levels far above the safe 

drinking limit of 5 parts per billion. The Ogallala, as you know, is 

one of the most important of the nation’s aquifers, supplying the 

agricultural and drinking water needs of the bread basket States 

in the Midwest. All of the missile sites are located within 75 miles 

of Cheyenne, the most densely populated area in the State and the 

home of F.E. Warren Air Force Base. Residents rely heavily upon 

high quality groundwater, much from the Ogallala, for municipal 

drinking water supplies. 

Wyoming’s missile sites have some of the largest and deepest 

TCE plumes in the U.S. The largest, at Missile Site 4, 16 miles 

west of Cheyenne, is roughly 12 miles long and 3 miles wide in 

places. At Site 4, concentrations of TCE in groundwater are greater 

than 240,000 parts per billion, or 48,000 times the safe drinking 

water limit. Some of the city of Cheyenne’s municipal drinking 

water supply wells, as well as two water wells owned by private 

landowners, have already been impacted by TCE from Atlas 4. 

Each of the seven Atlas Missile sites in Wyoming will require 

significant human and capital resources to complete cleanup, and 

each presents unique challenges and difficulties. Overall costs expended to date at the seven missile sites exceeds $45 million, and 

much work remains to be done. As of 2015 the Department of Defense estimated that the cost to complete the investigation and remediation of Formerly Used Defense Sites in Wyoming at more 

than $285 million. 

The Department of Defense is ultimately responsible for contamination at the Atlas Missile sites. As the State’s lead environmental 

oversight agency, the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality coordinates with the Corps of Engineers to investigate, 

characterize, and remediate contaminated soils and groundwater at 

these sites. Of the seven sites in Wyoming, only two are in the remediation phase to treat contaminant plumes. 

Collaboration between our respective agencies, together with 

public involvement, allows cleanup of these sites in a way that 

works and that is cost effective. Up front planning and communication, including a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the agencies involved, and a mutual understanding of the 

Federal and State regulations at work are essential to the success 

of this endeavor. Adhering to these basic tenets makes the process 

work best for all parties involved. 

Further details on each of the Wyoming missile sites, as well as 

observations and recommendations that may help improve the 

overall cleanup process at these sits, are provided in the appendix 

to my written testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of the Committee, I thank you for your time and remain available to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frederick follows:] 

47 


26243.037
48 


26243.078
49 


26243.038
50 


26243.039
51 


26243.040
52 


26243.041
53 


26243.042
54 


26243.043
55 


26243.044
56 


26243.045
57 


26243.046
58 


26243.047
59 


26243.048
60 


26243.049
61 


26243.050
62 


26243.051
63 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thanks so much for your thoughtful testimony. We are grateful that you have come to be with us today. 

Also traveling quite a distance, our next witness has already 

been introduced by Senator Sullivan, Sarah Lukin, the Board of Director of the Native Corporation, Alaska Native Village Corporation 

Association. 

Thanks for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF SARAH L. LUKIN, MEMBER, BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, AFOGNAK NATIVE CORPORATION 

Ms. LUKIN. Cama’i, hello, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member 

Carper, and distinguished members of this Committee. My name is 

Sarah Lukin. Quyanaa, thank you, for allowing me the opportunity 

to discuss federally contaminated sites on land conveyed to Alaska 

Native Corporations. I am here before your Committee as a board 

member of Afognak Native Corporation and a member of the Alaska Native Village Corporation Association. 

World War II, Japan’s invasion of the Aleutians, and the cold 

war had profound impacts in Alaska. If Alaska’s expansive forests 

and tundra could talk, what stories would they tell? We would hear 

of 55 gallon drums full of toxic materials dumped in lakes, of 

unexploded ordnances on the tundra, a stream with lead batteries 

in it, cold war legacies often hidden from view, but slowly decaying, 

leaching into the ground and water. 

Forty-five years ago, Congress settled aboriginal land claims with 

Alaska native people through the Alaska Native Claim Settlement 

Act, or ANCSA. Under ANCSA, the Federal Government created 

Alaska Native Corporations and agreed to convey to our Alaska native people 44 million acres of land. 

During the 1990s the Alaska native community raised significant 

concerns that the Federal Government was conveying contaminated lands to Alaska Native Corporations to meet our end of the 

bargain. In response, a 1998 Department of Interior report explained Alaska Native Corporations had been conveyed approximately 650 contaminated sites under ANCSA with various types of 

hazardous waste and toxic materials that posed significant health 

risk to humans, animals, and the environment, including arsenic 

and PCBs, among others. One hundred eighty-nine of the contaminated sites identified were Formerly Used Defense Sites, or FUDS, 

and many included petroleum contamination. 

Sadly, under CERCLA, Alaska Native Corporations may be held 

responsible for the cleanup of this preexisting contamination. Let 

me be clear. Under ANCSA, Alaska Native people gave up 88 percent of our traditional lands, and in exchange, we received, in part, 

contaminated sites that we may be legally liable for. 

An updated report to Congress last year confirmed that there are 

still 537 sites that require remediation on ANCSA lands. Of the 

sites identified, the majority are Department of Defense; 120 of 

them are FUDS. 

Nearly 100 additional contaminated sites are not in a cleanup 

program currently. Almost all of these sites are within 2 miles of 

Alaska native villages. These are places where our native people 

engage in subsistence activities, obtain our drinking water, and let 

our children play. 

64 

The Natives of Kodiak have spent the last 25 years advocating 

for the cleanup of an old Army site on their ANCSA land. The 

Army Corps of Engineers attempted to remediate the site through 

FUDS and the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation 

Program, or NALEMP. The Natives of Kodiak refuses to accept ‘‘institutional controls’’ and ‘‘long-term monitoring’’ of the site as a solution, and instead, continues to seek clean drinking water and 

land. This painfully slow cleanup has stalled all economic development for the Natives of Kodiak for the last 2 and a half decades. 

The Afognak Lake and River area has been used by my people 

for over 7,000 years for subsistence hunting and fishing. In 2003 

my tribe and Alaska Native Corporation partnered to clean up an 

old Navy base located on the shores of our lake and river. In partnership with FUDS and NALEMP, we spent 6 years cleaning up 

the site. In addition to removing toxic materials, the project built 

the business capacity of our organizations and offered our local native people training and much needed jobs. 

With 537 sites still needing cleanup, we need fewer failures like 

the Natives of Kodiak experience and more successes like Afognak’s. 

Congress can help move this critical issue forward. I urge you to 

consider legislation to prioritize the cleanup of ANCSA land. Currently, there is no such priority under FUDS to protect Alaska Native Corporations from legal liability under CERCLA and to address petroleum cleanup, which is currently not covered. 

Quyanaasinaq, thank you very much, and I would be happy to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lukin follows:] 

65 


26243.052
66 


26243.053
67 


26243.054
68 


26243.055
69 


26243.056
70 


26243.057
71 


26243.058
72 


26243.059
73 


26243.060
74 


26243.061
75 


26243.062
76 


26243.063
77 


26243.064
78 


26243.065
79 


26243.066
80 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Lukin. We 

appreciate you being here and appreciate your thoughtful testimony. 

Next I would like to turn to Alexandra Smith, who is the Nuclear 

Waste Program Manager of the Washington State Department of 

Ecology. 

Thank you very much for joining us today. 

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDRA K. SMITH, NUCLEAR WASTE PROGRAM MANAGER, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF 

ECOLOGY 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member 

Carper, honorable members of the Committee staff, thank you for 

inviting me here today to speak on behalf of Washington State to 

these important topics. My name is Alexandra Smith, and I am the 

Nuclear Waste Program Manager for the Washington State Department of Ecology. Our program fulfills the State’s environmental 

regulatory role at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and also the 

State’s role under what is known as the Tri-Party Agreement, 

which is a Federal facility compliance order that sets out the respective roles of the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the State in relation to the cleanup at Hanford. 

I am also here today representing the other Washington State 

departments and programs that play a part in regulating and 

cleaning up former defense facilities, Federal facilities, and cold 

war legacy sites in our State. 

Washington State has historically played an important role in 

our nation’s defense. However, Washington’s contributions to national defense and security have come at a cost to our resources 

and citizens. To this day, contamination at these Federal facilities 

has significantly impacted our land and groundwater, posing very 

real and ongoing threats to human health and Washington’s environment. 

The Hanford Nuclear Reservation is the most significant example 

of this, as the more than 40 years of nuclear weapons production 

at this site left it the largest and most complex environmental 

cleanup in the country. In addition to Hanford, Washington is 

home to approximately 500 Formerly Used Defense Sites in need 

of remediation, as well as active military installations that are on 

the Superfund National Priorities List in need of remediation. 

The State of Washington and Federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Defense, Department of 

Energy, and the Corps of Engineers play vital roles in cleaning up 

this environmental legacy of the cold war. The Federal agencies 

have provided essential resources for moving these cleanups forward either through direct spending on cleanups or through pass 

through funds to the State. 

However, proposals in the President’s budget blueprint that call 

for significant cuts to these agencies’ budgets could slow or stop 

cleanup progress altogether in communities that have been waiting 

decades for the risks associated with these sites to be abated, and 

could also impair the State’s ability to fulfill its role at these sites. 

If Federal agencies are unable to fulfill their environmental obligaVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:34 Jul 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26243.TXT SONYA
81 

tions to our State, Washington does not have the resources to fill 

the void. 

As an example of the challenges, Hanford’s 40 years of weapons 

production during the cold war left more than 130 million cubic 

yards of contaminated soil and debris, 1,000 contaminated buildings, and more than 72 square miles of groundwater contamination 

under the site that flows toward the Columbia River, which is a 

source of drinking water for local communities as well as irrigation 

water for local agriculture. 

In addition, more than 56 million gallons of high level nuclear 

wastes are to this day stored in 177 aging tanks onsite. More than 

67 of those tanks have leaked, releasing upwards of 1 million gallons of high level radioactive and chemical waste to the ground. 

Overall, Hanford has two-thirds of the nation’s high level nuclear 

waste by volume, is the most contaminated nuclear site in the 

country, and its 586 square mile site is the nation’s largest environmental cleanup. Recent estimates have put total cleanup costs 

over the life cycle of the cleanup to over $120 billion, and the cleanup effort is expected to run through 2070 under current estimates. 

Cleanup activities at Hanford are the joint responsibility of EPA 

and the State. The State implements the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act at the site with oversight by EPA, and EPA is 

the lead regulatory authority under CERCLA. EPA has final authority over remedial decisions made under CERCLA at Hanford’s 

four National Priorities List sites, while DOE is the owner and operator at the site responsible for implementing the cleanup. 

Since 1989 cleanup progress at Hanford has been directly correlated to the availability of funds for cleanup. Washington State 

is very concerned that proposed Federal budget cuts could negatively impact the already slow progress on Hanford cleanup. 

I did want to note that when it comes to the Department of Energy’s budget, historically the Department of Energy’s environmental 

management budget has fallen short of its obligations nationwide 

to fulfill its cleanup obligations, and under the current resolution 

funding, it virtually guarantees DOE is unable to meet its legal obligations at the site. Any reduction will slow cleanup progress further. 

The longer it takes for cleanup to happen at these sites, the more 

money it takes for DOE to simply meet its obligation to maintain 

the sites’ nuclear safety, which means maintaining its aging infrastructure in a safe and secure condition, and that means less 

money goes to clean up. Currently, 40 percent of DOE’s Hanford 

budget goes to simply keeping the site safe, with the remaining 60 

percent going to clean up. Any reduction in DOE’s Hanford budget 

comes out of the funds available for cleanup, not the funds necessary to keep the site safe. 

If EPA’s budget for Hanford work is reduced, there is similar risk 

that progress on the remaining CERCLA cleanup at the site will 

slow or stop, because EPA has the exclusive authority to make remedial decisions under CERCLA. If EPA does not have the resources to dedicate to the cleanup, there is little the State can do 

to fill the void. A slowing of CERCLA cleanups at Hanford could 

also slow progress on cleaning sites up under RCRA because the 

State and EPA are trying to combine the RCRA and CERCLA 

82 

cleanups, allowing the CERCLA cleanups to lead the effort. Delays 

in the CERCLA cleanups necessarily means delay in the RCRA 

cleanups. 

EPA also provides oversight and technical assistance for the 

State under RCRA. If EPA loses resources in the RCRA program, 

the State will lose that technical expertise as well as a backstop 

if the State is ever unable to fulfill its RCRA role at the site. 

I apologize, I am going over time here. 

In addition, EPA has historically taken on the large and technically complex enforcement actions at the site, and the State does 

not have the resources to fill that void if EPA is unable to do so. 

In sum, on Hanford, it has historically stood out for the slow 

pace of cleanup. However, a 30 percent or larger cut to EPA’s budget could mean this already progress toward cleanup by 2070 would 

go even more slowly, and the local communities would continue to 

face risks from the site well beyond our and even our children’s 

lifetime. 

I also wanted to touch briefly on the other cold war legacy sites 

in Washington. There are more than 500 Formerly Used Defense 

Sites there. EPA plays a role in oversight on those and the Corps 

of Engineers plays a role on the actual cleanup. Washington’s concern that reduction in those funds will also lead to a deprioritization of the cleanup of those fund sites. 

Finally, the State is concerned that its own work could be impacted by the reductions in the EPA funding. Federal funding accounts for approximately 34 percent of Washington’s Department of 

Ecology budget, with 80 percent of that funding coming from EPA. 

Superfund grants, State cooperative agreements, and EPA funded 

cleanups are potentially impacted by proposed cuts, and the State’s 

categorical grants that support air and water quality work would 

be significantly impacted. 

In conclusion, Washington has long played host to vital national 

defense facilities, doing our part to ensure the country’s safety and 

security, yet our citizens and resources have been left with a harmful environmental legacy of those sites. The pace of their cleanups 

has rarely been quick, but to date it has been steady. Without adequate funding from the Federal Government to fulfill this cleanup 

obligation, Washington fears progress at these facilities will slow or 

stop, forcing Washington’s citizens to continue to live with the environmental risks associates with these national defense sites. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith follows:] 

83 


26243.067
84 


26243.068
85 


26243.069
86 


26243.070
87 


26243.071
88 


26243.072
89 


26243.073
90 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

We will turn to Senator Sullivan with questions. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to 

ask a few questions before I go to preside. I do want to associate 

my initial remarks with what Senator Carper mentioned at the 

outset of his remarks. 

As this Committee knows, I was a strong supporter of Administrator Pruitt, and I am glad to see him in the position that he is 

in. He did make commitments to many of us during the confirmation process on certain issues that weren’t reflected in the President’s budget, and I think that is a bit of an issue from my perspective. If you make commitments in a private setting, meetings, or 

in a public hearing, it is an important deal when you are trying 

to get confirmed, and we expect those commitments to be kept. So 

I think that is a message I want to make sure the EPA hears loud 

and clearly. 

Ms. Lukin, thank you very much for your testimony. I want to 

raise a couple issues that relate to your testimony and what you 

talked about. The one seems to be a very difficult kind of catch-22, 

where Alaska Native Corporations receive land from the Federal 

Government. It is contaminated, and then all of a sudden the Native Corporations who are trying to develop this land—it is very 

difficult to develop any land economically when it is contaminated—not only don’t have the opportunity to develop the land for 

economic opportunity, but all of a sudden are looking like they are 

on the hook for CERCLA liability. So it is kind of a double whammy. 

The land was supposed to be given—the part of the deal ANCSA 

was to enable Alaska natives to develop their land economically. 

You can’t do that because it is contaminated. And B, now the Feds 

are telling you that you are liable. So it is almost like a lose-lose, 

as opposed to a win-win. 

Can you talk about that a little bit more and how we in the Congress could fix that, which is clearly, from my perspective, a double 

unfair situation to you and the Alaska native people you are representing? 

Ms. LUKIN. Senator, thank you very much for the question. So 

regarding CERCLA, there is a section called Section 107(a), and it 

basically says that we are on the hook to clean up any preexisting 

sites. And what we found, because ANCs are currently, under Federal law, legally liable to clean up this federally caused preexisting 

contamination, that some ANCs are unwilling to come forward and 

say we have a contaminated site on our lands, and it needs to be 

cleaned up. Instead, they are living with that contamination and 

not notifying the proper authorities, because basically they are 

afraid they are going to have to pay for this cleanup, and they can’t 

afford to do so. 

EPA does have a policy that says it won’t pursue cleanup under 

Section 107(a). However, that policy does not create any legal 

rights for Alaska Native Corporations. And the EPA did reserve 

the right to depart from that policy on a case by case basis, so although the policy exists, it is not exclusively helpful. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So you can’t rely on it. 

91 

Ms. LUKIN. We cannot rely on that policy currently. So it is really my recommendation and the recommendation of Alaska Native 

Corporations that Congress provide Alaska Native Corporations 

protection under the law from Section 107(a) of CERCLA. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, I think that would be something that 

would be very fair. 

And Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with you and Senator 

Carper and other members of the Committee to try and work on 

something like that, where, again, it seems to me the point of 

ANCSA was to help promote the economic opportunities for Alaska 

native people, and this kind of loophole, I guess, undermines that. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. This is gripping testimony. It is hard not to be 

affected by it. Not infrequently here in this Committee we talk 

about the Golden Rule; how would we want to be treated if we 

were in somebody else’s shoes who is my neighbor. And boy, that 

is ringing in my ears as I listen to your testimony today. 

Ms. Smith, there are, I believe, 500 Formerly Used Defense Sites 

and I think 51 or so Superfund sites in Washington State alone. 

Hanford Nuclear Reservation alone contains such a toxic stew of 

contamination that four separate Superfund sites were designated 

there, I think, if I am not incorrect. 

The President’s budget includes a $1 billion cut to the Army 

Corps’ budget. That is over 15 percent. The President’s budget also 

proposes a 30 percent cut of $330 million to the Superfund account. 

I am looking for a yes or no answer here. Do you agree that there 

will be fewer and slower cleanups of toxic sites like Hanford if Congress goes along with these proposed Draconian cuts? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

I have a question, if I could, for Ms. Lukin and Mr. Frederick. 

Do either of you disagree with Ms. Smith’s response? Just keep it 

simple. Do you agree or disagree with her response? 

Mr. FREDERICK. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the missile site 

cleanups funded under the Corps of Engineers, no, we wouldn’t feel 

any effect. 

Senator CARPER. Please. 

Ms. LUKIN. No. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. 

If I could, General Semonite and Mr. Breen, I would like to ask 

you to provide a list for the record indicating which site cleanups 

in which States would be slowed or cut if Congress agrees to the 

President’s fiscal year 2018 budget proposal. If you would do that 

for us, we would appreciate it. 

Back to Ms. Smith. In his confirmation hearing, and Senator Sullivan alluded to this, Mr. Pruitt said, ‘‘State regulators possess the 

resources and expertise to enforce our environmental laws’’ and 

said that he thinks that ‘‘EPA needs to provide more assistance to 

States.’’ Surprisingly, though, the President’s fiscal 2018 budget 

proposes to cut State grants by a remarkable—as I said earlier— 

45 percent, or some $482 million. 

92 

And I just ask of you, Ms. Smith, do you agree that the State 

of Washington will be severely limited and may be unable to do the 

Superfund work it is doing if Congress agrees to these cuts? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

You all are terrific to be here, and I just applaud the work that 

you do with your lives. 

Let me start with you, General. Thinking about what you said 

and the other witnesses have said, give us one good takeaway 

where you think you agree. Like say we all agree on this. Just give 

me one really good takeaway where you think there is broad consensus. 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I will go first. I think we all agree, or I 

certainly hear a consensus of the commitment of the Federal Government to continue to try to clean these up. I think it is going to 

be primarily limited by resources, not by a will of not wanting to 

do it. And the challenge is going to be where are those priorities, 

and where is the risk if we don’t. But I think all of us are committed to continue to be able to put America’s dollars back in to 

fix some of these things that just were not done properly in the earlier years. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Breen, consensus. Just very briefly. Major point. 

Mr. BREEN. I suspect there is broad agreement that these are 

programs, whether they are developed by States or tribes or the 

Federal Government, that can be both good for the environment 

and good for health and good for jobs and good for growth. It is a 

broad improvement in our well-being in many years. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. Frederick. 

Mr. FREDERICK. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the previous 

two speakers. It is absolutely something that we believe the Corps 

of Engineers, with respect to the Formerly Used Defense Sites, 

have committed to under the Department of Defense. We believe it 

holds essentially Government to the same level of accountability for 

cleaning up the environment that the rest of us are held to, including industry and the private sector. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

My time has expired. 

Ms. Lukin, just very briefly. Very briefly consensus, big point, 

major point. 

Ms. LUKIN. Thank you for the question. I am absolutely thrilled 

to see the interest and desire to work with our organizations to 

clean up our lands. I would love to see the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the BLM, and other Federal agencies better coordinate in cleanup efforts, and I would be happy to talk with them 

further about that. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much. 

Ms. Smith. 

Ms. SMITH. I think everybody agrees on the importance of these 

cleanups to the local communities not just in terms of environmental protection, but also to putting the contaminated lands back 

to productive use, and their economic importance as well. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much. 

93 

Thank you all. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Lt. General Semonite, I have heard concerns over the Black Hills 

Ordnance Depot. That is a site that is near Edgemont, South Dakota. In 2016 the Army Corps installed a barbed wire fence to protect the public from explosive hazards; however, many residents 

feel that these fences are not adequate to protect the public from 

explosives and toxic contamination that may be located on the site. 

Can you give me an update on the safety measures the Corps may 

be taking at this site, any public outreach that you have done or 

that you plan to do to make certain that the public feels secure 

with the safety measures taken by the Corps? 

I recognize that you have a number of sites out there. If you are 

not prepared to provide that to me at this time, I would take that 

for the record as well, sir. 

General SEMONITE. Thank you, Senator. South Dakota does have 

58 different FUDS projects out there. We have about 25 remaining, 

so that means that the bill to be able to really remediate these in 

the right way is about a $45 million bill. 

Specifically on that one, we have had some protective measures 

put in place. We are concerned that if there are sites that we can’t 

get to in time, we have to be able to make sure that not only do 

we have some type of a physical barrier, but also this is a training 

piece as well. So we invest a significant amount of money on to be 

able to make sure that we are doing community outreach and to 

let people know safety. The last thing we want to have is somebody 

to get hurt in one of these sites. 

I don’t know exactly whether that fence is to the standard that 

meets certainly the intent of South Dakota, but if not, I will certainly find out and get back to you and let you know where we are 

at on that. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, sir. 

Lt. General Semonite and Mr. Breen, portions of Ellsworth Air 

Force Base, in Meade and Pennington Counties in South Dakota, 

are listed on the EPA’s National Priorities List due to petroleum 

products and waste solvent contamination. Can you give me an update on the cleanup efforts at Ellsworth? And if you are not familiar with them, I would also take that report for the record as well. 

Mr. BREEN. Thank you, Senator. I can start, and I will turn to 

the Lieutenant General to see if he would like to add. 

The Ellsworth Air Force Base is indeed on the National Priorities 

List. Actually, the Air Force completed construction in 1999. As a 

Federal facility, the actual carrying out and paying for the work 

would be done by the Air Force, not by the EPA. 

After construction was completed in 1999, we moved to partial 

de-listings at the site; that is, some parts are actually able to be 

taken off of the Superfund list, and we did partial de-listings in 

2006 and 2012. What is the only remaining portion requiring focus 

is the groundwater, still very important, and the issue there is the 

TCE, trichloroethylene, and its breakdown products, together with 

one area mixed with petroleum. In addition, studies for 

perfluorinated compounds, a comparatively new, emerging contamiVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:34 Jul 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26243.TXT SONYA
94 

nant, are underway as well as one for dioxane—I am doing chemistry now, sir—and munitions. 

But the point is that this continuing work is in progress or 

awaiting funding for the Air Force’s taking the next steps. 

Senator ROUNDS. OK. 

General Semonite. 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I have nothing to add to that. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Breen, I also want to take just a step back from the specific 

sites and ask a more general question regarding the Superfund 

cleanup program itself. 

I know that there is reprioritization going on at the EPA. We recognize that. We also know that in the President’s budget there was 

a reduced amount which was being proposed to be funded at the 

EPA level. Can you give me and this Committee some insight as 

to the planning or the discussions that went into place and the priorities which the Department or the EPA is planning with regard 

to where you are putting your priorities now versus what it might 

have been under the previous Administration’s budget proposal? 

Mr. BREEN. Thank you. So, first, in the site by site prioritization 

we have a longstanding practice which is in place now for probably 

20 years or more of funding those sites that have an imminent 

endangerment; making sure those are taken care of. Then we fund 

sites that are ongoing, where construction has been going on year 

to year. And then we take up new sites with what funding we have 

after that. And it is often the case that we can’t take up as many 

new sites as we would like, and that has been the case for a very 

long time. 

In terms of the broader picture, we are looking for efficiencies; 

we are looking for ways we can go deeper into using accounts that 

the Treasury Department has allowed us to set up. These are interest bearing savings accounts with the U.S. Treasury where we have 

put money that defendants have given us, and we have deposited 

there, and we can draw on. Looking for ways to draw on that. And 

because Congress has made Superfund no year money, we don’t 

have to spend every year what is given to us in any particular 

year, so we can look to prior years’ funding in order to fund needs 

in future needs. So we will be looking for efficiencies administratively, efficiencies in the way we move funding among accounts and 

more in order to get as much progress for the public as we can. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate this. This 

hearing I am deeply grateful for, just because of the reality in my 

State we have 91 FUDS sites, 7 FUSRAP sites. Nearly half are still 

awaiting cleanup. Every State has Superfund sites. I have 114 in 

New Jersey. And I have to say this is something that was astonishing, because I didn’t know it before I came to become a Senator, 

that we as a nation had a bipartisan commitment. Ronald Reagan 

reauthorized Superfund monies to clean up these messes. It was 

voted on by members in the Senate here. But that has now lapsed. 

We don’t even have the money. Superfund sites in America are 

95 

going up. And what makes these sort of more astonishing to me, 

Mr. Chairman, is that it is the mess that we made. The fundamental thing, all I need to know in life I learned in kindergarten: 

clean up the mess you made. 

But this is what is even more stunning to me about the situation, 

is that we now have longitudinal evidence, data to know what happens to human beings that live adjacent to these sites. So just to 

look at the studies, right now, for Superfund sites, 11 million 

Americans and 3 million to 4 million kids live within 1 mile of a 

Superfund site. And I have families that are living close to these 

FUDS sites as well. And now we know that babies of mothers living within 1 mile of an unremediated Superfund site have a 20 percent greater rate, greater incident of being born with birth defects. 

Studies have shown they have substantially higher rates of autism 

as well. 

So here we have sites that we made that have deeply hazardous, 

harmful substances to them, and we are missing an opportunity to 

do right by the children of America, pregnant women, elderly. And 

more than that, not only that moral urgency, but we could actually 

create jobs as well. As a former mayor, I know when you remediate 

these sites, then they actually create economic opportunity for communities. It is like a win-win-win for the economy and for the 

health of our families. 

So it is beyond me that we don’t have more urgency as a nation 

to clean up this mess that in many cases we ourselves made and 

now are inflicting on families and children. The autism rates in 

New Jersey, the children being born with defects, talk to those parents, and if any of us in Congress had families and had children 

living within a mile of a Superfund site or one of these sites, and 

unfortunately, I live within a mile or so of a Superfund site. 

So this is a funding issue, and I would like to know, Lieutenant 

General, would funding for FUDS and FUSRAP immediately expedite the cleanup process? Yes or no. 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I think that we certainly have capacity 

to do more. So additional funding would in fact have an impact on 

cleaning these up faster. 

Senator BOOKER. So this is a matter of the U.S. Government, 

which made this mess, and we are not investing in cleaning up the 

mess we made, and there are people today who are pregnant, people today that are expecting kids living close to these sites facing 

this danger, and today there are people that desperately need work 

that could be going to work doing this. 

You know, a GAO study found appropriations to Superfund sites 

declined by nearly 50 percent from 1999 to 2013, meaning fewer 

cleanups. 

So, Mr. Breen, it is my understanding that the EPA has shovel 

ready sites that could be cleaned up if sufficient funds were available. So, again, in your opinion, is this a funding problem? 

Mr. BREEN. Thank you, sir. And I will just point out with some 

pride that that statistic that you pointed out about the birth defects is actually in a review studied by Professor Janet Currie of 

Princeton University in your home State. So there is some connection to New Jersey. 

96 

Senator BOOKER. I will never look askance at Jersey pride statistics. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, sir. But it is a funding 

issue, yes? 

Mr. BREEN. Well, what we know is a number of things. One is 

that it has been true for some time that EPA will often get to the 

end of a fiscal year and have sites ready for funding that there is 

not funding to do those sites. That has been true for many years 

more often than not. 

What we also know is that there is room to look for efficiencies 

and that Superfund is enforcement first. And we know that Superfund money is no-year money. So there are lot of ways we can look 

for ways to get more done, and we will be doing exactly that. 

Senator BOOKER. OK, so my time has expired. 

I just want to say for all of this talk in the executive branch and 

the legislative branch about investing in homeland security, this is 

about protecting our homeland from toxic threats to families and 

children. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. You know, Mr. Chairman, I am reminded and 

have quoted Ronald Reagan before when he said there is nothing 

closer to life eternal on the face of this earth than a Government 

agency once formed. And he went on to talk about things that have 

to be done and can be done, and every time there is an effort to 

try to have efficiencies in Government, that that is they will pick 

out the one thing that is of greater concern to everyone and use 

that. 

I want to say to you, Mr. Breen, I appreciate two things that you 

said in your opening statements, as well as responding to questions. I really appreciate it. First of all you are saying yes, we are, 

right now, looking for efficiencies, and for efficiencies knowing that 

there are, in any bureaucracy, areas where we can find efficiencies, 

we can find waste and abuse and all of that. I applaud you for it. 

And the second thing is when Scott Pruitt was up for his nomination, he made the comment over and over again, he did so before 

this Committee and elsewhere, about the significance of the cleanups and his effort to really concentrate and get things done. I have 

to admit that I have only been over there once since he has been 

there, and that was yesterday. He took me into the long table 

room. I suspect there is a seat for you at that long table when he 

was talking about the priorities that he had and how quickly he 

is really getting into talking to you guys who know more about it 

than we do up here in establishing priorities. 

So I appreciate the fact that you have made those comments. 

I think also, I wrote this down when you said it, General, it 

sounds like you are doing a pretty good job. Correct me if I am 

wrong, if I got this down wrong, but 5,357 cleanup sites, and now 

3,513 are either closed out or in the monitoring status. Is that accurate? 

General SEMONITE. Yes, sir. And I think the other thing that 

goes back to the efficiency piece, we continue to try to find ways 

of continuing to get more value out of those funds that do come in; 

97 

also to be postured for year-end money. And there are several 

times when we have contracts that we can put money on so that 

if in fact it is unobligated somewhere else, we are able to go back 

in and be able to make sure we are optimizing the use of that 

money through the contract vehicle we have. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. Yes. And there are some other things, before I got distracted on that, that I was going to mention, but I do 

want to mention one, and that is Tar Creek. Nod if you have ever 

heard of Tar Creek. 

One. All right. 

Tar Creek was the No. 1 site in America at that time. Historically, it was a big mining area in northeastern Oklahoma, actually 

extended up into Kansas and over into Missouri. But it was a huge 

thing. And the mining that took place there took place back in the 

1940s, and we didn’t have any really good, accurate records as to 

what was underneath the ground. Later on we found there was an 

elementary school that any day could have caved in with all those 

kids there, and we were able to get into there. Well, that was a 

major thing. 

I have to say that even though this was not a site, a former site 

that you would be dealing with, General, you still did. We had a 

lot of activity from the Corps and from all the agencies that worked 

together. It kind of reminds me a little bit of the disaster that we 

faced in Oklahoma just last week when we had this terrible fire, 

the worst in history, and everybody did come together and did a 

good job. That is exactly what happened to Tar Creek. 

So I want to say to all of the players it really did work, and it 

worked successfully. And if we hadn’t gotten on it, you don’t know 

how many of those little kids at that elementary school might have 

sustained really serious problems. 

So I think it is sometimes important to talk about the good job 

that is being done. I appreciate it, and I do think in this new Administration you are going to have a new concentration, less concentration on trying to build sciences and more concentration on 

getting things done. And I thank you for your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank you for 

holding this hearing. I think it is an extremely important subject. 

I was listening to the testimony from my office because I had an 

appointment, and I was here as we started the hearing. I wanted 

to thank all of our witnesses for their commitment to our country 

and to our environment. 

I just really want to bring attention to two sites we have in 

Maryland. One is a site that qualifies for Formerly Utilized Sites 

Remediation Action Program, which is located in South Baltimore, 

260-acre site that was formerly used by W. R. Grace. And we are 

working on that site, and I appreciate the work that is being done. 

The other is a more recent identified problem and does not come 

under that program, and that is the site of Bainbridge, which I 

think received a great deal of attention. This is an issue I just want 

to bring to the Committee’s attention because it is extremely frustrating, Mr. Chairman. I know the work that you have done to try 

98 

to have the right relationship between Government and the private 

sector. 

Here is a situation in which the Navy used a 1,186-acre site in 

Cecil County, Maryland, from 1942 to 1976. The property is contaminated, badly contaminated by asbestos and lead, and there has 

been some cleanup done there. The Navy transferred the site to the 

Bainbridge Development Company in 2000. That is 17 years ago, 

Mr. Chairman. And as part of that transfer the deed made it clear 

that the Navy was responsible for the cleanup. There was no dispute about that. Of course, the Navy would also be responsible 

under Federal law. So there is no question that there is contractual 

responsibility as well as legislative responsibility for the cleanup. 

The Bainbridge Development Corporation has made some efforts 

with developers to develop a mixed use property. It has been determined not suitable for that purpose because of the environmental 

contamination of asbestos and lead. And there has been negotiations going back and forth for these 17 years. Just last year there 

were some additional monies made available for soil investigation. 

Mr. Chairman, this is very frustrating, that after 17 years we are 

still evaluating what the problem is on a property that has transferred. In Cecil County, to put this into economic development 

would be critically important for their economy. And everyone is together; local government is fine with what is trying to be done. The 

holdup is the environmental restoration and Navy carrying out its 

responsibility. And I know they have budget problems. I get that. 

But 2000, the transfer of property and still not have it ready for 

its appropriate use? 

So our office is working very hard with the Department of Defense and with Cecil County to try to find a remedy here to move 

this along, but I just really wanted this Committee to be aware. It 

is not directly related to some of the subjects we are talking about, 

but I think it is related. 

And I see our witnesses shaking their heads affirmatively, and 

I would just welcome any thoughts you may have as to how we can 

move these procedures more efficiently so that this type of property 

can be put back in use, as the community wants it put back in use, 

which was formerly used by the Department of Defense. 

Mr. Breen, do you want to respond? 

Mr. BREEN. Yes, sir. So you are exactly right. As a former Navy 

site, it is the Navy’s responsibility to address it. EPA is able to 

offer some help, which we did at this site. There was a Brownfields 

Program which is not part of this hearing, but part of this Committee’s jurisdiction. Pursuant to the Brownfields Program, in 2010, 

we performed an investigation of what are the issues at the site, 

and we found that there are both chemicals and heavy metals at 

the site as a result of that Brownfields review that did affect significant areas. So we were able to bring that technical assistance 

to bear. But as you said, it is not on the NPL, not on the National 

Priorities List, so not an EPA lead. 

Senator CARDIN. And this is not an EPA area, I recognize that; 

it is more DOD. 

General, do you have any suggestions here? 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I don’t have any specific knowledge of 

that site, but you have a great point, and that is that we cannot 

99 

afford, as a nation, for every one of us to work in a stovepipe based 

on some certain account and the authorities in that account; we 

have to share this body of knowledge of when we learn something. 

And if we are learning something on a FUDS or a FUSRAP site, 

and we can somehow make sure we export that knowledge across, 

and we can all work together, somewhere we are going to find better value. So we can certainly take a look at it. I don’t know where 

the Navy is at on this one, but I think that if there are some things 

that we can learn from all the other 5,400 sites we are doing, and 

be able to make sure somehow those things can be wrapped in, the 

nation is going to benefit. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. I appreciate that response. We will 

follow up. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank all of you. I am sorry I missed your testimony. Probably Senator Inhofe told you that the Commerce Committee is 

meeting at the same exact time, so we are sort of jumping around 

here. 

This is a bit off topic, but since I have General Semonite here, 

I am going to lodge the question, because I wanted to take the opportunity to talk about something important that we have been 

working with the Corps on, and that is the Appalachian Corridor 

H. This issue has to do with a Section 404 permit of that project 

between Kerens and Parsons, West Virginia. The subcontractor for 

West Virginia DOT is working on this section, submitted the application October 13, 2016, and is frustrated it hasn’t heard. This 

morning, however, we did get notice, following an inquiry from my 

office, that the Huntington Corps District informed my staff that 

they will be opening a 15-day public comment period on the permit 

modification. So I want to thank the Huntington Corps for that. It 

is very important if you are trying to drive from here to the beautiful ski regions in West Virginia over to Canaan Valley or Snowshoe, Corridor H is extremely important. 

So basically what I would like from you, General, really is that 

you would ensure to me that the public comment will in fact open 

when our local Corps told that it would, and pledge to kind of 

prioritize this project once that begins. 

General SEMONITE. Senator, I don’t know exactly that permit. We 

certainly are committed to continue to stay on these timelines. I 

think the whole nation is continuing to look at permitting. We need 

to do this in a right manner based on our authorities and our statutes. But on the other hand, we have to be able to make sure we 

are expeditious in this. So I will go back and double check with the 

Huntington commander and find out where we are at on it. But unless there is some reason that we can’t do that because of a regulatory issue or something, we want to be aggressive and continue 

to do permitting in an efficient manner, but also to be able to make 

sure that we are being responsive back to the applicant. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you so much. I think, too, a yes is always 

what they want, but even a no is helpful, because you can either, 

100 

A, restart or abandon the project, whichever direction. But being 

held in limbo is costly. So I am very pleased to hear you say that. 

Another question, again to you, General, is on the topic. On the 

list of one of the FUDS sites for West Virginia, almost 70 percent 

of the Corps work is focused on a project that I have actually 

toured. It is called West Virginia Ordnance Worksite. It is in 

Mason County. It was an old storage facility for all kinds of different weapons and chemicals and ammunitions. It would be a good 

history site, I think, for our younger people to see what was going 

on in World War II and how the whole country was pulling together. 

But it mentions that one of the areas that is going on is longterm management. I was just wondering what does long-term management mean, and how does that unfold for a site such as this? 

General SEMONITE. So, Senator, if in fact there are some lower 

priority sites, and I hate to use that worse because they are all critical, but if there are some that we just can’t get to it because of 

lack of funding, then we have to be able to make sure that we are 

addressing that from a life safety perspective, and also make sure 

that we are educating. Conversely, if there are sites that have actually been remediated to a given standard, it doesn’t mean we just 

take our eye off the ball. So we have a 5-year renewal process 

where we go back out, we continue to look at that, we continue to 

do outreach back in there. 

So I think on this one I have to get back with you and find out 

exactly where we are at on it, but what we say on long-term management is to be able to make sure we continue to be able to make 

sure there is not any new issues that come up with a site, and we 

continue to have some degree of accountability back in to watch 

what happens on that site. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, one good thing about that particular site, 

too, is there are some contractors in and around that site where it 

has been cleaned, so that there is some economic activity in the 

local area; it is not just sitting there without any kind of a use. 

There are some folks that are repurposing that, because it is quite 

a vast site, and it has a primo spot because it is right on the Ohio 

River. 

General SEMONITE. Yes, Senator. And I can add it looks like we 

are continuing to do a treatability study on one of the specific sites 

that is called OU–4 to be able to make sure that we are looking 

at the technology to be able to remediation there. We are doing the 

long-term modeling I talked about, and monitoring, and we are 

continuing to work with EPA 3 to be able to look at restoring 

groundwater to drinking water standards in the manufacturing 

area. So our guys are working very closely on that, and we will continue to monitor it closely. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. I appreciate that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator HARRIS. Good morning. 

Mr. Breen, according to the GAO, it can take up to 10 years to 

clean up a Superfund site. Do you agree with that, or does it take 

longer? 

101 

Mr. BREEN. So I actually am not sure which GAO study you are 

talking about, but there are sites which would take longer than 10 

years. 

Senator HARRIS. And on average, is that how long it takes? 

Mr. BREEN. I don’t know. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. If you could follow up with me, that would 

be great. 

Mr. BREEN. Sure. 

Senator HARRIS. And you probably know that California has the 

second largest number, second only to my friend, the Senator from 

New Jersey. I believe we have 98 active Superfund sites. I would 

like to ask you, and perhaps, General Semonite, you might have 

some information about some specific sites. In particular, starting 

with Oxnard, California, we have a site there where a company, 

Halaco, started dumping in 1965, and there was a 1997 cease and 

desist order from the Army Corps which was ignored for about 

three decades, so there was continuing pollution in the coastal wetlands. And then in 2007 the EPA finally listed the site as a Superfund site. 

The cleanup is ongoing, but I think you would probably agree it 

should not take that long. So my question is, given this experience, 

what plans do the EPA and the Army Corps have to put in place 

a process so Superfund investigations can begin as soon as the Federal agency notices the contamination? 

Mr. BREEN. Thank you, Senator. I can offer some, but I am going 

to suggest we also get you more detail for the record. 

Senator HARRIS. Right. 

Mr. BREEN. You are right that we listed the site in 2007, and one 

of the first things we did was to undertake what we call removal 

actions. These are short-term actions to deal with the most pressing things. So we undertook removal actions in 2007 and 2010. We 

demolished two buildings, and we stabilized the site, and we consolidated the waste so that it was less spread out. 

While the site planning is undergoing, we made a Brownfields 

job training grant of $200,000 to the city of Oxnard. This is a way 

in which, then, local residents can get the jobs that are being created in their communities. This is like a triple win, right, good for 

the EPA, we get people who know their communities the best; good 

for the residents; and of course, it is good for the site. 

In terms of what immediate next steps are planned, I would best 

be getting those to you after the hearing. 

Senator HARRIS. OK, that would be great. I would like an update 

on that. 

And then, General Semonite, as has been mentioned, we have 

many sites that have been active for over 30 years in California. 

The USEPA and Cal/EPA have worked together to investigate and 

clean up the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund site in Clear 

Lake, California—it is actually in Lake County—since 1990. My 

understanding is the EPA estimates that 2 million cubic yards of 

mine waste still pollute Clear Lake, and the EPA has not yet taken 

significant remedial action, I am told, to control the contamination 

in the surrounding groundwater. 

102 

So can you tell me, or Mr. Breen, what the progress is and the 

timeline for the cleanup of the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund site? 

Mr. BREEN. What limited I have on that, Senator, is that we are 

recognizing the prospect, the need to address the possibilities of 

rainfall, but that we also think steps are in place so that if that 

were to happen we are prepared for it. But I will get you more on 

that. 

Senator HARRIS. OK, I appreciate that. 

General, do you have any information about it? 

General SEMONITE. Senator, I think the main thing we are focused on, you have an awful lot of FUDS sites, so we started out 

with 721; we have actually closed 476. So of the 245 left, your outstanding balance, we probably need about $1.2 billion to clean 

those up. We have categorized 8 of those as what we call the scale 

of two. We re-rank everything through a risk management data 

base. So you have a couple that are our highest priorities. The ones 

that really I want to make sure to highlight is Elliott. That is one 

that has been significant. Several years ago, in 1983, we had two 

children that were killed out there, so we have gone back in and 

cleaned up Tierrasanta, it is called, and that one we think is very 

good and we are monitoring that. 

We have cleaned up Mission Trails, so I think that one is also 

going well. And the last site we are continuing to work through 

right now in investigation, so I will certainly have my staff get 

with your staff to be able to make sure you know. And on any one 

of these sites we can go in unbelievably deep detail to show you exactly where it is at, where it is at on the priority list. Our intent 

is to never hold anything back. We want to be able to be as transparent as possible so you know what we are doing, what we are 

not doing, and where we see that coming through when it comes 

to potential funding and requirements. 

Senator HARRIS. That is great. I appreciate that follow up. And then you mentioned $1.2 billion you need to deal with the remaining. Do you see that coming to you, or what is the challenge there? 

General SEMONITE. So clearly this is probably something of interest to all of them, but we are just like the other agencies; we have 

three different accounts, so the EPA obviously is the one that is 

working the Superfund, and I will let Mr. Breen address that. 

Clearly, the FUDS is a DOD requirement, so we continue to articulate our most important risk up through the DOD budget, and 

when we see the way the 2018 budget comes out, we will certainly 

be able to advise you on where that is at. But at any given point 

we want to continue to be able to get visibility of where the highest 

risk is, and some of these like Elliott is ones that we want to continue to be able to make sure that DOD leadership knows the risk 

that is out there. 

And then, finally, the FUSRAP sites are back into really the civil 

works budget, another completely different pot of money, but that 

is where we have to continue to champion those as we go up 

through the civil works account and then see where the Committee 

and the Administration prioritizes FUSRAP with respect to the 

rest of the civil works account. 

Senator HARRIS. So, Mr. Chairman, I just have one more. 

103 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, please. 

Senator HARRIS. So what I would also appreciate by way of follow up is, given the skinny budget that has been proposed, which 

sites in California you believe would not be addressed if that budget is actually the budget that we have to work with. 

General SEMONITE. And I will definitely give you that, but the 

real short answer is if we go from worst is number 1 down to number 8, right now we are really keying on the sites that are number 

2. You have eight of those. Those are the ones that we continue to 

try to champion, and then we want to continue to work our way 

down that list. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Harris. 

Mr. Frederick, the Army Corps has proposed no further action 

for the Atlas Missile Site 7. It is my understanding that Wyoming 

DEQ has not concurred, and it believes that further investigation 

is necessary in order to support that determination. Can you comment on that? 

Mr. FREDERICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. There are some 

questions that we have that deal on the technical side of things, 

technical interpretations that have been made by the Corps with 

respect to what is going on at that particular missile site. There 

is a little bit of an unusual geologic condition that exists at that 

site in particular. There is actually what is referred to as piping 

in the formation that contains the groundwater, and this piping is 

more than likely a result of animal burrowing, wormholes, things 

like that. It is a fairly unique situation. But in that type of condition groundwater really behaves a little bit differently than what 

you would see it behave in when you are dealing with just a typical 

sand and gravel aquifer with forced flow. So the piping essentially 

directs where the groundwater is going to go, and thus any contamination with it as well. 

So what we have seen is, in this particular case, where you 

would think you would not find any TCE, that is up-gradient from 

the missile site, we are actually finding TCE, and we have asked 

the Corps to try and help us understand why we would be seeing 

it up there. And if we are seeing it there, what does that mean and 

where else should we be looking? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

So, to that, General Semonite, will the Corps do further investigation, as requested by the State? 

General SEMONITE. So, sir, two points. First of all, in your opening statement I think you mentioned that there was a perception 

of an unhealthy attitude with respect to Atlas, and that for some 

reason maybe the Corps was trying to do a quick fix. I have 34,000 

employees, and I would put my engineers against some of the best 

in the world, and not just because of technical competence, but because of compassion to do the right thing for this nation. So if I 

ever find somebody who I think is unhealthy, please notify me personally. The only reason that we should not be able to do something is just lack of resources or for some reason we are technically 

challenged, but it is not because of an attitude. And I will certainly 

rectify that if that is out there. 

104 

Now, specifically on No. 7, and I have all 7 here we can talk 

about, 3 is a great example. We have some challenges at Site No. 

3. We work side by side, and Mr. Frederick has been there for several years, much smarter than I on a lot of these things. But 3 we 

found a compromise where we all could come together. We moved 

on, and I think we have a successful solution with 3 after $12 million. We are dealing with the same thing on 4, and we can talk 

about that. 

Seven is a good example where we had eight rounds of sampling 

performed from 2011 to 2013, and the wells were below that minimum level for the contaminants concerned. Decision document to 

close the site was signed in September 2014; EPA Region 8 supported that closeout decision. But again, we want to go back in, 

and we don’t want to just close the door. If there is something we 

need to do to work with Mr. Frederick and team, we certainly want 

to do that to try to find out how to get the resolution. 

I think the bottom line is these are all not simple cookie cutter 

solutions, so we have to take the best science out there with the 

best authorities, see what Mr. Frederick’s concerns are and try to 

find a consensus. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Frederick, do you believe that the Corps 

is doing what it is doing to help with some specific sites? Has that 

been helpful? And where should we proceed from here? 

Mr. FREDERICK. Mr. Chairman, certainly the issues with respect 

to some of the sites that we have had in the past I think the Corps 

has made some good efforts to try and address our concerns. The 

Lieutenant General mentioned Site 3, for instance, as an example. 

Nevertheless, we still have a long way to go. We have a lot of work 

to be done in front of us. It is going to be challenging, and I am 

sure we will still see situations where we don’t necessarily agree 

on the approaches for delineating sites, characterizing sites, and so 

forth, but we will be working hard to make the best of those situations. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. 

So, General, you would agree that Wyoming should be treated as 

a peer in this process, and its expertise should be given considerable weight as you make these decisions? 

General SEMONITE. Yes, sir. And I am more than willing to offer 

that at some point, if we can’t let the technical staff work this out, 

then leaders like Mr. Frederick and I can certainly come see you 

with our division commanders, I have one of the best districts 

working this particular site, and certainly lay out where we see it 

is. And again, we lean heavily on EPA’s opinion in all this. It really 

is the entire community coming together to figure out what is the 

right thing to do for the nation. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Frederick, so what would happen if the 

Corps doesn’t do the cleanup for missile sites, as you suggested 

that they make sure get done? 

Mr. FREDERICK. Mr. Chairman, what will happen is that the 

TCE is going to continue to leach into groundwater. As it continues 

to leach into groundwater, plumes are going to continue to expand. 

Ultimately, what we are looking at is a far more expensive cleanup 

when we get around to it at some point in time because the contamination has actually gotten much worse in size. 

105 

Senator BARRASSO. So, General, then I can count on you to make 

sure that this does not happen? 

General SEMONITE. Sir, we will take the available science and 

make sure we work through an acceptable solution. A good example is 3. We went down through with a lot of different, very innovative techniques to be able to make sure we could contain that 

plume. We do not want this to leach into the groundwater. I think 

we have the same end state here; we just have to make sure that 

the science all puts us in the same direction. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Frederick, in your written testimony you 

included some recommendations that you said could help improve 

things with regard to the cleanup of cold war legacy sites such as 

the Atlas Missile sites. Could you take a few moments to just 

elaborate on those? 

Mr. FREDERICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, cooperation between State and Federal agencies plays a very important 

part in determining how quickly and effectively sites are remediated. We have found that effective components of any missile site 

cleanup strategy emphasized real results for the money spent. They 

incorporate State requirements early on, they adequately fund 

State involvement, and clearly define Federal and State roles in 

the cleanup and include opportunities for public comment, as well. 

In addition, consistent application of both State and Federal regulations and guidance regarding investigation and cleanup is highly important. We don’t like to see situations where we are seeing 

guidance applied differently in one site or one State as opposed to 

another. There needs to be consistency in the application so we are 

all on the same page. 

Adequate funding can significantly improve the remediation 

process in terms of both time and overall cost. Lack of Federal 

funding in particular may lead to technically inadequate and incomplete site characterizations. Source areas may not be adequately investigated and defined, and ineffective costly remedies 

may be determined from incomplete information. 

States play an important role in this process and often have a 

great deal of institutional knowledge and familiarity with the sites 

and understand State requirements that apply to the cleanup process. We would encourage those to take advantage of those opportunities that States can provide to help the process along. 

Finally, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 

Management Officials, or ASTSWMO, of which the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality is a member, has recently published a position paper, that I have attached to my written testimony, on performance based contracting at Federal facilities. It 

also includes a checklist that is intended to help improve the efficiency and the ultimate performance based contracting process. 

And we would certainly encourage everyone, especially the Corps 

of Engineers, to take a look at that position paper and give it serious consideration, and involving States early on in performance 

based contracting. We believe that would also be one way, at least, 

to make the whole process more cost effective and efficient. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

106 

Massachusetts has 47 former military sites that need some form 

of investigation and potential remediation; potential cost of $126 

million. We have at least 10 Superfund sites that will lose access 

to critical cleanup services. And we have a Trump administration 

which is proposing a $1 billion cut in the Corps of Engineers’ budget and slashing the entire EPA budget by nearly a third. So that 

is just so irresponsible, because these individual communities, they 

are left with a legacy that they didn’t create. Irresponsible kind of 

management ultimately created these problems, both in Superfund 

and in the problems that the Army Corps looks at, and they don’t 

have enough money to deal with it. 

We ran into the same thing in the Reagan administration. What 

they did was they really harbored an animus toward the Superfund 

program, and they just began defunding. They named Anne 

Gorsuch as the head of the EPA, Rita Lavelle as the head of the 

Superfund program, and one of the top five sites in America was 

the Woburn site that I represented, which ultimately became the 

subject of a movie and a book called A Civil Action. And in 1986 

I had to release a report called Deadly Delay; that the EPA was 

doing deliberately in Woburn, kind of slowing it down; notwithstanding the number of children who had contracted leukemia, the 

number of families that had been totally irreparably harmed. And 

all we are seeing here is just a repetition, this whole idea that you 

can attack an agency in general without ultimately impacting the 

lives of ordinary people. 

So, Ms. Smith, let me begin with you. What do you think the impact is going to be of ultimately extending the deadlines that it will 

take in order to clean up these sites and what the impact is on the 

public health and safety of people who live in those neighborhoods? 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Senator, for the question. As I indicated 

before, in Washington State in particular, and at the Hanford site 

in particular, delays in cleanup progress mean just unacceptable 

lengths of cleanup. Hanford is currently scheduled to be cleaned up 

by 2070, and we have seen some budget indicators that that could 

go beyond and well into the year 3000, which seems unfathomable. 

And it does place unacceptable risks on both the local community 

and the local resources. 

Senator MARKEY. It absolutely does not seem unfathomable to 

me. I issued a report in 1987 on the Hanford Reservation and on 

the lack of progress that was being made. That was denial. That 

was deadly delay right there. They knew what was going on; they 

knew what they had left behind. The military didn’t want to deal 

with it; they didn’t want it to come out of their budget. They need 

more bombs over here that Hanford had been producing, but they 

don’t want to then deal with the consequences left behind for the 

public. 

So how devastating will this be to you, General, in terms of your 

ability to be able to deal with all of these sites that are under the 

Army Corps jurisdiction? 

General SEMONITE. So, sir, we do deal with three different types 

of accounts. Clearly, there is Superfund, FUSRAP, and FUDS, so 

all of those are different funding streams. 

Senator MARKEY. What does FUDS stand for? 

107 

General SEMONITE. So, sir, FUDS is Formerly Used Defense 

Sites. 

Senator MARKEY. Formerly used, now abused, military sites, 

meaning the military just walking away from it. Formerly. That is 

nice, FUDS. And what is the middle one? 

General SEMONITE. FUSRAP, sir. 

Senator MARKEY. What does that stand for? 

General SEMONITE. I have it here. It is a long acronym. 

Senator MARKEY. But the name of what you describe will tell us 

what it is. 

General SEMONITE. Formerly Used Sites Remedial Action Program. 

Senator MARKEY. There it is. Yes. But the remedial action program is now going to be just push-back, push-back, push-back, because you need money. You know, a vision without funding is a 

hallucination. So you can’t pretend that without money, without 

the personnel, you are going to be able to solve this problem. So 

you will have to triage this, then; right, General? 

General SEMONITE. So, sir, we do a risk informed decision process on every one of these sites. We take a look at the complexity 

of the site and the danger of the site. 

Senator MARKEY. No, I appreciate that. So you are going to have 

to leave behind sites that you have determined to be dangerous, 

but not as dangerous as the ones that need more help immediately. 

General SEMONITE. They will not be able to get attention as fast 

as others, yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Right. Exactly. So you just say to those people, 

sorry, not enough room on the lifeboat, and you are just going to 

have to stay onboard here. 

Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. LUKIN. If I may, I am so glad you asked this question, Senator Markey, because Ranking Member Carper asked a question 

earlier about funding and issues around sites, and I misheard him 

and misspoke. So I want to correct that answer, because in Alaska 

we would take cuts to funding for Army Corps of Engineers, for 

DOD FUDS programs, for EPA. It would have an extremely detrimental impact on the cleanup of sites across the State of Alaska. 

We absolutely need increased efficiencies and better coordinating 

between Federal agencies. 

But if we saw an even further decline in cleanup of our contaminated sites, our native people are very concerned about food security, about things leaching into our rivers, into our lakes where our 

fish are, into our land where we hunt and fish. We have concerns 

over significantly high rates of cancer among our native people. 

Some very strongly believe that this is linked to the contamination 

that we are experiencing throughout our native communities. And 

we are also concerned about drinkable water, because we do have 

locations near our Alaska native villages where you can’t drink the 

water. 

So thank you very much for the opportunity to say that. 

Senator MARKEY. No, thank you. And let me just say this. I had 

a mother, Ann Anderson her name was, come into my office in Congress 1979, and she brought her little boy with her, Jimmy. And 

she just sat in my office and told me that Jimmy had leukemia and 

108 

that she had actually gone door to door and found other mothers 

who also had little girls and boys with leukemia in one area that 

was only like a tenth of the size of the whole city, but it was where 

all the contaminated wells were, where all this residue had just 

been left behind, the arsenic, the mercury, whatever, in the water 

and in the land. And she went door to door and she found all these 

kids, and every mother and father felt that they had just been unlucky. Oh, my God, and then they figured out that it wasn’t. So 

that is really, along with Love Canal, where the Superfund program began, with Woburn and with Love Canal. 

And it was a tough fight. The city was in denial because it would 

ruin property values if they made all this public, you know, and 

you have all these issues. And the EPA was not that enthusiastic 

about coming in, especially after Reagan took over and named Ann 

Gorsuch and Rita Lavelle. But eventually, it took a long time, we 

cleaned up the site, and on that site now is a huge industrial site 

and a huge transportation center, which we then named the Jimmy 

Anderson Transportation Center, which now creates thousands and 

thousands of jobs. 

So it does work. When you clean it up, you can reuse it for community purposes. But as long as you are in denial, more children 

die across the country, more families are exposed to this, more 

property is never used because the Army walked away from that, 

because the defense industry walked away from it, because Monsanto and other companies walked away from it and left the community to figure it out. They can’t do it alone; they need the Federal Government to help them. There is just no capacity in an individual community. And that just transformed the whole way this 

community views itself, and it now can see, in retrospect, that it 

was wrong to kind of get mad at the mother and saying, oh my 

goodness, you can’t talk about this; it is going to ruin property values. 

So I just hope we don’t have to repeat history again, because 

there are too many people depending upon us, because we know 

that the Army needs the resources. The private sector companies 

have walked away, and unless we have a comprehensive way of 

looking at it, families are going to suffer. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Markey, thank you for bringing up the budget. I think 

this is going to be an area that we really do need to work through. 

So my line of questioning will be a little bit different, but it does 

focus very much on budget and funding issues. 

General, thank you for appearing for the second time in a month 

in front of this Committee. I am greatly appreciative. And I am 

sure you know where my questioning will go this morning. It is 

really good to have you here. We have had many discussions over 

the course of the past several months. 

But I wanted to take the time today to just reemphasize the flood 

mitigation projects that we have hanging out there. One of those 

is in Iowa, in Cedar Rapids. And thank you again for participating 

in those discussions with me. 

109 

On Monday I met with OMB Director Mulvaney, alongside Senator Grassley and Congressman Blum, to talk about the Cedar 

Rapids flood mitigation project and how important that is for our 

State, and I know that you are aware of it. I appreciate your work 

on this with me. And it is my understanding, when we visited with 

Director Mulvaney, it is my understanding that the Corps, as of 

Monday, had not yet submitted their budget to the OMB for fiscal 

year 2018. Is that correct? 

General SEMONITE. So, ma’am, we got guidance about 3 weeks 

ago. We have been cranking hard all the way through that, and 

then we provided our update to the Assistant Secretary to the 

Army on Monday. That budget is being worked right now at the 

senior levels of the Army and then will go to OMB on this Friday. 

That is the current timeline. 

Senator ERNST. Excellent. Thanks, General. 

General SEMONITE. So the short answer is we have submitted it 

to our higher level, but it has not been submitted to the OMB. 

Senator ERNST. To the OMB. OK, thank you very much for that. 

The Cedar Rapids project was authorized in 2014 and WRDA 

2016 directed the Corps to prioritize funding and expedite completion of the Cedar Rapids project. I also received a handwritten note 

from you on January 30th that said you and the Corps agree in the 

risk to Iowa citizens and that you will pursue all possible options 

to support this critical project. And I do ask that you carefully consider all of these provisions when making your determinations 

going forward in the budget. Will you do that? 

General SEMONITE. Yes, ma’am. Unfortunately, though, as you 

are probably aware and some of the people have already highlighted this year, there could be potential cuts to the civil works 

account based on what was in the President’s initial proposal. So 

we will have to see how that plays out and our ability to be able 

to then fund all of those critical priorities. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. And will you commit to work to solve 

this particular issue expeditiously and to work with myself and the 

OMB to modify the metrics that the Corps utilizes so we can stop 

discounting the rural areas such as Iowa and other Midwestern 

areas that have lower property values? 

General SEMONITE. Senator, you and I have talked about that in 

the past, and you have some very good points on property values 

and economic values. I think we want to continue to try to make 

sure that the processes that are used to be able to support the priorities of the Corps budget are the same things that come back out 

of the budget on the other end. I can’t guarantee you, though, that 

what I put in in the budget is necessarily what is going to ultimately be approved. 

Senator ERNST. Well, we will continue working on this issue. 

Again, it is very important not just for the Cedar Rapids flood mitigation project, but for so many of those other projects that are authorized but continue to hang out there. So, General, I thank you 

for your work. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Ernst. I appreciate it. 

110 

I do ask unanimous consent that the testimony from the 

FUSRAP Coalition be placed in the record for this hearing. Hearing 

no objection, that will so be done. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

111 


26243.074
112 


26243.075
113 


26243.076
114 


26243.077
115 

Senator BARRASSO. I know that Senator Carper is meeting with 

some constituents. I know he wanted to make one or two little final 

wrap up, so we are waiting for him. 

I will just, if I could, run down the panel and start with you, 

General. Any summary thoughts that you might have to share 

briefly with us? 

General SEMONITE. Senator, I want to just thank you and the 

Committee for taking this opportunity to hear some of the challenges that we all have. Clearly, we are all very committed to try 

to clean up these areas. I think, though, that we are also are very 

realistic that understanding the size of this problem is immense, 

and I think we have to be transparent to stakeholders that some 

of these projects are just not going to be funded as fast as other 

ones. So this is where we have to figure out how can we continue 

to keep the momentum there, but in a deliberate manner that is 

putting priorities that are really life safety and risk to the environment. We have to be able to make sure that we are putting the 

best value out to where it needs to be. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Breen, any thoughts in summary? 

Mr. BREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is an area 

where the Committee’s jurisdiction can do both environmental and 

economic good at the same time. Thank you for holding the hearing. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Frederick, any final thoughts? 

Mr. FREDERICK. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Yes, I am sure you 

have heard as well as I have that residents in the Cheyenne area 

affected by missile site contamination are concerned about it, and 

they are concerned about when it is going to be cleaned up. And 

for too many sites we just haven’t heard when that is going to happen. I am hopeful that today’s testimony will help bring some attention to the funding projects that the Corps faces, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks for being here. 

Ms. Lukin. 

Ms. LUKIN. Quyanaa. Thank you so much for inviting me to come 

today. We urge Federal agencies to work together. We look to leadership and guidance from Congress, and we would be happy to 

work with you to continue to resolve this important issue for Alaska native villages. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you for being with us. 

Ms. Smith. 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These sites are really the 

moral and legal obligation of the Federal Government, and history 

in Washington State has shown that funding is really the primary 

thing that drives cleanup faster. So we appreciate you holding this 

hearing, and we will do all we can in Washington State to help 

support funding. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Carper, some final thoughts. 

Senator CARPER. Quyanaa. How’s that? All right. We learn something every day in this job. 

Thanks so much for what you do with your lives. Thanks so 

much for being with us here today. 

116 

One of the things I focus on not only in this Committee, but in 

the other work that the Chairman and I and others do across the 

board is I focus on root causes. I focus on root causes of problems. 

And a lot of times we spend our resources and we focus on symptoms of problems, addressing the symptom, like cleanup. We have 

these cleanups, we clean them up. We spend a lot of money; it 

takes a long time. 

And I just want to make sure what are we doing to make sure 

that we are not creating, unwittingly, future cleanup sites. Are we 

going to have to do this more and spend more money and more 

time and disadvantage more people, harm more people? Anything 

that we are doing to make sure this kind of thing doesn’t happen 

again and again and again? 

General. 

General SEMONITE. Senator, from a construction perspective, 

when we are out working on military installations and building 

new ranges, or trying to figure out what are impact areas, we have 

come generations ahead of where we were at 30 or 40 years ago. 

I think the Americans that were here back in 1930 and 1940 were 

just as committed to this country; they just didn’t have the ramifications to understand the second and third order effects from 

that. So you have a very good point. We have to make sure that 

30 or 40 years from now, even the fact that we might not know 

what is going on, we have to think through the depth of some of 

these actions to make sure that our grandchildren don’t have the 

same burden that, unfortunately, we have inherited here. 

So I can get into more technical, but some of the things that we 

are doing environmentally and to be able to make sure we are 

thinking through what about rounds that are left in the ground. 

What are the ramifications of that? How do you get a bullet now 

that can basically be biodegradable and you don’t have any ramifications? Some of those kind of things is what we are doing. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

Anybody have a differing view? Anybody want to add to what the 

General has said? Do you all agree? 

Mr. BREEN. I certainly agree, Senator. It is the case that Superfund is one of the nation’s safety nets. It is what is there to stand 

in when other things have not worked. In some cases that is things 

that have been put into place decades ago. I think the Congress 

took an important step with the amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act, the new TSCA, in making improvements in 

the way we deal with chemicals at the outset. But that doesn’t 

mean Superfund doesn’t need to be there for many years to come 

to deal with problems that are already entrained. 

Senator CARPER. Anyone else want to say anything? OK. 

You mentioned TSCA. That is something that Senator Inhofe and 

myself, others on this Committee worked literally for years, David 

Vitter worked for years, Tom Udall, Frank Lautenberg, and I am 

very proud of that. Very proud of the work that was done. But in 

the last Congress this Committee played a lead role in reauthorizing TSCA, I think maybe rewriting it in a way that will actually 

work and be effective. It turns out that the very first chemical safety rules proposed last fall under the new rule were rules to ban 

some uses of TCE. I know we talked a little about TCE today, but 

117 

let me just follow through on this. But the rules have not yet been 

finalized. 

Ms. Smith, Mr. Frederick, Ms. Lukin, do any of you disagree that 

EPA should act to finalize these rules just as quickly as possible 

in order to prevent future exposure to TCE like the exposures that 

people near the Wyoming Atlas Missile site are at risk of? Go 

ahead and speak. 

Ms. SMITH. We do not, I do not disagree. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. FREDERICK. Mr. Chairman, Senator, I am not familiar with 

the rule. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Ms. Lukin. 

Ms. LUKIN. I am also not familiar with the rule. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

If you were familiar with the rule, what would—— 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. LUKIN. I would suggest that I would not disagree with the 

rule, but I would have to read it to give you a for sure answer on 

that. Thank you, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Last word. Ms. Lukin, I may have misunderstood what you said in your earlier testimony, although I thought 

you were all brilliant, just exceptional. But I think I understood 

you to say that there was a land swap that occurred involving native Americans and that in the land swap that occurred I think between maybe the Federal Government and the native Americans, 

the native Americans ended up with land that had been contaminated with toxic materials or whatever, and now that needs to be 

cleaned up. And I don’t think you said that the native Americans 

were left holding the bag in the cleanup, but it sounds like that 

might be what has happened. Is that what you said? 

Ms. LUKIN. In a sense, sir. There is a section within CERCLA 

which basically says that the current landowner could be liable for 

the cleanup of preexisting contamination. So under the situation 

with Alaska Native Corporations, although this contamination occurred during the cold war and World War II, these are events that 

happened prior to conveyance of the land to Alaska Native Corporations. Under CERCLA, we are legally liable to clean up that 

land, which we feel is extremely unjust given that we received the 

land under our aboriginal land claim settlement with the Federal 

Government. 

The EPA does have a longstanding policy that says that it won’t 

pursue legal action against parties under this particular provision 

of CERCLA, but it doesn’t provide us any legal rights under the 

law, and EPA reserved the right to depart from it on a case by case 

basis. So essentially this has a situation where Alaska Native Corporations in some cases are unwilling to bring forward and notify 

agencies of prior contamination on their lands simply because they 

don’t want to be held legally liable for the cleanup. So we are asking Congress to consider providing Alaska Native Corporations protection under the law from this particular section in CERCLA. 

118 

And sir, you stepped out a moment ago, and I misspoke and 

misanswered your earlier question about budget funding for agencies. 

Senator CARPER. Oh, that’s too bad. 

Ms. LUKIN. No, sir, so I wanted you to know I absolutely do not 

support cut funding to Federal agencies for cleanup of these lands. 

We have already been delayed over 45 years in the cleanup of these 

sites across Alaska. We need more funding, not less, to make this 

right. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Would you say that just one more time? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. It’s on the record twice. That’s good. Thank you. 

Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, what I opened up with, Golden 

Rule, treat other people the way we want to be treated, who is my 

neighbor. And you are neighbors, and the folks that you are trying 

to help, they are our neighbors as well. And we have an obligation, 

I think, a moral obligation to do our part. And also, while we clean 

up these messes, toxic messes that have been created, that we 

work really hard to make sure we are not unknowingly creating 

more of them. 

This was a wonderful hearing and appreciate very much all of 

you being here and enlightening us today. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you, Senator Carper. 

I just want to thank all the witnesses again for your testimony, 

for your thoughtfulness. 

If there are no more questions, members may also submit follow 

up written questions for the record. The hearing record will, therefore, stay open for 2 weeks. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for their time, testimony, and 

congratulate our friend who is retiring after 32 years of service to 

our nation; not just to the agency, but to our nation. Thank you. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ