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

98–180 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–770 

PROTECTING TAXPAYERS AND ENSURING 

ACCOUNTABILITY: FASTER SUPERFUND 

CLEANUPS FOR HEALTHIER COMMUNITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 10, 2014 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

CORY A. BOOKER, NEW JERSEY, Chairman 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 10, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Booker, Hon. Corey, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 3 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York .................. 35 

WITNESSES 

Breen, Barry N., Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Accompanied By: Judith A. Enck, Region 2 Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Booker ................................................................................................. 18 

Senator Vitter ................................................................................................... 21 

Senator Gillibrand ............................................................................................ 30 

Gibbs, Lois, Executive Director, Center for Health, Environment and Justice .. 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Delaney, Joseph, Mayor, Garfield, New Jersey ..................................................... 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Spiegel, Robert, Executive Director and Co-Founder of Edison Wetlands Association .................................................................................................................... 54 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Bodine, Susan, Partner, Barns & Thornburg ........................................................ 63 

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

Thompson, Scott, Executive Director, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality ..................................................................................................... 81 

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

(1) 

HEARING ON PROTECTING TAXPAYERS AND 

ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY: FASTER 

SUPERFUND CLEANUPS FOR HEALTHIER 

COMMUNITIES 

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Corey Booker (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Booker, Gillibrand and Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COREY BOOKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. Good afternoon, everyone. 

I am very happy to be chairing this hearing of the Subcommittee 

on Oversight of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

We will come to order. 

Senator Inhofe just pointed out I have started off well. This is 

the first time I am holding a gavel, so if I make any mistakes, the 

Senators decided to be very charitable with me as I hope you will 

be as well. 

On behalf of Ranking Member Inhofe and members of the subcommittee, welcome to our witnesses. Thanks to several of you for 

traveling long distances. Some of you have traveled distances I 

know so well down from New Jersey, so I am grateful. 

Across the United States, we have far too many unremediated, 

dangerous Superfund sites sitting in our neighborhoods, properties 

that are literally poisoning residents. The problem is particularly 

acute in the State of New Jersey which is both the most densely 

populated Stated in America and the State with the most Superfund sites. 

Superfund sites on the National Priority List are the most heavily contaminated properties in the Country and the sites that pose 

the greatest potential risk to public health and environment. These 

sites endanger the health of our children and thwart economic development in our communities. 

Our purpose today is to look at the impact these contaminated 

sites are having on our communities, to look at ways to speed up 

the cleanup process and to look at options for how to bring desperately needed additional funding to the Superfund Program. 

2 

As Mayor of Newark, I have seen firsthand the devastating impacts that Superfund sites can have on a community. When they 

are not cleaned up, contaminated properties are blights in our 

American neighborhoods. When these sites are cleaned up, the opportunities flow for job creation, new tax revenues and most importantly, for healthier communities. 

It has been estimated that 11 million Americans live within one 

mile of a Superfund site and that 3–4 million children our most 

vulnerable Americans do as well. Let me repeat, that is 3–4 million 

children in the United States who live within one mile of a Superfund site. 

The reason that is important is because of what I believe is a 

truly chilling statistic. Researchers at Princeton, MIT and Berkeley, after reviewing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of birth 

records, found that babies born to mothers living within one mile 

of a Superfund site, prior to that site being cleaned up, had a 20 

percent great incident of being born with birth defects. 

Let me repeat, that is a 20 percent higher rate—20 percent more 

babies being born with congenital anomalies like heart defects or 

Downs Syndrome, prior to a Superfund site being cleaned up. 

That study is not alone. For example, a 2009 peer-reviewed research study concluded that autism rates were substantially higher 

for children within ten miles of a Superfund site. This is alarming 

and unacceptable that we have sites in America ready to go but for 

the resources we are not cleaning them up. 

Every day that we wait, every month, every year that goes by, 

more children are facing these staggering risks, more parents have 

to worry about the health of their unborn children. nationwide, 

there are hundreds of Superfund sites that are on the National Priority List where mediation has not even begun. There are hundreds 

more sites on the list where remediation is ongoing but too often 

at a pace that is slowed by inefficient funding problems. 

Appropriated funding for 2013 and 2014 for the Superfund Program is at the lowest level of funding in over 25 years. Adjusted 

for inflation, we are currently funding the Superfund Program at 

40 percent of 1987 levels. From 1992 to 2000, an average of 80 

Superfund cleanups were completed each year. In 2013, just 14 

were completed. 

In 2010, the GAO issued a report which found the current funding levels likely to not be sufficient to meet the needs of the Superfund Program. Based upon EPA official estimates of future program costs, the GAO found future funding needed will be 2.5 times 

higher than funds appropriated annually for the program over the 

past decades. 

From the time of the GAO report to today, things have only gotten worse. Funding has dropped an additional 17 percent while 

more sites have been added to the National Priority List. 

Today, Senator Boxer and I are requesting that the GAO update 

their 2010 report. This week, along with Senator Menendez, my 

senior Senator from New Jersey, we will be introducing the Superfund Polluter Pays Restoration Act of 2014. This bill would reinState the excise tax on polluting industries, one approved by President Reagan, in order to provide funding for Superfund cleanups. 

3 

Today, I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses and 

I look forward to working with Senators on both sides of the aisle 

to move forward to address these serious concerns and issues. 

Senator BOOKER. Before hearing from our witnesses, I will turn 

to Senator Inhofe, the Ranking Member, for his opening statement. 

Again, I am grateful that you are here, Senator. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We also have an Oklahoman here, Scott Thompson. We go back 

many years. He will be on the second panel. I hope we will be able 

to return from the votes that are in line right now. 

Thank you for holding this meeting. I know the Superfund Program is a very important one in your State, Mr. Chairman, as well 

as in mine. Tar Creek was a big one that we had in Oklahoma. It 

is a 40 square mile area in the northeastern part of the State that 

was contaminated by lead and zinc mines that were abandoned 

back in the 1970’s. 

The site was added to the National Priority List in 1981 but it 

rightfully received a lot of attention in 2006 when the Corps of Engineers released a study showing that the underground mines were 

at risk of collapsing. 

After a lot of effort on the part of the Oklahoma delegation, the 

EPA, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and 

several other stakeholders, we successfully got the at risk people 

out of the Tar Creek area. 

To tell you how serious this was, Mr. Chairman, we had one elementary school that we found after we did a lot of digging around 

to find out where the danger of collapse was, and it went right 

under the elementary school and could have happened at any time. 

In a number of the major components of the cleanup, work had 

already been completed. While there is more to be done, I am very 

appreciative that progress has been made by all the stakeholders 

involved. 

Superfund sites need to be cleaned up. There is no question 

about that but the cleanup process needs to happen in the most 

cost effective and fair way possible. Generally, the financing for 

Superfund cleanups comes from agreements between the EPA and 

the parties responsible for the pollution. 

Having the responsible parties pay for the contamination they 

cause is the way it should be. This is what happens about 70 percent of the time. In other cases, where the responsible parties cannot be identified, EPA pays for the cleanup out of appropriated dollars. 

Some, including the Chairman of this Subcommittee, have called 

for the reinstatement of the Superfund tax to provide additional financing to the Superfund list. I understand why they are putting 

marker down. The tax is structured in a way that makes it appear 

like polluter pays when in reality, it is not. 

There are two things I want to bring to everyone’s attention that 

I do not think people realize about the Superfund tax. First, it applies to everyone. By taxing each barrel of oil produced and imposing a surtax on all income earned over $1.2 million by corporations, 

4 

even small businesses that do not have any risk of contamination 

are required to pay the tax. 

While I know many think oil, gas and chemical industries are 

dirty, I do not believe the EPA has identified a single responsible 

party that did not ultimately pay its fair share of remedial costs 

at a Superfund site. 

The second thing is that in the President’s budget, does not propose to use any of the additional revenue raised by the Superfund 

tax, if it is actually imposed, to actually boost spending in the 

Superfund Program. This underscores that problem we have is not 

funding; it is priorities. 

In fact, during the recent years of high appropriations for the 

EPA, funding for the Superfund Program remained flat. It did not 

go up by any significant amount. The funding went up for the EPA 

but not the Superfund portion of that. It makes me think that the 

purpose behind the Administration’s Superfund tax proposal is 

more about imposing more taxes on industry than it is about cleaning up contaminated sites. 

To increase the effectiveness of the Superfund Program, the EPA 

needs to be doing more with less. The agency needs to trim its 

costs of administering the program so that more funds are freed up 

for cleanup work. Once the EPA has demonstrated that it can do 

this, it would be reasonable for us to consider moving funds within 

the EPA’s existing budget to make this work. 

We had several examples before you began serving in this body, 

Mr. Chairman. One was in Louisiana where we had a way of cleaning up a site that was about one-fourth the cost of doing it through 

the EPA. We had a difficult time getting this done. 

I think we need to look at those opportunities and look at the 

cheapest way to get it done as opposed to looking always to the bureaucracy. As this comes up and we talk about renewing this, we 

want to be sure to cover those options. 

I will be there with you or against you but we are working in 

terms of correcting the problem. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Chairman Booker, thank you for taking the time to hold this hearing. I know the 

Superfund program is very important to your state, as it is to mine. Tar Creek is 

a 40 square mile area in the northeastern part of Oklahoma that was contaminated 

by lead and zinc mines that were abandoned in the 1970’s. The site was added to 

the National Priorities List in 1981, but it rightfully received a lot of attention in 

2006 when the Corps of Engineers released a study showing that the underground 

mines were at risk of collapsing. 

After a lot of effort on the part of the Oklahoma delegation, Oklahoma’s Department of Environmental Quality, EPA Region 6, and many other stakeholders, we 

were successfully able to get all of the at-risk folks out of the Tar Creek area who 

were willing to move. A number of the major components of the cleanup work have 

already been completed, and while there is still a lot of work to be done, I’m very 

appreciative of the progress that’s being made by all the stakeholders involved. 

Superfund sites need to be cleaned up, there is no question about that. But the 

cleanup process needs to happen in the most cost effective way possible. 

Generally, the financing for Superfund cleanups comes from agreements between 

EPA and the parties responsible for the pollution. Having the responsible parties 

pay for the contamination they caused is the way it should be. This is what happens 

about 70 percent of the time. In other cases, where the responsible parties cannot 

be identified, the EPA pays for the cleanup out of appropriated dollars. Some, inVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:56 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98180.TXT VERN
5 

cluding the Chairman of the Subcommittee, have called for the reinstatement of the 

Superfund tax to provide additional financing to the Superfund trust fund. 

I understand why they are putting this marker down. The tax is structured in 

a way that makes it appear like a ‘‘polluter pays’’ tax, when in reality, it is not. 

There are two things I want to bring to everyone’s attention that I do not think people realize about the superfund tax. The first is that it applies to everyone. By taxing each barrel of oil produced and imposing a surtax on all income earned over $2 

million by corporations, even small businesses that do not have any risk of contamination are required to pay the tax. While I know many think the oil, gas, and chemical industries are dirty, I do not believe the EPA has identified a single responsible 

party that did not ultimately pay its fair share of remedial costs at a Superfund 

site. 

The second is that in the President’s budget, he does not propose to use any of 

the additional revenue raised by the Superfund tax to actually boost spending in 

the Superfund program. This underscores that the problem we have is not funding— 

it is priorities. In fact, during recent years of high appropriations for the EPA, funding for the Superfund program remained flat. It did not go up by any significant 

amount. This makes me think that the purpose behind the Administration’s superfund tax proposal is more about imposing more taxes on industry than it is about 

cleaning up contaminated sites. To increase the effectiveness of the Superfund program, the EPA needs to be doing more with less. The agency needs to trim its cost 

of administering the program so that more funds are freed up for cleanup work. 

Once EPA has demonstrated that it can do this, it would be reasonable for us to 

consider moving funds within EPA’s existing budget framework from lower priority, 

non-infrastructure related programs to this important program. I thank the witnesses for appearing today and look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Senator BOOKER. I want to thank the Ranking Member for his 

opening comments. 

Maybe as an effort to build some suspense, Senator Inhofe and 

I actually need to go do a quick vote. We will have a short recess 

and after we vote, I will hustle back here as quickly as possible. 

I don’t think I will keep up with this guy, but I will try. 

We will reconvene at 3:15 p.m. 

[Recess.] 

Senator BOOKER. According to Senate standard time, we are earlier than we said we would be. Please take note of that for the congressional Record, please. 

Picking up after the opening statements of myself and the Ranking Member, I am happy that we can actually now move to Barry 

Breen, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response, EPA. We are very grateful that 

you would take time to come down. 

Also on your left is Judith Enck who is the Region 2 Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY N. BREEN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY: JUDITH A. ENCK, REGION 2 ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. BREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As you described, I am joined by Administrator Judith Enck from 

the Region 2 office. She is here to answer site-specific and programrelated questions for sites in New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico 

and the Virgin Islands. 

The Superfund Program was established in 1980 to respond to 

hazardous waste sites throughout the Nation. The program has a 

variety of tools to help protect human health and the environment. 

6 

These include shorter term removal actions and longer term remedial actions. 

Each year, more than 30,000 emergencies involving the release 

or threatened release of oil or hazardous substances are reported 

in the United States. In a typical year, EPA completes or oversees 

the completion of some 300 removal actions. 

On the longer term side, while there is no common way to characterize communities located near Superfund sites, our analysis of 

the latest census data found that approximately 49 million people 

live within three miles of a Superfund NPL site or Superfund alternative agreement site. 

Mr. Chairman, I picked up as well your description of those who 

live within a one mile radius and both are relevant ways of measuring. 

Using the three mile radius, the population is more likely to be 

minority, low income, linguistically isolated and less likely to have 

a high school education than the U.S. population as a whole. As a 

result, these communities may have fewer resources with which to 

address concerns about their health and the environment. 

The importance of Superfund cleanup is highlighted by recent 

academic research. You mentioned it as well, Mr. Chairman, the 

article in the American Economic Review that indicated that congenital abnormalities are reduced by roughly 20–25 percent for 

those living within 5,000 meters of a site. 

As well, Senator Inhofe, you described the Tar Creek Superfund 

site and their site actions have helped reduce the percentage of 

local children who had elevated blood lead levels from 35 percent 

to less than 1 percent. We are enormously proud to have worked 

with partners in that respect, including Executive Director Thompson’s Oklahoma DEQ in this matter. 

Besides the important health benefits, there are important economic benefits generated by the Superfund Program. A 2012 study 

completed by researchers at Duke University and the University of 

Pittsburgh found that deletion of a site from the National Priorities 

List after cleanup significantly raised the value of owner-occupied 

housing within three miles of the site by between 18 and 24 percent. 

The shape of the curve is instructive in that regard. The study 

tracks the value changes in property over time, not just at the time 

of discovery but as well the time all the way through to deletion 

from the NPL. 

What we find is that the property value decreases when the site 

is proposed for the NPL but then increases by more than a compensating amount when the site is finalized on the NPL and then continues to increase as the cleanup progresses. 

The market seems to be anticipating the work that the EPA will 

do. That is, first announcement of a proposal does have a draw 

down in the property value but then over time, the work much 

more than makes up for that as we come to completion so that at 

the end, when the site is deleted, it has increased in value by between 18 and 24 percent. 

That is residential, owner-occupied and that is the average but 

of course what that means is that enables that neighborhood and 

7 

community to do that much more—not just on environmental matters, but throughout the things that government can do. 

Working with communities on the future of sites has resulted in 

more than 700 Superfund sites in actual, continued or planned 

reuse. At the 373 sites that have been studied, there are more than 

2000 businesses generating more than $32 billion in annual sales, 

providing more than 70,000 jobs and $4.9 billion in employment income. 

While Superfund continues to make progress, there are challenges. One is that the funding has decreased from the Fiscal Year 

2011 budget of $605 million to the Fiscal Year 2014 budget of $500 

million. This has resulted in a continued backlog of sites. 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget requests an increase of $43 million. The President has also requested that the Congress reinState the lapsed Superfund tax. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That completes my statement. I and 

Regional Administrator Enck will be happy to answer questions 

from you or your colleague. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Breen follows:] 

8 


98180.071
9 


98180.072
10 


98180.073
11 


98180.074
12 


98180.075
13 


98180.076
14 


98180.077
15 


98180.078
16 


98180.079
17 


98180.080
18 


98180.025
19 


98180.026
20 


98180.027
21 


98180.028
22 


98180.029
23 


98180.030
24 


98180.031
25 


98180.032
26 


98180.033
27 


98180.034
28 


98180.035
29 


98180.036
30 


98180.037
31 


98180.038
32 

Senator BOOKER. I am grateful for that. Why don’t I lead with 

the questions followed by the Ranking Member and if there are 

more, given the limited time we have, we can go back for another 

round. 

Mr. Breen, thank you again for that great testimony and for 

highlighting some of the issues that obviously are resident with my 

opening remarks. 

The EPA, we know, has the authority to create financial responsibility requirements. This would require companies currently managing hazardous substances to demonstrate they actually have the 

financial ability to pay for any future release of a hazardous substance. 

It is very important we keep taxpayers off the hook for cleaning 

up future Superfund sites. Right now, taxpayers are often on the 

hook for the mistakes made in the inability to pay of past companies. 

This would ensure that funding is actually available so that we 

don’t have the problem we have right now of funding the Superfund sites. I would like to know the status of the EPA rulemaking 

on this issue? 

Mr. BREEN. In the vernacular, this is called the 108(b) rulemaking because the statutory authority for it is in Section 108(b). 

I think it was actually in the original enactment in 1980. It was 

a very hard problem to approach and very complicated, easy to 

frame but complicated to address. 

Over the last several years, the EPA has started to address it 

and has identified hard rock mining and mineral processing as the 

first industries for 108(b) rulemaking. We currently have that on 

a scheduled publication of a proposed rule in 2016. 

We also have as well items underway in other industries but I 

expect the hard rock mining and mineral processing would be the 

first rules in this regard. 

Senator BOOKER. What is the timeline on that, do you think? 

Mr. BREEN. 2016. 

Senator BOOKER. 2016, for all areas? 

Mr. BREEN. No. 

Senator BOOKER. Just the hard rock? 

Mr. BREEN. Mr. Chairman, that is right, just the initial class of 

hard rock mining and mineral processing. Then there is more that 

we expect will be studied as well. 

Senator BOOKER. Ms. Enck, again, thank you so much for being 

here and for the work you do in Region 2. I give you gratitude for 

the work you do in Region 2, except for Puerto Rico which I imagine you enjoy going to visit more than perhaps New Jersey. 

I’d like to get an update on the cleanup status of some of the 

Superfund sites actually in New Jersey. I am concerned that there 

are many hazardous sites in New Jersey that could be moving forward with cleanup but are not because funding is not available. 

Yesterday, we visited together the Syncon Resins Superfund site 

in Kearny, New Jersey. Paints, varnishes and resins were formerly 

manufactured at this site. Hazardous chemicals were found in both 

the soil and the groundwater. This site has been on the NPL since 

1983. 

33 

For the record, could you please give me an update on the status 

of this site and when remediation work will begin? 

Ms. ENCK. Sure. Thank you, Senators. My sincere thanks to both 

you and Senator Inhofe for convening this hearing on such an important topic, especially for New Jersey where, as you know, we 

have 149 Federal Superfund sites. I want to talk about a few that 

we need resources to address. 

Certainly Syncon Resins, which you visited yesterday, I think 

really illustrates the challenge that is before us in this program. 

This is a 15-acre site, located on a peninsula right between the 

Hackensack River and the Passaic River, so it floods. During Hurricane Sandy, the groundwater remediation building filled with 

water, and needed to stop operating. 

We have done a lot of work at the site. It is contaminated with 

volatile organic compounds like Solulene and Toulene and heavy 

metals such as lead and nickel. It is contaminated with PCBs and 

with highly toxic pesticides, DDT and Aldrin. 

We have taken our work there very seriously—10,000 people live 

within three miles of this site. The closest residents are in the city 

of Newark, just one mile away from this site. 

We have cut this site into two phases. Phase 1, we have removed 

about 13,000 drums, many of them leaking chemicals. We dealt 

with storage tanks, there were hazardous waste lagoons on the site 

that we were able to remediate, and we installed a groundwater 

collection system. Phase 1 ran us about $21 million. This money came from the 

Superfund because the company that created the mess, to use a 

technical term, is bankrupt. 

We want to get on to Phase 2 of cleaning up this site which we 

are working together with the State of New Jersey on but Phase 

2 will cost $24 million. We currently do not have the $24 million 

available to finish the cleanup. 

We have to dig out about 40,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil 

and there are a number of buildings on the site that are on top of 

the contaminated soil, so we are going to have to demolish the 

building. We are about $24 million short, so I can’t tell you what 

the timeline is to finish the job. 

Senator BOOKER. I am going to let the Ranking Member ask his 

questions. When I have a chance, I’d like to followup some more. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Breen, I mentioned this briefly in my opening remarks. Before we talk about additional money to the Superfund Program, whether through revenue increases or additional appropriations, I think we need to understand where the money we 

are already appropriating is actually going. 

The last report—maybe you know of one more current than 

this—was in 1998 when the GAO reported that of all the Superfund spending, less than half, 46 percent, was actually used to 

clean up the contaminated sites. Has this report been updated 

since 1998? 

Mr. BREEN. Senator, I am not aware of an update to the GAO 

report of 1998 in that regard. 

Senator INHOFE. My concern is with the administrative efficiency 

of the EPA because I have been here since before that time and it 

hasn’t really improved over the last 16 years. This means the 

34 

money being appropriated for Superfund is not being adequately 

managed or far fewer cleanups are being done. 

Do you know if these numbers are any different today? Let me 

ask you to do this. Go through each year, you should have these 

fairly accessible to you, and let us know what has happened each 

year in terms of the percentage of money that is actually going to 

the Superfund sites. Could you get that for us? 

Mr. BREEN. In fact, Senator, I brought some updated numbers 

from the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget. Actually we are 

working off of Fiscal Year 2012 actuals that are reflected in the 

Fiscal Year 2014 budget. This would be actual data. 

In the actual data, the Superfund Remedial Program called on 49 

percent of the budget and the Superfund Emergency and Removal 

Program called on 15 percent so that is 64 percent. The Superfund 

Enforcement Program, which draws so much additional money into 

the program, is an additional 15 percent so that 64 and 15 is 79 

percent. 

There are a number of areas that are 1 and 2 percent. There is 

an area identified as operations and administration which is 10 

percent. 

That gives you some sense that roughly of three-quarters of the 

money if not more is for actual remediation, removal and enforcement. 

Senator INHOFE. You are familiar with the President’s plan now 

then? 

Mr. BREEN. The President’s plan. 

Senator INHOFE. Budget. 

Mr. BREEN. The President’s budget. 

Senator INHOFE. At 0.12 percent on the surtax. 

Mr. BREEN. Senator, I don’t want to miss one chance to explain 

one more thing. You identified the need to be as energetic as we 

can about saving money. Indeed, we are not resting on leaving 

business as usual. 

We have the Superfund Remedial Program Review underway in 

which we are undertaking even more work. I wouldn’t want to 

leave you thinking we are just setting aside. For example, we are 

looking at work sharing among various organizations within the 

EPA and as well, trying to hold down the time. 

Senator INHOFE. What position were you in at the time of the 

Louisiana example I used? I couldn’t remember the name but I can 

go back there and get all that stuff because I remember we had a 

hearing on that. We had a chance to do it a lot cheaper by some 

contractor down there that wasn’t able to do it. Are you familiar 

with that case? 

Mr. BREEN. Personally, I am not. 

Senator INHOFE. For the record, kind of look that up and I will 

do that so we can communicate about that. 

My concern is the surtax. I have two concerns. One is the surtax 

and the other is taxing people who happen to be in the oil industry 

or other industries when they haven’t done anything or created any 

problem in a Superfund site. 

This 0.12 percent surtax would play not only to manufacturing 

companies but software companies, financial service companies, reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:56 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98180.TXT VERN
35 

tail companies and some that pose no threat at all to Superfund. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. BREEN. Senator, that portion of the tax is on incomes above 

a certain threshold. Many small businesses would not be subject to 

that portion of the tax. 

Senator INHOFE. I am talking about businesses that have nothing 

to do with anything that could result in a Superfund problem. 

Mr. BREEN. I think it is the case that there is a surprisingly wide 

array of diverse sectors represented in those for whom Superfund 

responsibility ultimately is found. It is actually quite remarkable 

how many people find themselves as actual responsible parties. 

This is a way to recognize that. 

Senator INHOFE. It may be a way to recognize that but you are 

recognizing a lot more who have not found their way to do anything like that. The last time that this proposal was made, this was 

not even about a surtax. This was merely a tax on companies only 

because at that time there were oil or gas companies. That is 

where my opposition will come when we are looking at this. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BREEN. I would just add, the Administration proposal on 

this, we actually provided bill language in 2010. It is with one 

minor update the same language that the Congress adopted the 

last time. We are not changing anything except for an updated definition. 

Senator INHOFE. I was opposed to it then too. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOOKER. Senator Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful to 

be a part of this hearing. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, for 

holding it. 

Superfund is a very serious issue in New York State. I am grateful to see Judith Enck, who I have worked with for a very long 

time. She has provided extraordinary leadership in my own State 

of New York. Thank you, Mr. Breen, for joining us. 

I have a few questions. I had an opening statement that I will 

submit for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Gillibrand follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Chairman Booker, thank you for holding this hearing today to focus on the EPA’s 

Superfund program, which is so important to the states we represent. would like 

to take a moment to welcome two witnesses to the committee today who both have 

a special connection to my State of New York. Judith Enck is the EPA’s Regional 

Administrator for Region 2, which covers New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and 

the Virgin Islands. Regional Administrator Enck is a native of UpState New York, 

and has spent her entire career working to protect the environment of our state. 

I am pleased that she is here with us today and I thank her for her continued leadership. 

I would also like to acknowledge Lois Gibbs, who led the movement to bring 

awareness to and cleanup Love Canal. We all know the story of Love Canal, and 

of the heroic fight that Lois and her neighbors put up to protect the health of their 

families and put right a disastrous wrong. Her activism paved the way for the creVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:56 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98180.TXT VERN
36 

ation of the Superfund program, we are grateful for her continued advocacy to protect children’s health. 

Beginning with Love Canal, New York has benefited from the Superfund program, 

through which we are cleaning up some of our most contaminated properties and 

waterways. Since the program started, there have been 116 Federal Superfund sites 

in New York State, 86 of which are currently still active. These range from the Hudson River to Onondaga Lake, and dozens of industrial sites from the tip of Long Island to Niagara Falls. Mr. Chairman, I’m glad that we are focusing this hearing 

on faster cleanups. For the families who live near Superfund sites, there is nothing 

more urgent than moving these projects forward. 

One particular community that I have heard from recently is the Village of 

Holley, which is located near Rochester. This village was affected by the spill of 75 

gallons of chemicals in 2002, after which residents were forced to relocate because 

the ground was too contaminated for them to continue to live in their homes. The 

EPA purchased these uninhabitable homes, with the intent of eventually returning 

them to the community. While I appreciate all that has been done to-date by the 

EPA to remediate this site, it is now 12 years after the initial spill, and the village 

still does not have a clear time-table for the sale of these homes or the fully finished 

remediation of the site. This is just one example of what I’m sure are many in each 

of our states. 

But we in Congress must also do our part to ensure that the EPA has all of the 

resources it needs to do an effective job at cleaning up Superfund sites. I look forward to working with you, Senator Booker, and with the other members of this committee to continue to support this vital program that is critical to the health and 

safety of our constituents. I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses today, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. My questions are focused on four specific 

Superfund sites in New York State. The first one is Onondaga Lake 

cleanup. The lake has a history of pollution from municipal sewage 

waste and industrial discharge. In 1994, parts of Onondaga Lake 

were placed on the National Priorities List. 

Since being listed on the NPL as one of the Nation’s most contaminated sites, efforts to clean up the existing pollution and mitigate future pollution have made Onondaga Lake the cleanest it has 

been in over a century. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I know that the cleanup activities at Onondaga have reached a critical point. I would like to make sure that 

the restoration of the lake is completed in a timely manner. Do you 

see or are there any key obstacles remaining to finally getting Onondaga Lake off the NPL? 

Ms. ENCK. Onondaga Lake once had the distinction of the most 

polluted lake in the Country. The good news is that it is coming 

back and because of that downtown Syracuse is coming back. I just 

met last week with the County Executive and we put our heads together often on how to keep this cleanup moving. 

I think we are in pretty good shape. It has taken a long time. 

The waste beds that dotted the lake are being cleaned up. Almost 

just as important, the huge amount of raw sewage that went into 

Onondaga Lake is being addressed. 

EPA has been working closely with the city of Syracuse and the 

county to promote green infrastructure, a more environmentally 

sustainable and often cheaper way to handle wastewater. 

We have worked closely with the Onondaga Nation. I think the 

Nation would like to see a more thorough cleanup than is underway but the massive amount of waste that dots that lake makes 

actual removal of a lot of that waste virtually impossible—30 years 

of multibillion dollar removals. I think the Nation is happy with 

the progress that we have made to date. 

37 

I think in time we could look forward not only to sort of a process 

issue of delisting but making Onondaga Lake cleaner and a real 

anchor for economic development in downtown Syracuse. It has 

been a great cooperative effort with the local government, the State 

of New York and EPA. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Another challenge is the Hudson River. Can 

you provide me with an update on how the dredging is going? What 

is the current status and what are the next steps? 

Ms. ENCK. How many hours do you have? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thirty seconds. 

Ms. ENCK. The Hudson River is a real success story. I grew up 

on the Hudson River, I think you spent a lot of time on the river. 

We heard for 25 years from the PRP, General Electric, first that 

PCBs were not a problem; second, that if you do dredging it was 

going to cause resuspension; and third, it wasn’t worth spending 

the money. 

None of those things have proven to be true. We are ahead of 

schedule. We are about 60 to 70 percent done with dredging PCBs 

out of the Hudson River. About 1,000 jobs were created and Warren and Washington Counties desperately needed those jobs. 

There has not been a problem with resuspension and I think 

sometime in the future, it is going to be a long time but it might 

actually be safe to eat the fish that you catch in the Hudson. That 

was the driver on this cleanup. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. The third issue is the Village of Holley located near Rochester. The village was affected by a spill of 75 gallons of chemicals in 2002, after which residents were forced to relocate because the ground was too contaminated. The EPA purchased 

the uninhabitable homes with the intent of eventually returning to 

the community. 

Basically, the Village of Holley needs more clarity from the EPA 

on the timeline for completing the remediation. I just wanted to get 

your thoughts on whether we can work together to address these 

concerns? 

Ms. ENCK. That is an important site. We expect to have all of the 

homes back on the market by the end of this year. I know that the 

Village was concerned that there was a pretty significant relocation. People had to leave their homes. 

Now there is a desire to get about 15 homes back on the market. 

We want to make sure those homes are safe and we should have 

that done by the end of this calendar year. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the record a final question about 

combined sewer overflows because there are many Superfund sites 

like the Gowanus Canal in New York that have been negatively affected by the combined sewer overflows In many cases, fixing the 

problem is going to be very costly for the municipalities. 

For the record, I will submit two questions about that in terms 

of how to help our cities meet those needs. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Senator. 

If I can continue, I have some questions about the Carney site. 

I’d also like to know about the Horseshoe Road site in Sayreville, 

New Jersey. 

38 

The site was a former chemical processing site that produced 

coal, tar, asbestos, pesticides and other harmful chemicals. It was 

placed on the NPL list in 1995. 

Could give me an update just on when remediation work will 

begin? 

Ms. ENCK. Horseshoe Road is a highly contaminated site as you 

have described. Right next door is the Atlantic Resources 

Corporationsite. We have approached this to clean up both sites almost simultaneously. We have spent $46.5 million in Superfund 

dollars. Again, this is an orphan site. We don’t have a responsible 

party to pay the bill. 

We need another $34 million. I cannot tell you today, Senator, 

when that cleanup can be completed because I don’t currently have 

the money to do that because of the shortage of funds. It seems a 

little crazy to do it halfway but that is our fiscal reality with those 

two sites. 

Senator BOOKER. Again, we have just gone through two sites that 

are not having further action taken on them because we simply 

don’t have the money. Those are sites that are open sores, so to 

speak, polluting our area with people living around them. We know 

there are people living and residing within a mile of both of those 

sites. 

Both of those sites, Syncon Resins and Horseshoe are so-called 

orphan sites where the polluters are not paying. We are paying— 

EPA is paying. Both orphan sites, as we said, are shovel-ready but 

remediation hasn’t started because of lack of funding. 

The question I have is in a State like New Jersey where there 

are well over 100 sites, are there other sites in New Jersey just like 

these where but for the lack of funding, we could be getting them 

cleaned up? 

Ms. ENCK. I am afraid the answer is yes. There are other sites 

where they are orphan sites. We don’t have enough money to finish 

the job. What comes to mind right away is South Jersey Clothing 

contaminated an old, large dry cleaner facility, an industrial drycleaner which was contaminated with PERC. 

We have spent $19.6 million on that site. We need another $2 

million to get the job done. I am not sure where we are going to 

find that money. Radiation Technology, we have spent $1.3 million. 

We need another $2 million. 

You will hear shortly from the Mayor of Garfield. I am not going 

to get into a lot of detail there other than to say we have spent 

$5 million at that site. It is in a residential area and a wonderful 

community. Some people think of Superfund sites as in a field and 

you just put a fence around them. Garfield is a vibrant, urban community that has a Superfund site right in the middle of it. 

No remedy has been selected for the final cleanup but we estimate it will cost tens of millions of dollars. We don’t have that 

money today for the Garfield site. 

I can list others but your premise is absolutely accurate. 

Senator BOOKER. Site after site after site in New Jersey where 

we have significant a chemical presence and a tremendous amount 

of poison are not being acted upon by the simple fact that we don’t 

have the resources to act upon them. 

39 

Mr. BREEN. Senator Inhofe discussed understandably the concerns about putting taxes on industries. I understand back in the 

1986 reauthorization supported by Republicans colleagues of the 

Ranking Member, supported by frankly the Minority Leader who 

voted for that, was a tax both on industries across the board as 

well as on polluting industries, correct? 

Mr. BREEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator BOOKER. The President’s budget suggests doing it both 

ways. I would like your response to focusing on those polluting industries that produce tar sands, arsenic and the like, if we focused 

on those industries having the potential to cause serious damage, 

that would create funding to address some of these issues, if we 

more narrowly tailored it to the concerns the Ranking Member addressed? 

Mr. BREEN. That precise question hasn’t been presented to us for 

thoughtful review. We would want to be able to get back to you on 

that. 

Senator BOOKER. All right. 

Let me finish with one more question. Ms. Enck, perhaps you can 

take it. 

In 2010, the GAO did a report that looked at whether the level 

of appropriations over the prior 10 years would be sufficient moving forward for EPA to perform the needed Superfund cleanups. 

After talking with the EPA regional officials like you, the GAO 

concluded that the funds needed for the cleanups were likely 2–2.5 

times greater than the funding being appropriated. Is that funding 

shortfall consistent with your experiences in Region 2. Second, if it 

is and we do not address this, what other solutions might we have 

in New Jersey, if any or if there are none, please say that? 

Ms. ENCK. I think the GAO analysis is spot on. If you are asking 

me could EPA, Region 2 use twice or two and a half times more 

resources to address our backlog of Superfund sites, the answer is 

yes, we can absorb that. We would rely on our professional staff of 

scientists and engineers to cover more sites. 

It is not only just more sites. Because of these fiscal constraints, 

we have had to calibrate the cleanup schedule on some sites, for 

instance, the Roebling Steel Superfund site in Florence Township, 

again an abandoned site, no PRP to carry the cost. We have been 

spreading that out over a long period of time. 

This site was put on the Federal list in 1983. We have spent $135 million. We are not done, so it really has hindered redevelopment. If the GAO recommendation was to come true and we had 

2–2.5 times more resources, not only could we tackle more sites but 

we could get to the finish line quicker. 

We must protect public health. That is our legal imperative, our 

science imperative to protect public health and the environment 

but we also want to get these sites productive and back on the tax 

rolls and being a real asset in communities rather than just having 

locked gates around them with do not enter signs. 

Senator BOOKER. The last part of my question was, say we don’t 

do anything, Congress continues not to act. What are the consequences of that? 

Ms. ENCK. The consequence is the process will be much slower. 

I am not going to say that we are not going to put sites on the list; 

40 

if there is a public health imperative, we act but you basically put 

it on a slower schedule and sites sit undeveloped. 

I really want to rebut the notion that we are not being efficient 

with our resources. We are. We have a lot of sites. We want to 

cover all of them. If there is not an increase in funding, Superfund 

is super slow. 

We want to pick up the pace because when we pick up the pace, 

it means there is a greater level of public health protection and 

greater opportunity for redevelopment at these sites. 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Breen, I guess that is the anguish I feel 

today and the more I have dug into this issue over the previous 

months. I understand and we are going to hear from a great panel 

about the economic development aspects. That is a real issue in a 

slow economy. 

Right smack in the middle of some of our small cities and communities in New Jersey, you have these areas that could be producing jobs, tax revenue and the like. I think that is compelling 

enough of a reason. 

Your mandate, as represented by the Region 2 director, is for 

public health. In your remarks, you began talking about the severe, 

this isn’t bloody noses and a blister or two. These are health consequences that are devastating and life threatening to our most 

vulnerable populations as you pointed out, some of the poorest communities. 

These are things like birth defects and autism which New Jersey 

has one of the highest national rates of autism, as well as the highest number of Superfund sites, these are of real concern. 

You have this mandate to act. My question is you are telling me 

right now that you are unable to meet this public health crisis that 

you outlined simply because of the lack of congressional action to 

provide you with the resources? Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. BREEN. Senator, we do have across the Country what we call 

unfunded, ready to go, new starts. 

Senator BOOKER. What do you mean by ready to go? 

Mr. BREEN. Sites that are just waiting for funding in order to get 

the cleanup underway. 

Senator BOOKER. Is it a matter of prioritization? Can you take 

money from someplace else? Are you guys spending money on perhaps issues of other EPA enforcement? Can’t you just take some 

money from someplace else and put it into this? 

Mr. BREEN. Senator, the President has asked for money to come 

into this. The Fiscal Year 2015 budget asks for $43 million more 

for this and additional dollars as well for the emergency removal 

work. We are asking and very much hoping. 

Senator BOOKER. I appreciate the two of you coming and providing testimony on what I believe are unacceptable public health 

crises in our Nation right now in which the anguish and the pain 

of families dealing with the health consequences are made real by 

numerous studies. 

Thank you again, Mr. Breen and Ms. Enck. 

I am looking forward to the next panel. It is good to have you 

all here. I am deeply grateful that you would take time to come to 

this important hearing. 

41 

I am going to read who we have before us today and then begin 

with statements. First, we have Lois Gibbs, Executive Director, 

Center for Health, Environment and Justice, an organization you 

founded in 1981. It is not here but I assume that was when you 

were about 10 years old. 

The most important elected leaders in America are mayors. We 

have with us Joseph Delaney, currently serving as Mayor of the 

city of Garfield. Thank you very much for being here. 

We also have Mr. Robert Spiegel, Executive Director and cofounder of the Edison Wetlands Association. I am grateful that you 

are here. 

Also, we have Scott Thompson, currently serving as the Executive Director for Oklahoma’s Department of Environmental Quality. Scott, if you heard the good things that Senator Inhofe said 

about you behind your back, you’d be blushing right now. I appreciate all the work you have done in the great State of Oklahoma. 

Then we have Ms. Susan Bodine, currently a partner at Barns 

& Thornburg. Previously, Ms. Bodine served as the Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

Thank you all for being here. As this is my first hearing, I want 

you all to know that you never forget your first time. Thank you 

all for being with me for this. You will be remembered. 

Why don’t we start with Ms. Gibbs. I would appreciate it, Ms. 

Gibbs, if you would share your opening statement with us. Everyone, please mind your time. 

STATEMENT OF LOIS GIBBS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER 

FOR HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND JUSTICE 

Ms. GIBBS. Thank you. I want to thank all the committee members for inviting me here to speak about a program that is very 

near and dear to me. 

As you said, I am Executive Director of the Center for Health, 

Environment and Justice. We have worked for 12,000 grassroots 

groups across the Country faced with environmental health risks. 

I began my work as a victim at Love Canal in Niagara Falls, 

New York. Over 30 years ago was my first time, Senator, when I 

sat at a similar table and spoke to another congressional committee 

about the need for funding of programs designed to assess and 

cleanup hazardous waste sites. 

My community at Love Canal was the impetus for the creation 

of the Superfund Program after 20,000 tons of chemicals buried in 

the middle of the neighborhood leaked into the surrounding homes, 

yards and schools. I spoke then about the health problems our 

neighborhood was faced with and how my daughter and son were 

home sick with liver, urinary and central nervous system disease. 

It is tragic that now more than three decades later, American 

communities face similar health threats to what I faced at Love 

Canal. Again, I am here pleading for you to support an effective 

Superfund Program. 

There is no question about the need for the Superfund Program 

or that the program must have a reliable funding to protect American families and their communities. There is clear evidence that 

42 

many families who live near Superfund sites have suffered from serious adverse health effects, especially the children. 

One study mentioned earlier found 20–25 percent increase in 

birth defects from mothers who lived near Superfund sites when 

they compared the birth outcomes before and after the cleanup. 

It is the citizens and the health effects they suffer that get lost 

in the discussion of resource allocations and the control of Federal 

programs. Living in a Superfund community where there has been 

limited abatement and no clear commitment of whether the area 

will ever be livable again is an absolute nightmare. 

The families who live in the Waste Pits River site just east of the 

city of Houston, Texas are suffering because of contaminated fish 

and crab, common sources of food for these low wealth families. 

ATSDR found dioxin levels in the fish that were unacceptably high 

for cancer. 

After more than 20 years, EPA has decided to leave the waste 

in place and cover the pits rather than remove the contaminated 

soil and sediment. Why, because the other alternatives will cost too 

much money. The agency states it does not have the money. 

Similarly, residents living near the Tremont Barrel Superfund 

site in Springfield, Ohio are concerned because 51,000 drums and 

300,000 gallons of liquid toxic wastes were dumped in the landfill 

which is sitting above an aquifer. The aquifer provides drinking 

water for 82,000 people. 

If the barrels are left in place, EPA’s current preferred option, 

this site will threatened the drinking water and public health for 

decades. EPA claims removing the barrels would be too costly. 

EPA said the same thing about removing 8,000 tons of highly radioactive waste buried in the West Lake Superfund site in St. 

Louis County, Missouri. The problem with this plan is an uncontrolled fire at an adjacent landfill that is moving toward the radioactive waste. 

Residents are already suffering respiratory problems from the 

landfill fire and are concerned the fire will soon reach the radioactive waste and add radioactive material to the gases being released by the fire. 

In addition to adverse health problems from contaminated air 

and water left for decades, everyone who lives near a Superfund 

site suffers from the Superfund stigma and the impact on property 

values. Homes of hard working Americans become essentially 

worthless. They can’t sell them, they can’t improve them, they can’t 

abandon them and they surely don’t feel safe living in them. 

No bank will give families a loan against their home, so they 

cannot fix the roof, improve their property or even use the home 

equity to send their children to college. Property values drop and 

the entire neighborhood begins to spiral downward. Soon homes deteriorate and the neighborhood deteriorates. 

No one will move in. No one can move out. The economic development comes to a screeching halt. These are not people looking for 

a free ride or a handout. They are hardworking, church going, taxpaying American families victimized by no fault of their own. 

For over 30 years, I have urged, begged and pleaded with Congress to take care of the innocent families who have fallen victim 

to corporate negligence and carelessness. Please, for the innocent, 

43 

hardworking American family, their dreams, their hopes to be able 

to reach their potential, restore the polluter pays fees so that there 

is a reliable source of funding to provide the necessary cleanup to 

protect them and their investment from the worse toxic waste sites 

in America. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gibbs follows:] 

44 


98180.066
45 


98180.067
46 


98180.068
47 


98180.069
48 


98180.070
49 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you for that very important testimony. 

We will now move on to the Mayor. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH DELANEY, 

MAYOR, GARFIELD, NEW JERSEY 

Mayor Delaney. Thank you, Chairman Booker. 

I appear before you today on behalf of the people of the city of 

Garfield, a community of approximately 35,000 people located in 

southern Bergen County in the State of New Jersey. We are a 

multiethnic, multicultural and multi-religious community. We are 

a microcosm of America itself. 

Our city is an old industrial city filled with tired factory buildings, many of which are beyond their useful life. Many of those 

former industrial sites have contamination problems which are beyond the grasp of local government to handle. 

We also border the Passaic River which is described by many as 

one of the most polluted rivers in New Jersey runs from Newark 

Bay to the Garfield Dam. 

Back in 1983, at the EC Electroplating Factory located in our 

community, there was a spill of hexavalent chromium. Approximately 3,700 gallons of chromium were released into the earth; 

1,056 gallons were recovered with the rest remaining in our soil. 

Over the last 25 years, the New Jersey DEP handled this site. 

They made a determination in the late 1980’s that no further action was required and that there were no health concerns. 

In early 1993, Fire Company No. 3, located in the downstream 

plume of the undergroundwater table, had to be closed due to the 

detection of hexavalent chromium in the basement of that firehouse 

facility. 

As we have learned, once hexavalent chromium enters a building 

and crystallizes, it can be dispersed into the air. Scientific evidence 

tells us that if you breathe that dust into your lungs, it will likely 

cause cancer. 

Approximately 5 years ago in the fall of 2008, our city manager, 

Thomas Dutch, was contacted by the United States EPA. He was 

told they were taking on the responsibility for the chromium spill 

in our city. 

His initial meeting with the EPA was productive, based on the 

competence and genuine interest of the EPA in helping our people. 

We provided them with a list of residents, property owners and 

tenants in an effort to get notice out to the community that the 

USEPA would investigate and examine homes and properties in 

the affected area. 

The EC Electroplating facility is located in a densely populated 

section of Garfield. Within the spill area, there are more than 600 

separate parcels of property. These include one and two family 

homes, multi-family dwellings, an elementary school, a daycare facility, houses of worship, and industrial and commercial properties. 

We have 6,300 separate parcels of property in our city. Therefore, 

almost 10 percent of our community has been affected. Notification 

has been made to residents in multiple languages: English, Spanish, Polish and Macedonian, but not Gallic. I don’t know why Gallic 

wasn’t involved. 

50 

We have conducted many public hearings with the EPA to provide information to our people and to answer their questions. The 

EPA’s team on the ground in the city of Garfield has been exceptional. They have answered our concerns professionally, knowledgeably and competently. 

They have given reassurance to a scared populace. Despite that 

reassurance, property values in the area have definitely declined. 

With the assistance of the EPA, 400 homes and properties have 

been examined. Contaminated properties detected to date have 

been cleaned up and monitoring wells have been installed throughout the affected areas, between 8 and 400 feet deep in order to fingerprint exactly where the contamination lies below the surface. 

To get to the ground below the ECD Electroplating factory, demolition of the building on the surface was required. Due to safety 

concerns from residents that chromium tainted dust could be released from the property during demolition, an additional public 

hearing was held with the staff and administration of the K–5 elementary school, one block away from the site, which included residents throughout the affected area. 

The factor itself has now been demolished and contaminated soil 

down to the water table has been removed. The site is fenced and 

ready for the next phase, removal of the chromium that sits below 

the ground in the water table of this neighborhood. 

This clean-up phase will absolutely require funding of the 

USEPA initiative in the city of Garfield. We are a Superfund site. 

We are a Superfund clean-up priority. We are a community living 

in fear that this chromium in our water table may be impacting the 

health, safety and welfare of our residents. 

Our clean-up need is immediate. I urge your committee to continue with the necessary funding to address Superfund sites in the 

city of Garfield. 

On a personal note, I have a grandson with autism. I have a godson with autism, both born in the city of Garfield. I love them dearly. I can’t say that this caused it, I can’t say that it didn’t cause 

it either. You are absolutely right, especially these days with the 

rate of autism and especially in the State of New Jersey. 

I urge you to continue the cleanup in Garfield. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Delaney follows:] 

51 


98180.081
52 


98180.082
53 


98180.083
54 

Senator BOOKER. Mayor, thank you very much, especially for the 

personal note at the end. I am grateful for that. 

Mr. Spiegel. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT SPIEGEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

AND CO-FOUNDER OF EDISON WETLANDS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SPIEGEL. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

Good afternoon. My name is Robert Spiegel, Executive Director 

and co-founder of the Edison Wetlands Association. Thank you for 

allowing me to testify on this extremely important issue today, one 

that deeply impacts public health and the environment. 

Before I start my testimony, I would like to say that cleanups of 

Superfund sites, not only make communities more vibrant, they restore community health and welfare but they also create jobs while 

the Superfund site cleanup work is going on, sometimes for several 

years, good paying jobs, blue collar jobs and support for jobs in 

communities where these cleanups take place. 

While they are also good for the environment, they also stimulate 

the economy. We have seen that firsthand at many of the Superfund sites that we have seen cleaned up in New Jersey and beyond. 

The EWA is a nonprofit organization that started in 1989. I was 

working as a pastry chef at the time in a catering hall. The hall’s 

ice carver, John Shersick, who was also a naturalist and hunter, 

came into my bakery because he liked the smell of the baked goods, 

and asked me a question 1 day, hey, do you want to come see some 

green rabbits? 

I pretty much was the kind of person that minded my own business, worked and didn’t pay too much attention to the environment, which in New Jersey is kind of a difficult thing to do, but 

green rabbits were a little over the top. 

I followed the ice carver onto a site called the Chemical Insecticide Superfund Site on Whitman Avenue in Edison, New Jersey. 

Indeed, the rabbits were green. It was because of a chemical called 

DynaSep. What I saw that day was children playing on the site, 

homeless people living on the site, people scavaging wood to build 

their decks. What they didn’t know was this site was a place that 

made Agent Orange, the infamous defoliant used in the Vietnam 

War. 

That day turned me from a pastry chef into somebody that got 

involved in Superfund and environmental remediation. 

One of the things I wanted to talk about was over the last 10 

years, we were able to get the last of the Superfund checks to clean 

up that site. Christie Whitman came and delivered that check. It 

was the last of the trust fund, the very last check. It got the site 

cleaned up. 

While we were happy that we got our site cleaned up, we and 

the community around us were sad that somebody else didn’t as a 

result of the fact there was no more Superfund Trust Fund. 

I am here today to discuss the trust fund and the reason why we 

need it to clean up these so-called orphan sites. Orphan sites are 

sites where there is either not anybody to start the cleanup or 

there is insufficient money. 

It has a rippling effect, not just on orphan sites, but sites where 

there is an active, responsible party because we have a thing called 

55 

treble damages in Superfund where if a Superfund polluter refuses 

to do the cleanup, EPA can step in and do the cleanup and bill 

them for up to three times the cleanup cost. 

This big stick was seldom used by EPA but now without a robust 

Superfund, that threat is hollow because the polluters know that 

EPA cannot take over these cleanups and therefore, are much less 

likely to undertake them themselves. 

Priorities for cleanups in Superfund communities are now a race 

to count the bodies of those who are sick and dying. Only those 

communities with the highest body counts are getting the funding 

from the EPA for Superfund cleanups. That is not the promise that 

was made to the Nation when Superfund was enacted. It was enacted to address the Nation’s hazardous waste sites, not just the 

ones with the highest body counts. 

New Jersey has a rich industrial legacy which has been both a 

blessing and a curse for our State. We have the most Superfund 

sites and we have about 25,000 known contaminated sites. If the 

Superfund Program was fully funded, by any objective observer, 

these fees are modest, we would have the funds to address the sites 

that are problematic in New Jersey and around the Country. 

In my research, Congressman Eckhardt’s 1979 waste disposal 

hearings, survey and final report show conclusively that the chemical industry used the entire United States as its own private 

chemical dump with no town or city being exempted from industrial practices. It is only fair that they contribute the modest fees 

asked of them to clean up the Nation’s toxic waste dumps and 

nightmare that they created. 

I can talk about some of the sites that we work on like the 10 

mile Bound Brook where we have active chemical discharge. It is 

the most poisoned brook in New Jersey. You can’t eat a single fish 

out of it, yet the State of New Jersey and the EPA have no funds 

to even finish the reports, no less start the cleanup. We can discuss 

some of the sites if you like after my testimony. 

I always find it curious that when we need money to build bombs 

or wage wars, there is always plenty of money to be found, but 

whenever you ask for money for environmental protection or Superfund site cleanups, there is never a dime in our budget. I just think 

our priorities are backward. 

This is a direct threat to our national security and towns and cities across the Country. We need to reauthorize these modest polluter pays fees so that we have the funds to clean up the Garfields, 

the Ringwoods, the Pompton Lakes, the towns throughout New Jersey and beyond and have the funds needed to not only create good 

jobs, but revitalize these communities and protect public health 

and the environment. 

Thank you, Senator Booker. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spiegel follows:] 

56 


98180.059
57 


98180.060
58 


98180.061
59 


98180.062
60 


98180.063
61 


98180.064
62 


98180.065
63 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Spiegel, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Susan Bodine. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN BODINE, 

PARTNER, BARNS & THORNBURG 

Ms. BODINE. Thank you very much, Chairman Booker, for inviting me to testify today on protecting taxpayers and ensuring accountability, faster Superfund cleanups for healthier communities. 

I have I think voluminous testimony in the record so I am going 

to try to be very short and make a few highlights. Then I want to 

talk about the funding issue. 

EPA can protect taxpayers by staying within its statutory authority, focusing on national priorities, and making sure it follows 

its own policies. Headquarters does put out a number of policies 

and has a number of expert groups whose role is to assist the regions in remedy selection, making sure they follow national policy, 

and making sure that they are developing protective and cost effective remedies. 

There is a management issue there in that the regions don’t report to the headquarters Superfund Program, there is no line authority there, so it is more hortatory trying to make sure the regions are following national policy. 

Nonetheless, the policies are there and we do have these expert 

work groups of headquarters and regional staff who are there to assist regions to make sure they are developing cost effective remedies that stay within the legal authorities. 

I want mention the fact that EPA’s Superfund Program is protecting communities. That is, of course, the highest priority. The 

agency is focusing on cutting off exposure which is different from 

returning to economic reuse. First and foremost, cutting of exposure, protecting human health at these sites is happening first. 

That is the highest priority. 

Returning sites to beneficial use can take longer. That may not 

be the highest priority in every situation. It is a good thing, everyone agrees it is a good thing, but from a budgetary standpoint, protecting human health is absolutely the highest priority. 

Returning sites may lag and that is why you do see in some of 

these cases, situations where EPA goes in and screens the 400 

homes in Garfield, makes sure the 13 homes with high exposures 

are cleaned up and then the site itself, which isn’t presenting exposure issues right now, may lag but that is a funding issue. 

That is a priority issue where returning to economic development, which everyone agrees is important, isn’t as high a priority 

as cutting off exposure and protecting people. 

In answer to the question could the Superfund Program spent 

more money, the Regional Administrator said she could spend 

twice as much money. The President didn’t ask for twice as much 

money; the President’s request for 2015 is $1.156 billion for the 

Superfund Program. The Deputy Administrator explained how that 

was carved up to different offices and different purposes. 

Nonetheless, the Superfund Program competes with every other 

program within the Federal budget for money. That is true whether or not the Superfund taxes are reinstated. That is true whether 

64 

or not there is money in the Trust Fund, whether or not there is 

a huge balance in the Trust Fund. 

The reason that the Superfund Trust Fund is on budget, it is 

part of the unified Federal budget. It is not off budget, there are 

no firewalls. If it were off budget, it would truly mean that it could 

not be expended at all for other purposes. 

If it were firewalled, this is something this committee holds near 

and dear because you have the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway 

Trust Fund has firewalls. That means that the funding in the 

Highway Trust Fund cannot be used to offset Federal spending. 

That is not true of the Superfund Trust Fund. 

That is why when the taxes were being collected, the trust fund 

was gaining a very large balance. In fact, at the end of 1995, it had 

a balance of $3.7 billion, whereas the appropriation for 1995 was 

$1.4 billion and the appropriation for 1996 was $1.3 billion. 

The trust fund balances and the appropriations have never 

tracked. Again, it is because that money is not mandatory spending, it is not off budget, it is not available, it has to be appropriated 

and the money can offset any other spending. 

The taxes, you had a bit of discussion on the taxes earlier, are 

simply raising revenue. That is policy neutral or it is morality neutral. You can put an excise tax, a sales tax, on the sale of chemicals, you can put an excise tax on the sale of oil, the tax will be 

passed through and people who buy products made with chemicals, 

whether it is a car seat, a bike helmet or anything else, or people 

who buy gasoline, are going to pay more. 

You can also put a tax on corporate environmental income. It is a net income above $2 million. Net income above $2 million it is 

a tax across the board. Again, that is value neutral. It is not polluter pays because there is no determination if these entities are 

polluters and if a company produces oil or chemicals and creates 

a problem, the companies paying taxes are the ones in business. 

They are paying for any cleanup of pollution that they create. 

In fact, they are not doing it under Superfund. There is a whole 

other program, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, RCRA. 

Ongoing industrial operations are addressed under RCRA and are 

not even addressed under Superfund for an ongoing. Superfund is 

for the legacy sites. 

I have gone way over my time but I just wanted to make sure 

that you understood how the trust fund works and what the taxes 

are. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bodine follows:] 

65 


98180.039
66 


98180.040
67 


98180.041
68 


98180.042
69 


98180.043
70 


98180.044
71 


98180.045
72 


98180.046
73 


98180.047
74 


98180.048
75 


98180.049
76 


98180.050
77 


98180.051
78 


98180.052
79 


98180.053
80 


98180.054
81 

Senator BOOKER. Ms. Bodine, that was very helpful. I am a vegetarian so forgive the analogy, but that had a lot of meat on it, so 

I appreciate it. 

Scott Thompson? 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Mr. THOMPSON. Good afternoon, Chairman Booker. 

I’d like to thank you and Ranking Member Inhofe for allowing 

me to speak today. 

My name is Scott Thompson, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 

My personal involvement with Superfund started in 1984. I was 

out pulling samples across Oklahoma, evaluating sites for the 

Superfund Program. 

I would like to begin by thanking EPA Administrator McCarthy 

for bringing a very cooperative atmosphere to working with headquarters, the regions and the States. I think that is very healthy. 

One program we work in that demonstrates the success of partnerships between EPA, the States and the local stakeholders is the 

Brownfields Program. Information we previously obtained through 

the Superfund Site Assessment Program on various Oklahoma 

sites allowed us to get expedited redevelopment on many 

brownfields properties. 

Additionally, the liability releases through the Brownfields Program have provided the necessary assurances to entice developers 

to invest in communities and to spark more urban renewal. 

Two examples of successful, award winning projects include: one, 

the Guthrie Green Project in Tulsa which was funded by the nonprofit George Kaiser Family Foundation, and was the recipient of 

the 2012 Brownfields Renewal Award; and two, the Devon Energy 

Center in Oklahoma City which received the 2012 EPA Region 6 

Phoenix Award as well as the 2012 National Phoenix Award. 

Both sites are now vibrant recreational gathering places that 

have sparked economic and cultural rejuvenation in Tulsa and 

Oklahoma City. These major successes were only possible through 

the teamwork of many dedicated partners. 

The importance of public funding for the Brownfields Program 

cannot be overstated. Its greatest impact is by removing perceived 

and real environmental obstacles at sites and allowing economic redevelopment and encouraging other private development around 

those sites. 

The program demonstrates that modest public investment can 

lead to extraordinary growth that far exceeds the original scope of 

the original brownfields project. Due to the major impact that 

brownfields funding has had in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma DEQ 

strongly supports reauthorization of this program. 

The Superfund process, while noble in its goals, is not without 

its drawbacks. It takes a very long time to successfully complete 

the process and can put a strain on resources, on communities, on 

human health and on the environment. 

Our lengthy experience with Superfund sites at the DEQ strongly indicates the best way to maintain cost effectiveness and to adeVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:56 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98180.TXT VERN
82 

quately protect human health and the environment is to have responsible government oversight of contractors. 

One recommendation I have for improving the Superfund Remedial Program is to look at the Superfund Emergency Response Program as a model. On-scene coordinators function as onsite construction and contract managers in a way that is substantially different than some remedial project managers. 

In my experience, RPMs are often removed from onsite remedial 

actions. Cost control on remedial projects is at times managed in 

an inefficient way in comparison to removal actions. Remedial actions on National Priorities List sites would benefit if the RPM 

model was modified to mirror the OSC model. 

Fostering innovative partnerships is another way to ensure cost 

efficiencies and to better protect human health and the environment. One example of such a partnership is the cooperative agreement between EPA Region 6 and the Quapaw Tribe which was 

fully supported by the Oklahoma DEQ. 

This groundbreaking agreement provided the tribe with funds to 

conduct cleanup of specific tribal property while providing a platform for the tribe to demonstrate its capability to protect tribal 

homelands. 

The implementation of this agreement successfully demonstrated 

that direct local involvement can be more cost effective and that 

local communities have a vested interest in protecting their homes. 

However, an opportunity was missed to continue the cleanup of 

adjacent property while the Quapaw Tribe was mobilized in the 

field. This would have saved us some remobilization costs and got 

the job done quicker. I am fully supportive of providing matching 

funds for the Quapaw Tribe to do work on non-tribal properties because the tribe has demonstrated its ability to do high quality 

work. 

States have developed robust expertise in implementing Superfund and have a vested interest in ensuring that Superfund sites 

within their borders are adequately cleaned up. It seems that 

strong consideration should be given to delegating the program or 

portions of the program to the States. 

At a minimum, Congress and the EPA should facilitate cooperation between the various EPA regional offices and respective State 

environmental agencies. In my nearly three decades of working in 

the Superfund Program, we had our greatest successes when had 

strong partnerships with EPA and we worked as a team. 

Again, thank you, Chairman Booker, for allowing me to speak 

today. I’d be happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 

83 


98180.055
84 


98180.056
85 


98180.057
86 


98180.058
87 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you for that valuable testimony. You 

give a lot of gratitude to me but I want to thank our Ranking Member Inhofe for including you as well. Your testimony is very valuable. 

I’d like to begin the questioning. If any Senators return, I will 

allow them to come in. 

Ms. Bodine, I really appreciate your comments. In fact, the issue 

of the firewall is something my team has been working on. We will 

be putting that in the legislation we will be putting forward. 

I also appreciate the truth of the matter that sometimes these 

are done in phases. Some of those phases are to deal with that 

health urgency we have talked about. I think your point was right 

on, spot on. 

I am concerned about and am curious to get your input for the 

record as to the simple issue of funding. I agree with you 100 percent. You can call it whatever you want, we have lots of fancy 

names for revenue in the Senate, as I am quickly learning, but as 

you said, it is value neutral, the resources. 

That is not my issue. I think that is something that Congress has 

to figure out the best way to pay for it or whether to do anything 

differently. 

My question for you is, do we need more funding? I will be specific. If we know that stopping the health risk is the priority, the 

economic development is secondary, I would agree with you on 

that. 

The evidence right now is really stunning to me on those that 

pose ongoing health risks to families and communities. The EPA in 

2010 noted that 75 of the sites on the NPL nationally presented 

what they termed an unacceptable level of human exposure. What 

bothers me now is that number is now up to 89 around our Country, posing serious health risks to communities, much of which are 

now being documented by academic peer-reviewed studies. 

The response I seem to get from the previous panel is that some 

of those sites we are not moving on because we don’t have the resources. In your experience dealing with these issues, both in the 

public and private sectors, do we have the resources needed to deal 

with the ‘‘unacceptable level of human risk’’ in the expedited fashion that would best protect the American public? 

Ms. BODINE. One of the measures is the human exposure measure. It is very good that the agency tracks that. They haven’t always in the past and do track that now. 

To answer your question, you’d have to know why the human exposure was still not under control. That is the test. I strongly believe that EPA does everything it can to cutoff human exposure as 

quickly as possible. 

Some of the sites not under control that can still cause human 

exposure are sites where the exposure is, for example, fish consumption and there is a fish advisory in place saying don’t eat the 

fish but nonetheless the agency is aware that some people do eat 

the fish. Therefore, it labels the site human exposure not under 

control. 

Nonetheless, it will take decades and decades to get the levels 

down so that the fish consumption advisory can be lifted. That is 

88 

a situation where EPA is doing what it can, but it is going to take 

a very long time before that can be lifted. 

In other situations, communities don’t give access. I don’t think 

every home in Garfield gave access. If the agency can’t get access 

to the site, they can’t do the cleanup, then the agency is not going 

to call it human exposure under control because it is not. Nonetheless, they did everything they could. 

Each of those up to 89 sites, you’d have to look and see why. You 

are assuming it is funding; I am not assuming. I am assuming that 

the agency is doing everything it absolutely can to get that human 

exposure under control. 

Senator BOOKER. So you are not representing that all of these 89 

are just because of non-funding related issues. You are saying you’d 

have to evaluate them? 

Ms. BODINE. Right. I don’t know the story. I am not assuming 

it is not funding, I would not assume it was funding either. In fact, 

I guess I would go further and say I am assuming it is not funding 

because I do believe the agency has and certainly should have if 

that isn’t the case, has its priorities in place so it is spending 

money first to eliminate exposure. 

Senator BOOKER. So the testimony of Judith Enck that she is 

ready to move on some of these sites that are considered unacceptable human risks, she feels we need to address them, and when 

she says the only thing stopping her is funding, you are saying that 

is not the case? 

Ms. BODINE. You are referring to the Regional Administrator’s 

testimony? 

Senator BOOKER. Yes. 

Ms. BODINE. Again, you’d have to look at each story. I am not 

going to say it is not accurate. I’d have to look at the sites to which 

she was referring. 

Senator BOOKER. You just said that you thought none of them 

had to do with funding issues. 

Ms. BODINE. That I thought none of them had to do with funding 

issues on the human exposure issue. I did agree that getting sites 

back into productive use is lagging due to funding. Sites aren’t 

going to be completed as quickly due to funding. I think the agency 

is doing everything it can to get the exposure under control. 

If it isn’t, if it is prioritizing economic redevelopment over human 

exposure, that is a problem. That is something as an oversight 

agency, you should look at. 

Senator BOOKER. Ms. Gibbs, I was out with the EPA Region 2 

director on a number of these sites that do have ongoing human 

exposure that claim the funding and resources aren’t there. In fact, 

it really disturbed me that a lot of unanticipated weather events 

have further added to the health concerns on the sites we are not 

moving on simply because of lack of money. 

For example, the flooding we got during Hurricane Sandy at a 

lot of these sites aggravated human exposure and the levels that 

are very frightening to me. The site I stood on had severe flooding 

which then carried much of those contaminants that were otherwise isolated back into our water table, our drinking water table 

in and around the site I was on. 

89 

I have testimony from folks out there in the field who do know 

the details of all the sites telling me not only is it an ongoing 

health risk but it is also now being aggravated by these once in a 

hundred year weather events. I seem to see them now about every 

other year in New Jersey. 

You spoke about the suffering of your children and others in the 

Love Canal community from living on top of a Superfund site. 

Much of the debate over Superfund focuses on how much it costs 

to clean it up. 

I don’t know how you really measure the costs. As said by Mr. 

Spiegel, over the last 30 years you have been involved in this, you 

have witnesses the Senate move to help savings and loans come up 

with tremendous resources during that crisis. You have watched 

bank bailouts, tremendous money during that crisis. You have 

watched a war in Iraq spending billions of dollars every week to 

deal with that crisis. I have watched thankfully natural disasters, 

most recently Sandy, and dealing with that crisis. 

I believe that crises that face our children and their health and 

well being, which you have personally experienced, should be a 

matter of priority and urgency at the same level if not more than 

just a handful of things this body seems to come up with the resources to deal with. 

I’d like to ask, these public health costs, could you tell me the 

real nature of those public health costs and risks in the human 

terms you have experienced in your 30 years of work? 

Ms. GIBBS. I don’t have actual numbers but I will tell you that 

what is forgotten in this is those human costs. You have mothers 

and fathers who have children who have to go to the hospital. If 

you look at the Oklahoma site mentioned earlier, there are children 

1–5 who have very high levels of lead. Those children lost IQ 

points. What does that cost? Where are those children going to go? 

How do they make a living? 

It is a bigger societal cost. What does it cost to take somebody 

to the hospital for asthma? It is a huge cost. I think that is what 

is being forgotten. 

My children, fortunately, survived Love Canal. Others did not. 

When you have a miscarriage, what is the cost? You have medical 

costs associated with it, but what is the cost to society when a 

woman loses a child, a child she was ready and prepared to have 

a happy life with and then it is gone by no fault of her own? 

I really think the human element of this, in the eye of the storm 

is what we call it, when the tornado went through Oklahoma, when 

Sandy hit there, when Katrina hit the agricultural Superfund site 

in southeast New Orleans, it creates additional environmental 

costs because when you take the agriculture landfill and spread it 

all out in southeast New Orleans, you have to go back and test it 

again, clean it up again and assess it again. 

Without the proper amount of money to totally cleanup these 

sites, we are just going to keep on feeding, feeding and feeding the 

same problems over again. 

I was around when the tax and the polluter pay fees were established, if I could add one more thing. The income tax part of the 

polluter pay fee is the price of a pizza. I know that sounds very 

90 

simple because corporations are saying they are going to go bankrupt. 

The fact of the matter is if a company makes a million dollars, 

say Exxon, and had to pay the income tax, the old established tax 

according to the 1986 bill, on every million dollars, it would be the 

price of a cheese pizza. That is what we are really talking about 

here. 

We are talking about a woman who loses a child, a family who 

has a child who no longer can reach its potential because of IQ loss 

or other things for the price of a pizza. It literally is $12 per million 

dollars. To have so little disregard for human life, family and property that the other side would argue that the whole world is going 

to come crashing down and our economy for the price of a pizza. 

That is really what we are talking about. 

My children almost died on me. My church can buy plenty of 

pizza and they don’t have a lot of money like some of these larger 

corporations. I really encourage you. 

I don’t know the numbers, I know the suffering and I know it does cost money. My husband made $10,000 a year. My daughter’s 

hematology clinic cost us $90 a week. That adds up a lot. You just 

get trapped. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Ms. Gibbs. 

Mr. Spiegel, I want to talk about a specific site with you. It is 

a New Jersey Superfund site I am really concerned about. It is the 

Ringwood Mine site. That site was listed as a Superfund site, then 

it was delisted in 1994. Then in 2006, it was relisted again. 

I know you have worked with the local residents there. Could 

you describe the impact that site has had on the local community, 

bringing to light the costs we don’t often see when we add dollars 

and cents? In your response, can you include the Ramapough 

Lenape community? 

Mr. SPIEGEL. Sure. Originally, the late Senator Lautenberg requested that I go up to see Ringwood and assist the community because the Senator was very concerned about the situation in 

Ringwood, the wholesale poisoning of the Ramapough Lenape Indian Nation. 

That is a community that lives in upper Ringwood. They actually 

live on the mountains where the iron mines of Ringwood provided 

iron for the building of the United States, and have lived there for 

300 years. 

They provided the iron that helped to build the dome of the Capitol in the United States. They mined the iron that made the first 

500 cannonballs shot in the Revolutionary War. They played a significant part in the Country’s success and were repaid by being 

wholesale poisoned by toxic waste dumped on them by the Ford 

Motor Company from their manufacturing base in Mahwah, New 

Jersey. 

When I went up to this community, I could not believe what a 

beautiful and amazing area this is. It sits above the Wanaque Reservoir which provides drinking water for 2 million north 

Jerseyians, including Newark. 

This place is of such immense beauty, when I went up there and 

saw the absolute devastation brought on these very proud and hard 

working Native American families, I cried my first night. I went to 

91 

a meeting and after that, I made a commitment that I would not 

leave this community until it was cleaned up. 

Every home in the 50 homes in the upper Ringwood area has either someone who has died, know someone who is currently dying 

or has lost a child. I have worked with Vivian Milligan who is an 

activist up there who just refuses to give up the fight. She wants 

to get her community back. 

This is a community that lives off the land like most Native 

American communities. They hunt the land, they gather berries 

and medicinal medicines and have been there for hundreds of 

years. Now their way of life is being threatened. 

Senator BOOKER. Based on your experience in New Jersey, are 

there sites with unacceptable ongoing risks of human exposure that 

need additional funding? I know you work with the EPA and have 

a lot of personal experience with their assessments. I would appreciate it if you would answer that question. 

Mr. SPIEGEL. Yes, sir. Every single Superfund site that is not remediated has unacceptable exposures. I have not seen a Superfund 

site in New Jersey that does not stop at the fence line where the 

chemicals are not running into residential neighborhoods or waterways, into playgrounds or parks. 

There are dozens of sites that we work on day in and day out 

that have chemicals that are impacting the health of children. If 

you went to Ringwood, you would see firsthand the absolute misery 

and death that has been brought upon this community by no fault 

of their own, by the poisons dumped by Ford Motor Company. 

It is the only site in the Country that had to be relisted a second 

time because of the failure at all levels of government. The families 

there want nothing more than you and I want which is to have a 

safe place to raise our children and continue on living. 

They can’t because right now EPA has not decided whether or 

not they are going to clean up the mineshafts or require Ford to 

clean up the toxic sledge because of money, plain and simple. They 

do not have the money to do it if Ford refuses. 

Senator BOOKER. Regarding the health issues and the Mayor’s 

testimony, the honesty he gave in his personal comments, that is 

a lot of anecdotal evidence. Are you familiar with a lot of the studies that are coming out now, especially the one done at Princeton 

that looked at hundreds of thousands of American birth records? 

I was amazed with the things they control for, age, whether the 

people smoked or not and concluded that there was a 20 percent 

increase in birth defects before cleanups of Superfund sites compared to after the remediation. 

Have you done any kind of analysis of the studies that are out 

there that my team was wading through in preparation for this 

hearing? 

Mr. SPIEGEL. I have looked at the studies. They study you are 

discussing was one that was trying to show the opposite. They 

ended up showing that in fact communities where Superfund sites 

were cleaned up showed a marked increase in the health of the 

children across the board. 

It is not rocket science to understand that when you have a 

poisoned community and clean it up, that community is not only 

going to be more vibrant with better places to live, but the people 

92 

are going to be healthier. I have seen community after community 

in New Jersey where people who live near these Superfund sites 

get sick and die. 

I don’t have to look at statistics because I go to the funerals of 

the families in Ringwood. I go to the funerals of the families in 

Pompton Lakes. I go to the funerals of families that live around the 

Cornell-Dubilier site and other sites where we work. 

I see firsthand the absolute misery and suffering that these families go through only because they picked the wrong zip code to 

raise their family. Nobody should have to sacrifice a family member 

because they picked the wrong zip code and happen to live near a 

Superfund site that doesn’t have the funds to be cleaned up. 

Senator BOOKER. Just to conclude with you, Mr. Spiegel, you 

work closely with EPA officials. I think you actually have a degree 

of respect for those working out there and you have seen a number 

of them. I know you worked with Lisa Jackson before and others. 

Is it right to conclude that if these officials had more resources, 

they could get the job done a lot quicker? Is that your conclusion? 

Mr. SPIEGEL. Absolutely. At one site alone, Bound Brook, we 

have a ten mile poisoned brook where children are playing that has 

an active discharge of chemicals, of PCBs and dozens of other 

chemicals. 

EPA doesn’t even have the funds to put out the study. Mark 

Weston, the project manager, can’t release the study because they 

don’t have the funds to finish it. When we talk about cleanups, 

when EPA doesn’t even have the funds to finish the investigative 

work, no less the cleanup, that tells us that we have a drastic 

emergency, one in which certainly funding would go a long way. 

Going back to the Oklahoma Director of Environmental Quality, 

the emergency removal branch of EPA in Region 2 is by far the 

best I have ever seen. They can go in and get the job done very 

quickly at sites. They can assess them. We have seen them work 

together with the remedial branch to fast track investigations so 

that we can get to the cleanups quicker. 

If we had more funding in the removal branch, which goes out 

first to these imminent threats, and gave them more funding to be 

able to go in and get these sites moving quicker, these sites would 

be cleaned up quicker. 

Senator BOOKER. Mayor Delaney, thanks again for being here. 

We have talked about a lot of the health aspects, but you and 

I also were mayors. I was a mayor, you are a mayor. Could you tell 

me in general the impacts the Superfund site has had on your residents in terms of not just health but this is prime real eState in 

your city and the loss of that economic generation, I wonder if you 

can speak to that as well? 

Mayor Delaney. Of course it has an economic impact. I know a 

dear friend of a family that lives in the direction of that plume. 

They wanted to sell their house and they can’t even sell their 

house. The house depreciated at least 40 percent since it was determined they were in that area. That affects everything from their 

credit to the way they live, everything they do. 

The most important object a person buys is their house. When 

your house depreciates that quickly, it throws the whole family into 

93 

a tailspin. It is saddening to see the prices and value of the homes 

in this area. 

Senator BOOKER. You know this from other mayors. The opportunities for future economic development onsites where you could 

build or have other companies come or what have you, can you give 

an understanding, to your knowledge, of what it means to a community to get back a contaminated area? 

Mayor Delaney. It is very important to get back a contaminated 

area, to put it back on the tax rolls and see people back to work 

in certain areas. We do have contaminated properties, not Superfund sites, in the city of Garfield where people are looking to invest 

and clean it up. 

The talk is, let’s get this done. There are people who will definitely thrive once you do cleanup the property and put it back on 

the tax rolls. 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Thompson, the good partnerships you have 

between localities is so important and with the Federal Government in these cleanups. I want to get to your experience because 

Mayor Delaney, you have sort of bad experiences in some sense if 

this partnership doesn’t work like it should. 

I think there is some idea in Washington that Congress should 

give more control of the Superfund Program to the States rather 

than keeping authority or control with the EPA. The EC Electroplating Factory site in Garfield was managed by the State for a 

while. In fact, it was managed from 1983 when the hexavalent 

chromium spilled until about 2008. 

From your experience, can you tell us what it was like when the 

site was managed by the State versus when it was managed by the 

EPA? 

Mayor Delaney. Honestly, I feel the State dropped the ball. The 

State did not do the work that it should have done. I don’t know 

if they thought the chromium would just disappear. Stuff like that 

don’t go away. To do nothing is the worse. To do something is much 

better. 

When the EPA did come in, we saw some progress and that alone 

left the residents feeling better, that something actually was being 

done right now. Everybody realizes this stuff just don’t disappear. 

Senator BOOKER. Ms. Gibbs, let me ask a concluding question. 

You have been fighting this battle for decades. That means a lot 

to me as a newbie here in the U.S. Senate that you have put in 

that kind of effort. 

You worked with the environmental champion that was here before me who I think a lot of Americans, from those flying on planes 

without cigarette smoke, have benefited from that gentleman’s efforts on environmental issues in general. 

To see some of these sites go on for decades in the State of New 

Jersey, literally in 30 years, an entire generation has grown up in 

our State in and around these sites. I wonder if you could advise 

a Senator like me on how to solve this problem? 

I am now considering legislation with some of the wisdom expressed by Ms. Bodine and others of putting a firewall on the 

money, looking to legislation that would stop Congress from having 

to appropriate it every single year but have those funds dedicated 

and focused. 

94 

Looking at a funding mechanism, I think that is where the issue 

and debate is going to be. It seemed something that was right for 

Reagan, that was right for McConnell, that was right for pretty 

much 80 of the 100 Senators in 1986, if I remember, that reauthorized those funding mechanisms. 

Now that funding has lapsed. The slowness that we see of getting these sites remediated to which the testimony of the previous 

panel specifically pointed, the slowness is caused, I think Ms. 

Bodine was right, by a lot of other factors. Clearly there are shovelready projects right now that were testified to. 

As look to focus on legislation, as this panel will have to discuss 

it, and great Senators like Senator Inhofe who has been focused on 

these issues for some time, I am wondering in my heart if you have 

any final bit of advice for me because with all due respect, I don’t 

want to be here 30 years from now dealing with this issue and 

have my children, who are yet unborn, be growing up in my State 

that I love with over 100 Superfund sites moving so slowly. 

I am wondering, given the technical aspects of having to design 

legislation, if you would have any specific parting advice on this 

hearing? Obviously, I would be open to everybody and look for advice as we try to push forward and actually solve this problem. 

Ms. GIBBS. Thank you for that question. 

I think that one of the biggest things is to not have the fees or 

the funding mechanism sunset. In 1996, there was agreement to do 

the feed stock fee as well as the income tax. Then after a sunset, 

we are starting from scratch. 

I really think that whether you put firewalls on it or how you 

go about it, whatever we are able to do to get money in there, we 

need to make sure it does not sunset. 

I think one of the keys that Administrator Enck and others 

talked about is what we need to have a stable funding mechanism 

which is meant for this program. 

My other piece of advice is to follow Senator Lautenberg’s lead. 

He did an extraordinary job of being persistent and a little aggressive, a heck of a smart man and a mentor whom I certainly enjoyed 

working with through my 30 years on Superfund. 

Senator BOOKER. That is incredibly helpful. 

Ms. GIBBS. You could also serve pizza at the meeting. 

Senator BOOKER. What is that? 

Ms. GIBBS. You could also serve pizza at your first meeting to 

discuss this. Maybe someone will ask why you are eating pizza. 

Senator BOOKER. That is a very good point. 

After Mr. Spiegel’s testimony and he told me he was a pastry 

chef, I thought maybe he would have brought me something for 

this meeting, but that might have violated some of the rules of ethics. I appreciate you not putting me in that bind where I value my 

moral values versus my temptation to consume carbohydrates. 

I want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record those 

very disturbing health studies I referenced in my opening statement. They are chilling and disturbing and should be motivating 

us as a nation to see this as the crisis it is and to solve the problem 

with the collective wisdom of both parties, especially the study relating to birth defects and autism. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

95 


98180.004
96 


98180.005
97 


98180.006
98 


98180.007
99 


98180.008
100 


98180.009
101 


98180.010
102 


98180.011
103 


98180.012
104 


98180.013
105 


98180.014
106 


98180.015
107 


98180.016
108 


98180.017
109 


98180.018
110 


98180.019
111 


98180.020
112 


98180.021
113 


98180.022
114 


98180.023
115 


98180.024
116 

Senator BOOKER. Hearing no objection, I would also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters from Congresswoman 

Julia Brownley of California and multiple California mayors and 

city officials. These letters all support the complete remediation of 

the Halaco Superfund site in Oxnard, California. I think those are 

important to include in the record as well. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOOKER. I want to thank you all for your time. I know 

it takes a lot of energy to come here to Washington and participate 

in a hearing but this hearing is of great importance. The testimony 

from everyone, I must say, was invaluable. 

Thank you very much. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ