[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                THE CLEAN FUTURE ACT: SUPERFUND PROPOSALS
                    TO ADVANCE CLEANUPS, EQUITY, AND
                           CLIMATE RESILIENCE

=======================================================================

                            VIRTUAL HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________


                              MAY 13, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-31





                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]







     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

48-227 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024















                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California           H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California                RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice       NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    Chair                            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas

                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                  NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director










             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman

DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois               Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona                  (ex officio)
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)











                             C O N T E N T S

                               ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. David B. McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of West Virginia, opening statement......................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11

                               Witnesses

J. Alfredo Gomez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, 
  Government Accountability Office...............................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
Amanda Goodin, Staff Attorney, Earthjustice......................    39
    Prepared statement...........................................    41
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   128
Laurie Droughton Matthews, Of Counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 
  LLP, on behalf of the Superfund Settlements Project............    50
    Prepared statement...........................................    52
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   146
Amy Catherine Dinn, Managing Attorney, Environmental Justice 
  Team, Equitable Development Initiative, Lone Star Legal Aid....    57
    Prepared statement...........................................    59

                           Submitted Material

H.R. 1512, the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for 
  our Nation's Future Act, submitted by Mr. McKinley \1\
Article of January 18, 2018, ``Libby, Montana, tries to shake its 
  `Superfund stigma,''' by John Blodgett, High Country News, 
  submitted by Mr. McKinley......................................   105
Fact sheet, ``Commonsense Regulation that Recognizes Existing 
  State and Federal Protections,'' National Mining Association, 
  submitted by Mr. McKinley......................................   110
Article of October 27, 2020, ``Off EPA's priorities list, Fairfax 
  Street pollution cleanup celebrated as `poster child,''' by 
  Steve Patterson, Florida Times-Union, submitted by Mr. McKinley   111
Letter of May 13, 2021, from Nathaniel F. Wienecke, Senior Vice 
  President, Federal Government Relations, American Property 
  Casualty Insurance Association, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. McKinley, 
  submitted by Mr. McKinley......................................   113
Article of January 31, 2021, ``Economic outlook: A look at 
  Superfund economics in Anaconda and Butte,'' by Michael Cast, 
  Montana Standard, submitted by Mr. McKinley....................   116

----------

\1\ The proposed legislation has been retained in committee files and 
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20210513/
112592/BILLS-117HR1512ih.pdf.
Report of the Superfund Task Force, Environmental Protection 
  Agency, ``Making Decisions and Making a Difference in 
  Superfund: Administrator's Emphasis List 2017-2021,'' January 
  2021, submitted by Mr. McKinley \1\
Report of the Environmental Protection Agency, ``EPA Year in 
  Review 2020'' (pages 28-32), submitted by Mr. McKinley.........   123
Petition for Review of Final Action by the Environmental 
  Protection Agency, Idaho Conservation League, et al., v. Andrew 
  Wheeler, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
  and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 19, 2019, 
  District of Columbia Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, 
  submitted by Mr. McKinley \1\
Report of the Environmental Protection Agency, ``Superfund FY 
  2019: Annual Accomplishments Report,'' submitted by Mr. 
  McKinley \1\

----------

\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=112592.










 
                THE CLEAN FUTURE ACT: SUPERFUND PROPOSALS
                    TO ADVANCE CLEANUPS, EQUITY, AND
                           CLIMATE RESILIENCE

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:31 a.m., via 
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Paul Tonko 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, DeGette, 
Schakowsky, Sarbanes, Clarke, Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Barragan, 
Blunt Rochester, Soto, O'Halleran, Pallone (ex officio), 
McKinley (subcommittee ranking member), Johnson, Hudson, 
Carter, Duncan, Palmer, Curtis, Crenshaw, and Rodgers (ex 
officio).
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; 
Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; Adam Fischer, 
Professional Staff Member; Waverly Gordon, General Counsel; 
Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Anthony Gutierrez, 
Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Professional Staff 
Member; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Zach Kahan, Deputy Director, 
Outreach and Member Services; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and 
Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital 
Assistant; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Dustin J. 
Maghamfar, Air and Climate Counsel; Elysa Montfort, Press 
Secretary; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Tim Robinson, Chief 
Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; Nikki Roy, Policy Coordinator; 
Andrew Souvall, Director of Communications, Outreach, and 
Member Services; Rebecca Tomilchik, Policy Analyst; Caroline 
Wood, Staff Assistant; Sarah Burke, Minority Deputy Staff 
Director; Michael Cameron, Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer 
Protection and Commerce, Energy, Environment; Jerry Couri, 
Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for Environment; Nate Hodson, 
Minority Staff Director; Peter Kielty, Minority General 
Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and 
Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for 
Energy; Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff 
Member, Energy; and Michael Taggart, Minority Policy Director.
    Mr. Tonko. Good morning, the Subcommittee on Environment 
and Climate Change will now come to order.
    Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled ``The 
CLEAN Future Act: Superfund Proposals to Advance Cleanups, 
Equity, and Climate Resilience.''
    Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's 
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will 
be participating via video conferencing.
    As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for 
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members 
and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone each 
time you wish to speak.
    Documents for the record can be sent to Rebecca Tomilchik 
at the email address we have provided to staff. All documents 
will be entered into the record at the conclusion of the 
hearing.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement.

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

    In 1980, Congress passed the comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which is now more 
commonly known as ``Superfund.'' Superfund is critical to 
protecting Americans' health and the environment. Approximately 
73 million Americans live within 3 miles of a Superfund site, 
and 21 million live within 1 mile of a site. Today there are 
over 1,300 sites on the National Priorities List. These 
represent the most contaminated sites in the country.
    Superfund was established under the principle of the 
polluters pay. Responsible parties should foot the bill to 
clean up contaminated sites, not the taxpayers, and definitely 
not the local communities that have to suffer the potential 
health consequences of living next to highly polluted 
properties. Unfortunately, EPA has not always had the resources 
to remediate orphan sites, to compel responsible parties to 
clean up sites, or to conduct cleanups and then seek 
reimbursement from responsible parties. Hopefully, any future 
infrastructure bill considered in Congress will provide 
resources to accelerate this work and reinstate the Superfund 
tax.
    Because we know Superfund sites face serious and growing 
challenges, they can threaten nearby residents if hazardous 
substances are left on site. Many Superfund sites are 
vulnerable to extreme weather events, which are becoming more 
frequent and severe due to the effects of climate change. And 
in the future, we can expect these risks to only grow due to 
greater flooding, storm surge, wildfires, and sea level rise. 
Certainly climate mitigation, as proposed in the CLEAN Future 
Act, is critical to reducing these long-term risks. But extreme 
weather is already here, and it is affecting sites today.
    In 2017 Hurricane Harvey damaged several sites containing 
hazardous substances, and a report by the Government 
Accountability Office identified 945 NPL sites that could be 
impacted by climate change. I am happy to welcome Mr. Gomez 
back to the subcommittee to discuss that report and GAO's other 
relevant work. In that report, GAO found that EPA regional 
officials had not consistently integrated climate change or 
considered future environmental conditions in risk assessments 
and remedy selection and design.
    We must also recognize that climate risks are changing. It 
is imperative that existing sites, including sites with a 
remedy in place, continue to monitor and evaluate conditions. 
It is quite possible that a remedy selected 30 years ago did 
not adequately anticipate today's or the future's climate 
realities.
    And, as is always the case with Superfund, an ounce of 
prevention is worth a pound of cure. Preventing industrial 
sites from becoming polluted in the first place is cheaper and 
safer than remediating them under Superfund. And reducing risks 
from existing Superfund sites is cheaper and safer than dealing 
with the health, environmental, and economic consequences of 
toxic releases.
    The CLEAN Future Act acknowledges that many Superfund sites 
are vulnerable to the effects of climate change and seeks to 
better direct the program to deal with this fact. The bill 
requires EPA to establish financial assurance requirements 
consistent with climate and extreme weather risks at sites. 
Sites would be able to reduce the amount of financial 
assurances required by taking steps to reduce risk. This is 
intended to incentivize prevention and limit future Superfund 
sites from being created in the first place.
    This section also amends the definition for ``act of God'' 
to ensure that releases due to the ``plausible causal 
connection to climate change and its effects'' are not shielded 
from liability.
    The bill also sets a 10-year deadline for the 
identification and remediation of Federal NPL sites that are 
vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
    I thank our witnesses for joining us today. I look forward 
to the discussions that we will have on how we can ensure the 
Superfund program is taking steps to protect communities in the 
face of increasing climate and extreme weather risks.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which is more 
commonly known as Superfund.
    Superfund is critical to protecting Americans' health and 
the environment. Approximately 73 million Americans live within 
three miles of a Superfund site, and 21 million live within one 
mile of a site.
    Today, there are over 1,300 sites on the National 
Priorities List. These represent the most contaminated sites in 
the country.
    Superfund was established on the principle of the polluters 
pay. Responsible parties should foot the bill to clean up 
contaminated sites--not the taxpayers and definitely not the 
local communities that have to suffer the potential health 
consequences of living next to highly polluted properties.
    Unfortunately, EPA has not always had the resources to 
remediate orphaned sites, to compel responsible parties to 
clean up sites, or to conduct cleanups and then seek 
reimbursement from responsible parties.
    Hopefully, any future infrastructure bill considered in 
Congress will provide resources to accelerate this work and 
reinstate the Superfund tax.
    Because we know Superfund sites face serious and growing 
challenges that can threaten nearby residents if hazardous 
substances are left on-site.
    Many Superfund sites are vulnerable to extreme weather 
events, which are becoming more frequent and severe due to the 
effects of climate change.
    And in the future, we can expect these risks to grow due to 
greater flooding, storm surge, wildfires, and sea level rise.
    Certainly, climate mitigation, as proposed in the CLEAN 
Future Act, is critical to reducing these long-term risks.
    But extreme weather is already here, and it's affecting 
sites today.
    In 2017, Hurricane Harvey damaged several sites containing 
hazardous substances.
    And a report by the Government Accountability Office 
identified 945 NPL sites that could be impacted by climate 
change.
    I am happy to welcome Mr. Gomez back to the subcommittee to 
discuss that report and GAO's other relevant work.
    In that report, GAO found that EPA regional officials had 
not consistently integrated climate change or considered future 
environmental conditions in risk assessments and remedy 
selection and design.
    We must also recognize that climate risks are changing. It 
is imperative that existing sites, including sites with a 
remedy in place, continue to monitor and evaluate conditions.
    It is quite possible that a remedy selected 30 years ago 
did not adequately anticipate today's--or future--climate 
realities.
    And as is always the case with Superfund, an ounce of 
prevention is worth a pound of cure.
    Preventing industrial sites from becoming polluted in the 
first place is cheaper and safer than remediating them under 
Superfund.
    And reducing risks from existing Superfund sites is cheaper 
and safer than dealing with the health, environmental, and 
economic consequences of toxic releases.
    The CLEAN Future Act acknowledges that many Superfund sites 
are vulnerable to the effects of climate change and seeks to 
better direct the program to deal with this fact.
    The bill requires EPA to establish financial assurance 
requirements consistent with climate and extreme weather risks 
at sites.
    Sites would be able to reduce the amount of financial 
assurances required by taking steps to reduce risk.
    This is intended to incentivize prevention and limit future 
Superfund sites from being created in the first place.
    This section also amends the definition for ``act of God'' 
to ensure that releases due to the ``plausible causal 
connection to climate change and its effects'' are not shielded 
from liability.
    The bill also sets a ten-year deadline for the 
identification and remediation of Federal NPL sites that are 
vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
    I thank our witnesses for joining us. I look forward to 
today's discussion on how we can ensure the Superfund program 
is taking steps to protect communities in the face of 
increasing climate and extreme weather risks.

    Mr. Tonko. With that I will now recognize Mr. McKinley, our 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change.
    Representative McKinley, you are recognized for 5 minutes 
for your opening statement, please.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. McKINLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 
          IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I start with 
it, I want the committee to recognize that Chairman Tonko and I 
are going to be in West Virginia in a district next week. This 
is an effort for bipartisanship to show how we can work 
together, and understand that we are going to wind up going 
back to New York to continue this message. We did this with 
Peter Welch, and now with Paul. So I really--I think we all 
ought to take a message from that.
    But Paul, before I----
    Mr. Tonko. I look forward to it, my friend.
    Mr. McKinley. Oh, we need--I think Congress needs to set an 
example, though, not only on bipartisanship, but on this other 
matter.
    We all wanted our schools and our businesses to open and--
during the COVID. So--and if the Senate and the House and other 
House committees are having these hybrid and in-person 
meetings, we are congregating, Paul, as you know, on the floor 
there, who is directing you not to allow our committee to have 
in-person meetings?
    Mr. Tonko. We seem to be guided by the messaging coming 
from the physician, the House physician.
    Mr. McKinley. So the other committees are violating it?
    Mr. Tonko. I just know what our subcommittee is doing and 
our committee is doing.
    Mr. McKinley. I think people are hiding from having these 
meetings.
    So look, back on the subject matter, though, Paul, everyone 
wants to clean up these Superfund sites. They are a blight on 
America.
    Unfortunately, as you pointed out, there are over 1,300 
designated Superfund sites across the country. Under President 
Obama, he cleaned up 82 sites in 8 years. That only averages 10 
a year. So do the math. Under that scenario, it would take us 
130 years to remove these blights all across the country. And 
during that 130 years, as you know, Paul, other sites would be 
added to the list. So it is a never-ending--this is--it is 
never going to stop. America deserves better, Mr. Chairman.
    So what was the problem? Under Obama, his focus was 
entirely on climate, and the Superfund sites were neglected and 
they weren't pursued in an aggressive fashion. But how is that 
different from what Trump did?
    Trump cleaned up the sites at twice the rate, annual rate, 
20 per year. He made cleaning up our sites a priority, as 
compared to under Obama. His task force developed an emphasis 
list that--they were following a plan, one that wasn't 
politically driven. As a result, sites like Westlake Landfill 
up in Missouri, Miami Alkali Company in New Jersey, Tar Creek 
in Oklahoma, Madison Creek in Missouri, they were all taken 
care of. They have been on the list. But under Obama they 
couldn't get them taken care of. Trump did. He did what he said 
he was going to do. So they are all done.
    He also put together a lean management system that made the 
Superfund process more efficient, and cleanups happened even 
faster. He did. He also did it with community outreach programs 
that--and all across America--that we got responses back from 
elected officials who appreciated this attention to their 
problem sites.
    As former Chairman Walden said, mentioned in a previous 
hearing, in a thank you note an elected official from Portland, 
Oregon--hardly a Republican bastion--wrote that they have been 
waiting for years for the EPA to clean up the Willamette River 
and the Portland Harbor. But Trump made it happen. He focused 
on it. It wasn't climate change. He said, ``I am going to clean 
up these sites,'' Mr. Chairman.
    And according to a Politico article last year, a prominent 
Superfund activist said, even though she couldn't stand Trump, 
that--she said he actually was getting something done. He was 
doing what he said he was going to do. She went on to say, 
``Obama was terrible on these issues, and Gina McCarthy only 
cared about the climate.'' So she went on to say that, until 
the Trump administration, the last time she said that that much 
work had been done on a Superfund site was never. It never 
happened before.
    So, Mr. Chairman, this legislation doesn't seem to be 
supporting going to top the Trump successes, but rather it is 
going to slow things down, and it is time the CLEAN Future 
Act--the Superfund program will be mired again down in climate 
change debate and buried under reams of new bureaucratic 
requirements, and obviously, if history repeats itself, be 
relegated once again to the back burner, like it was under the 
Obama-Biden administration. So in so doing, we can only expect 
the cleanup process to slow down again, and with less empathy 
to rural communities saddled with these horrors of Superfund 
sites in their backyard.
    So, Mr. Chairman, don't tell me that Congress is going to 
clean up these sites. Show me. Show me.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McKinley follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. David B. McKinley

    Thank you. Mr. Chairman we need to set an example if we 
want schools to be open, shouldn't we be open too? If the 
Senate and other House committees are having hybrid in-person 
hearings who is directing you not to do the same?
    Look, everyone supports cleaning up Superfund sites. 
They're a blight on America. Unfortunately, there are over 
1,100 designated Superfund sites around the country. President 
Obama cleaned up 82 Superfund sites in 8 years, i.e., 10 sites 
per year. So do the math, it would take us over 100 years to 
get rid of all the Superfund sites and by that time more sites 
will be added to that list.
    So what was the problem? Under Obama his focus was climate 
change--Superfund sites were neglected. Now how does that 
differ from Trump? Trump cleaned up sites at twice the annual 
rate, 20 per year. Trump made cleaning up these sites a 
priority. His task force developed an ``emphasis list'' so that 
they were following a plan. One that wasn't politically driven.
    As a result, sites like West Lake Landfill (Missouri), 
Diamond Alkali Company (New Jersey), Tar Creek (Oklahoma), and 
Madison County Mines (Missouri) were all taken care of. He put 
together a lean management system that made the Superfund 
process more efficient and cleanups happen faster. And he 
clearly did more outreach to communities.
    Elected officials all around the country appreciated his 
attention to their problem sites. As former chairman Walden 
mentioned in previous hearings, in a thank you note, an elected 
official from Portland, Oregon wrote that they had been waiting 
for years for EPA to clean up the Willamette River and Portland 
Harbor and Trump made it happen
    And according to a Politico article last year a prominent 
Superfund activist said even though she couldn't stand Trump, 
he was getting something done. She went on to say that ``Obama 
was terrible on these issues..and Gina McCarthy only cared 
about the climate.'' She said that until the Trump 
administration the last time she saw that much work being done 
on Superfund sites was never. Mr. Chairman this legislation 
doesn't seem to support building atop the Trump successes. But 
rather, it seems like its going to slow things down. And 
because it's tied to the CLEAN Future Act the Superfund program 
will be mired down in the climate change debate and buried 
under reams of new bureaucratic requirements; relegated to the 
back burner like it was under Obama.
    In so doing we can only expect the clean up process to slow 
down again, with less empathy to rural communities saddled with 
the horrors of a Superfund site in their background. So, Mr. 
Chairman don't tell me Congress is going to clean up these 
sites show me. Thank you and I yield back.

    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and I will 
remind my friend that these cleanups don't happen overnight, 
that decades of work was done. They got completed under his 
clock, but certainly during the Obama years they continued to 
work on cleaning up these efforts that are years' worth of 
effort to make them clean. And if we want to continue that, we 
need to reimpose the tax.
    So with that, I will recognize the chair of the full 
committee, Representative Pallone, our hard-working chair, for 
5 minutes for his opening statement.
    Chairman Pallone, please.

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

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    And look, Mr. McKinley, I like you, and I am trying not to 
be partisan here. And I know you started out talking about 
being bipartisan.
    But the bottom line is, if you are going to continue to say 
that somehow Trump did a better job at cleanup than Obama, then 
I am going to have to respond to that, and simply say that it 
is not true, OK?
    I would totally disagree that more was done under Trump 
than under Obama, or to suggest--which may be or not, but it 
sounded like you were suggesting that most of the sites were 
cleaned up. I assure you they are not. I can take you--talking 
about visits, you are going to go to West Virginia. I will 
certainly take you to a site in my district, in Old Bridge, 
that is not cleaned up, and basically, nothing happened towards 
its cleanup under President Trump. Trump did not make it 
happen.
    But I would rather get back to what we can do together. But 
I do have to emphatically start out by saying that it is simply 
not the case that Trump did more than Obama.
    And to denigrate Lisa Jackson and Gina McCarthy, who were 
the EPA Administrators, and say that they didn't do anything, 
that is simply not true. Lisa Jackson, when she became the 
Administrator under Obama, prioritized Superfund cleanups, and 
I went with her to sites that had been delisted--literally 
taken off the list--and hadn't been cleaned up, and that we had 
to go back and relist them, OK?
    So and the problem here also is the level of cleanup, 
right? In other words, you can say--you could just take a site 
off the list and say it has been cleaned up, and it hasn't 
been. Or you can decide to pave it over with asphalt and not 
remove the material underneath. And that is not cleanup.
    But the bottom line is we really need to have--we can't 
rely on general revenue, because the list of sites that don't 
get cleaned up and the type of cleanups that are ineffective 
get longer unless you have a pot of money like the Superfund to 
actually do the cleanup, instead of relying on taxpayers and 
general revenue. When you rely on general revenue, you don't 
have a Superfund tax. That means that the taxpayers are using 
their money from their income tax to clean up these sites. And 
that is not right. It is the oil and chemical industry that 
should pay this tax so that we have a fund to clean up these 
sites and not rely on the average taxpayer to do it. I just 
think it is wrong.
    So let me go back, Mr. Chairman. I have to shorten my--I 
guess I will have to introduce my opening statement into the 
record, because it is too long now, since I have used up this 
time. But let me try to, if I could, ask unanimous consent to 
include it in the record.
    But let me just try to summarize part of it. I wanted to 
say that there are provisions in the CLEAN Future Act that aim 
to address these sites, and cleaning up these most vulnerable 
sites, and prevent new contamination. And these substantive 
provisions in the CLEAN Future Act complement President Biden's 
efforts to invest in Superfund cleanups.
    The American Jobs Plan, which he talked about a few weeks 
ago, includes a proposal to restore payments from polluters 
into the Superfund Trust Fund so that polluting industries help 
fairly cover the cost of cleanups. And that is a $5 billion 
investment, if you will, in the remediation and redevelopment 
of both brownfields and Superfund sites, as well as workforce 
development investments to turn these properties into economic 
growth and job creation.
    Now, I just want to say, for many years I have introduced a 
bill, the Superfund Polluter Pays Act, which would reauthorize 
the original Superfund fees and make polluters, not taxpayers, 
pay the cost of cleaning up these sites. And I think the 
taxpayers have been footing the bill to clean up polluters' 
messes for far too long. Reinstating the Superfund tax will re-
establish the polluter pays principle of the law, reduce 
pressures on the budget, and lead to faster cleanups of these 
toxic and dangerous sites. And reinstating this polluter pays 
tax has to be part of any conversation we have in Congress 
about Superfund.
    The bottom line is that this Superfund program is an 
essential tool, and one that we should use as much as possible 
in order to fight climate change, promote equity, and restore 
the American economy.
    And there are many communities around these Superfund sites 
and potentially dangerous industrial facilities that--I think 
the people in these environmental justice communities should 
have some peace of mind that these contaminated sites are being 
cleaned up, and that polluters are paying for the work, and 
that we are actively trying to protect their health.
    Let me just say a lot of these sites are near--are what we 
call environmental justice communities. And it is just not fair 
that the people don't have these sites cleaned up. They have 
not been cleaned up.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    The Superfund program is critical to cleaning up the most 
toxic sites across our country. Investments and improvements to 
the Superfund program can benefit public health and the 
environment, reduce environmental injustice, and promote job 
creation.
    Climate change and the increasing incidence of extreme 
weather has made these cleanups even more important, and more 
pressing. Cleaning up these sites also puts people to work at 
the same time we are protecting communities and our natural 
resources. That's why we have included important Superfund 
provisions in the CLEAN Future Act, and why President Biden has 
emphasized Superfund in the American Jobs Plan. I am pleased 
that we are holding this hearing today to look at those 
provisions and discuss how the Superfund program can help 
communities in need.
    Superfund cleanups remove serious public health hazards for 
the surrounding communities, which are often environmental 
justice communities. Common contaminants at Superfund sites 
include lead, dioxin, arsenic, and PCB's. Much of this 
pollution is a legacy of our industrial past that still 
threatens public health. And now, thanks to climate change, 
many communities see these sites as ticking time bombs, just 
one storm away from flooding their homes with toxic pollution.
    Extreme weather can cause pollution at Superfund sites to 
be released into the environment. It can undermine the 
integrity of cleanup remedies. And it can create new Superfund 
sites as new releases spread toxic pollution to previously 
clean areas.
    Last year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
identified 945 sites on the National Priorities List that are 
vulnerable to climate-related hurricanes, wildfires, and 
flooding.
    We can and should address this threat. And the good news 
is, these clean ups also help create good-paying jobs in these 
communities. They create construction jobs while the cleanups 
are happening, and long-term jobs once the remediation is done 
and the property is returned to productive use.
    This is a nationwide problem, and a particular concern in 
my home State where roughly 50 percent of New Jersey's 
population lives within three miles of a Superfund site.
    Provisions in the CLEAN Future Act aim to address these 
risks by cleaning up those sites most vulnerable to climate 
change and preventing the creation of new contaminated sites. 
Prevention is always going to be cheaper and safer than 
remediation, especially for environmental justice communities 
around these facilities.
    These substantive provisions would complement President 
Biden's efforts to invest in Superfund cleanups. The American 
Jobs Plan includes a proposal to restore payments from 
polluters into the Superfund Trust Fund so that polluting 
industries help fairly cover the cost of cleanups. That's a $5 
billion investment in the remediation and redevelopment of 
Brownfield and Superfund sites, as well as workforce 
development investments to turn these properties into new hubs 
of economic growth and job creation.
    For many years, I have introduced a bill, the Superfund 
Polluter Pays Act, which would reauthorize the original 
Superfund fees and make polluters, not taxpayers, pay the costs 
of cleaning up Superfund sites. Taxpayers have been footing the 
bill to clean up polluters' messes for far too long. 
Reinstating the Superfund taxes will reestablish the polluter 
pays principle of the law, reduce pressures on the budget, and 
lead to faster cleanup of these toxic and dangerous sites.
    Reinstating this polluter pays tax must be part of any 
conversation we have in Congress about Superfund.
    The bottom line is that the Superfund program is an 
essential tool, and one that we should use as much as possible 
in our effort to fight climate change, promote equity, and 
restore the American economy. Robust funding, deadlines for 
Federal cleanups, reinstatement of the tax, and efforts at 
prevention and adaptation all have important roles to play as 
we move forward.
    The communities around Superfund sites and potentially 
dangerous industrial facilities deserve the peace of mind that 
comes with knowing these contaminated sites are being cleaned 
up, that polluters are paying for the cleanup work, and that 
we're actively working to protect their health.
    I thank the chairman for convening this expert panel, and I 
look forward to today's testimony.

    Mr. Pallone. So with that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman, 
and thank you for having this very important hearing.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, the chairman yields back. And I will remind 
him and all of the committee that all documents will be entered 
into the record at the conclusion of the hearing. So your 
statement will be part of that.
    We now recognize Mrs. Rodgers, ranking member of the full 
committee, for 5 minutes for her opening statement.
    So Mrs. Rodgers, please.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 
everyone. Good morning to our witnesses.
    And Mr. Chairman, I will just underscore that, as 
Republicans, we are focused on results, and we look forward to 
working bipartisan to continue to get results and make sure 
that money is prioritized most effectively.
    Today our subcommittee is having a hearing on provisions in 
the CLEAN Future Act that are related to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
1980, also known as Superfund.
    I note that, unfortunately, we are not hearing today from 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. It is imperative 
that Members have an opportunity to question and get feedback 
from EPA in a hearing setting. We need to hear about the 
feasibility of this legislation and how it would be 
implemented. Having any kind of discussion about changing 
Superfund cannot occur in a vacuum. So much has occurred in 
this program and at these sites in the last four decades that 
ignoring history risk makes Superfund outcomes worse.
    I know the chairman of the full committee is a big 
supporter of reinstating the Superfund tax as a way of curing 
what ails Superfund. For me, though, as I said at our budget 
hearing, we need to know exactly what all the money is buying. 
Past GAO studies have shown that EPA's Superfund program was 
spending less than 50 cents of every dollar out of its cleanup 
budget on dirt-moving cleanups at these heavily contaminated 
sites.
    In addition, Superfund sites were taking what seemed like 
forever to clean up. Let's focus on results. Let's focus on 
reality. Provisions in this bill likely will slow progress and 
add costs.
    One provision removes the ``act of God'' defense for 
liability for unanticipated natural events if they are 
connected to climate change. This is simply unrealistic. Human 
activity certainly influences climate change, but legislating 
the words out of a statute is not going to change the fact that 
we experience ``acts of God.''
    In my home State of Washington, people are painfully aware 
of the 4 Superfund sites at Hanford, 32 years, and the Puget 
Sound Naval Shipyard, 27 years. More specific to my own 
district, Fairchild Air Force Base has four waste areas that 
officially have been on EPA's priority list even longer than 
Hanford and Puget Sound.
    We need to figure out how to move protective cleanups 
along, rather than ways to make them take more time. That is 
why many of my Republican colleagues and I were so pleased with 
the work of the previous administration. They prioritized 
listening to affected communities, getting the cleanups done, 
and removing these sites from the National Priorities List. The 
previous EPA didn't just say--they didn't just say it, they did 
it, and the most delistings of cleaned Superfund sites in 20 
years. And the Trump EPA positioned even more sites to complete 
their cleanups and received delisting in the not-too-distant 
future. They will not get credit for doing this, but all 
Americans are the winners when communities can turn the page to 
redevelopment and a cleaner future.
    Superfund and the communities with these sites have been 
marred by stigma, litigation, and delay. We should avoid 
creating more of that and instead produce the one thing 
Superfund was meant to do: clean up. Perhaps that is why so 
many of us are big fans of the Brownfields Program, the 
sunniest side of the Superfund law. Brownfields is a 20-year 
program that has successfully returned blighted properties back 
into productive use, whether for retail, industrial, or 
renewable energy. In eastern Washington, we have seen the 
benefits of Brownfield grants for the Hillyard neighborhood and 
Riverfront Park in Spokane.
    I appreciate the CLEAN Future Act is only trying to further 
extend the Brownfields Program. What is concerning for me is 
the significant funding increases, and whether statutory 
funding criteria will be applied. I look forward to hearing the 
testimony of our witnesses and further discussing these 
concerns with the Superfund provisions in the CLEAN Future Act.
    We have seen in previous administrations how to approach 
Superfund in a successful way with prioritization, engagement 
with communities, and progressive cleanup actions. Let's keep 
working on results. Let's keep getting outcomes, not delays and 
inaction.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    Good morning, everyone, and good morning to our witnesses.
    Today, our subcommittee is having a hearing on provisions 
in the CLEAN Future Act that are related to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
1980, also known as Superfund.
    I note that unfortunately we are not hearing today from the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It is imperative that 
Members have an opportunity to question and get feedback from 
EPA in a hearing setting. We need to hear about the feasibility 
of this legislation and how it would be implemented.
    Having any kind of discussion about changing Superfund 
cannot occur in a vacuum. So much has occurred in this program 
and at these sites in the last four decades that ignoring 
history risks making Superfund outcomes worse. I know the 
chairman of the full committee is a big supporter of 
reinstating the Superfund tax as a way of curing what ails 
Superfund.
    For me, though, as I said at our budget hearing, I want to 
know exactly what all that money is buying. Past GAO studies 
have shown that EPA's Superfund program was spending less than 
50 cents of every dollar out of its cleanup budget on dirt-
moving cleanups at these heavily contaminated sites.
    In addition, Superfund sites were taking what seemed like 
forever to clean up. We should be focusing on reality and 
results. Provisions in this bill likely will slow progress and 
add costs. One provision removes the ``act of God'' defense for 
liability for unanticipated natural events if they are 
connected to climate change.
    This is simply unrealistic. Human activity certainly 
influences climate change. But legislating the words out of a 
statute is not going to change the fact that ``acts of God'' 
still exist. In my home State of Washington, people are 
painfully aware of the four Superfund sites at Hanford (32 
years) and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (27 years).
    More specific to my own district, Fairchild Air Force Base 
has four waste areas that have officially been on EPA's 
priority list even longer than Hanford and Puget Sound. We need 
to figure out how to move protective cleanups along rather than 
ways to make them take more time.
    This is why many of my Republican colleagues and I were so 
pleased with the work of the previous administration. They 
prioritized listening to affected communities, getting the 
cleanups done, and removing these sites from the National 
Priorities List. The previous EPA didn't just say it, they did 
it--the most ``delistings'' of cleaned Superfund sites in 20 
years!
    And, the Trump EPA positioned even more sites to complete 
their cleanups and receive delisting in the not too distant 
future. They will not get ``credit'' for doing this, but all 
Americans are the winners when communities can turn the page to 
redevelopment and a cleaner future.
    Superfund and the communities with these sites have been 
marred by stigma, litigation, and delay. We should avoid 
creating more of that--and instead, produce the one thing 
Superfund was meant to do: clean up.
    Perhaps this is why so many of us are big fans of the 
Brownfields Program: the sunniest side of the Superfund law. 
Brownfields is a twenty-year-old program that has been 
successfully returning blighted properties back into productive 
use, whether for retail, industrial, or renewable energy.
    In Eastern Washington, we've seen the benefits of 
Brownfield grants for both the Hillyard neighborhood and 
Riverfront Park in Spokane. I appreciate that the CLEAN Future 
Act is only trying to further extend the Brownfields Program. 
What is concerning for me are the significant funding increases 
and whether statutory funding criteria will be applied.
    I look forward to hearing testimony from our witnesses, and 
to discussing further our concerns with the Superfund 
provisions in the CLEAN Future Act. We have seen in the 
previous administration how to approach the Superfund program 
in a successful way--with prioritization, engagement with 
communities, and progressive cleanup actions. We should be 
working for results and outcomes--not delays and inaction.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back whatever time I have 
remaining.

    Mrs. Rodgers. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I 
yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair would remind Members that, pursuant to committee 
rules, all Members' written opening statements shall be made 
part of the record.
    I now will introduce the witnesses for today's hearing: Mr. 
Alfredo Gomez, director of the--natural resources and 
environment for the U.S. Government Accountability Office; Ms. 
Amanda Goodin, staff attorney at Earthjustice; Ms. Laurie 
Matthews, Of Counsel, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, on behalf of 
the Superfund Settlements Project; and finally, Ms. Amy 
Catherine Dinn, managing attorney with the Environmental 
Justice Team, Equitable Development Initiative at the Lone Star 
Legal Aid.
    I recognize Mr. Gomez now for 5 minutes to provide his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Gomez, please.

STATEMENT OF J. ALFREDO GOMEZ, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND 
 ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AMANDA GOODIN, 
  STAFF ATTORNEY, EARTHJUSTICE; LAURIE DROUGHTON MATTHEWS, OF 
    COUNSEL, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, ON BEHALF OF THE 
SUPERFUND SETTLEMENTS PROJECT; AND AMY CATHERINE DINN, MANAGING 
  ATTORNEY, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE TEAM, EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT 
                INITIATIVE, LONE STAR LEGAL AID

                 STATEMENT OF J. ALFREDO GOMEZ

    Mr. Gomez. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member McKinley, and 
members of the subcommittee, good morning. I am pleased to be 
here today to discuss our October 2019 work on Superfund sites 
that may be impacted by climate change, and the steps that the 
EPA can take to manage these risks.
    As it has been noted already, the National Climate 
Assessment found that some natural disasters will become more 
frequent or intense, which may damage Superfund sites and 
potentially release contaminants. Today I will discuss the 
number of non-Federal Superfund sites climate change may 
potentially affect, EPA's efforts to manage the potential 
impacts of climate change at these sites, and the challenges 
EPA faces in doing so.
    To conduct our work, we obtained data from EPA on the 
location and characteristics of non-Federal Superfund sites, 
and we also obtained data from FEMA, from NOAA, and the U.S. 
Forest Service on flooding, storm surge, sea level rise, and 
wildfires. We then mapped these climate change effects on top 
of Superfund sites. And this mapping showed that, in 2019, 
about 60 percent of all non-Federal Superfund sites, or 945, 
were located in areas that may be impacted by these potential 
climate change effects.
    If I can please show a map on the screen.
    [Slide shown.]
    Mr. Gomez. And this map, which is also in our testimony 
statement and our report, you can see the red dots. And the red 
dots are the Superfund sites that you can see are scattered 
throughout the U.S. But these are Superfund sites that may be 
affected by one or more of these climate change effects.
    So, for example, you can see Superfund sites along the 
Eastern Shore, and the Gulf Coast, and the Great Lakes. You can 
even see them along rivers. And then you see them in the 
western U.S., which--you have the additional risk of wildfire.
    If you can, please remove the map.
    So, with regards to flooding, 783 non-Federal Superfund 
sites throughout the United States were in areas that have 
moderate or high flood hazard or other flood hazards, according 
to FEMA. For example, the San Jacinto River Waste Pits, a 
Superfund site in Houston, Texas, sits in a flood hazard area. 
Record-breaking flooding during Hurricane Harvey eroded the 
temporary cap that contained the waste and exposed some of the 
contaminants.
    With regard to wildfires, 234 non-Federal Superfund sites 
were in areas that have high or very high wildfire hazard 
potential, based on a U.S. Forest Service model. For example, 
the 2018 Carr Wildfire almost destroyed the water treatment 
plant that protects the Sacramento River from toxic acid mine 
drainage at the Iron Mountain site in Northern California. 
Firefighters successfully put out the fire before it reached 
the ore body in the mine, which could have led to an explosion 
and substantial environmental and health hazards.
    We found that EPA had taken some actions to manage risks 
from climate change at non-Federal sites. For example, EPA had 
identified these risks and monitored them and communicated 
about the risks.
    In addition, EPA had taken some steps to assess and respond 
to these risks. However, they had not consistently incorporated 
potential climate change effects into site-level risk 
assessments and risk response decisions. EPA did not always 
have the climate data they needed to do so or the direction on 
how to alter practices to account for climate change. Absent 
such information and direction, EPA cannot ensure that it has 
remedies to protect human health and the environment in the 
long term.
    Lastly, we found that EPA faces several challenges in 
managing these risks. These include technical, resource, and 
institutional challenges. So, for example, some EPA officials 
told us they need additional expertise and training. 
Insufficient or changing resources may also make it challenging 
for EPA to manage these risks. For example, designing or 
modifying an existing remedy could increase costs.
    We made four recommendations to EPA, including that it 
provide additional direction on integrating climate 
information, such as projections for flooding or rainfall, into 
site-level decision making. EPA originally agreed with one 
recommendation and disagreed with the others but is now 
currently taking steps to respond to three of the 
recommendations and is considering action on the other.
    Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member McKinley, this completes 
my statement, and I am happy to answer questions on this report 
or other related Superfund reports. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gomez follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Gomez, and we now welcome Ms. 
Goodin.
    Ms. Goodin, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.

                   STATEMENT OF AMANDA GOODIN

    Ms. Goodin. Thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member 
McKinley. Good morning. My name is Amanda Goodin, and I am an 
attorney with Earthjustice. I have been litigating and 
advocating for CERCLA financial assurance requirements for 
nearly a decade. I want to focus this morning on the importance 
of the financial assurance provisions in section 631.
    Financial assurances are, basically, insurance or bonding 
requirements. Broadly speaking, we require insurance for all 
kinds of activities. To drive a car, you need car insurance. If 
you want to buy a home with financing, you need homeowner's 
insurance. And if you want to rent an apartment, you need a 
security deposit.
    But you don't need insurance to handle hazardous 
substances. You don't need insurance even if the tanks you use 
to store toxic chemicals are obviously corroding and on the 
brink of failure. You don't need insurance even if your storage 
pond of hazardous sludge is in an area that is prone to 
flooding. You don't need insurance even if a spill at your 
facility would likely cause loss of life, contaminate drinking 
water, or devastate the surrounding ecosystem.
    This makes no sense, and it has to change. There are three 
important reasons that Congress should require facilities to 
have financial assurances under CERCLA.
    First, these requirements help ensure that hazardous spills 
are cleaned up thoroughly and quickly.
    Second, financial assurances promote basic fairness by 
ensuring that the polluter pays for cleanup, and not the 
public.
    Third, financial assurances can prevent spills from 
happening in the first place, by creating strong financial 
incentives for best practices. Polluters are more likely to 
prevent spills that they will have to pay to remediate. And 
third-party insurers may require best practices as a condition 
of coverage or to reduce premiums.
    Now, we have already seen what happens without financial 
assurances, and it is not pretty. There are around 1,300 sites 
on the National Priorities List. These are the most heavily 
contaminated sites in the country. The cost to clean up a 
single one of these sites can run from hundreds of millions to 
even billions of dollars for a single site.
    Many of these cleanups are being funded by the public, in 
whole or in part. Despite the huge amount of taxpayer funds 
that go to these cleanups, we are not actually making much 
progress on the National Priorities List, and that is because 
new sites get added every year as fast or faster than we can 
clean up the sites that are already on the list. We are trying 
to fill this hole, and we just keep digging ourselves in deeper 
and deeper.
    The problem has actually gotten worse since the Superfund 
tax expired. Now there is even less funding for cleanup, and 
the Superfund has to ration resources between these heavily 
contaminated sites. Spreading out these resources is a huge 
problem because it means cleanup goes slow. And sometimes the 
toxic mess gets even worse and harder to clean up if you let it 
sit for too long. And when cleanups go slow, anyone who lives 
near one of these sites has to live with the toxic mess in the 
meantime.
    We also know that climate change will make this problem 
even worse. We are facing more and more extreme weather events 
as our climate warms. And we have already seen how severe 
weather events can cause huge spills at facilities that aren't 
prepared. Unless we require companies to have insurance or 
bonding to cover their own costs of cleanup, we will just keep 
adding sites to our national backlog faster than we can address 
the ones we already have. And we are going to have to keep 
going back to the public to foot the bill.
    This problem is preventable. Strong financial assurance 
requirements decrease spills, especially when they make the 
amount of assurance contingent on a facility's use of best 
practices. When spills do occur, strong financial assurance 
requirements mean those spills are cleaned up quickly and 
thoroughly. And they also mean that the cleanup happens at the 
polluter's expense, not the taxpayers'.
    Even with financial assurance rules, unforeseen disasters 
will occasionally strike. We are still going to need funding 
for Superfund site cleanup. But we also need industries to do 
their fair share. Facilities have to assess the risks posed by 
climate change. They have to employ best practices to prevent 
spills from climate-related weather or any other cause. And 
they have to carry insurance so that, if something does go 
wrong, they are not passing their bill onto the rest of us. 
Financial assurance requirements do just that.
    Thank you. I yield back the remainder of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Goodin follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Goodin. And now we welcome Ms. 
Matthews.
    You are recognized, Ms. Matthews, for 5 minutes, please.

             STATEMENT OF LAURIE DROUGHTON MATTHEWS

    Ms. Matthews. Thank you. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member 
McKinley, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Rodgers, and members 
of the subcommittee, I am Laurie Droughton Matthews. I am of 
counsel with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, and today I appear on 
behalf of the Superfund Settlements Project. Thank you for the 
opportunity to be here today.
    The Superfund Settlements Project, or SSP, is an 
association of major companies from many different sectors of 
American industry. SSP was organized in 1986 to help improve 
the effectiveness and efficiency of the Superfund program. 
Superfund today is a mature program that addresses legacy 
contamination, generally dating back many decades, from a time 
when environmental regulation was nonexistent. In contrast, 
today the gaps or lack of environmental regulation that led to 
the creation of the large majority of Superfund sites, has been 
filled.
    Today private parties are cleaning up greater than 70 
percent of the sites on the NPL, working closely and 
cooperatively with the EPA. At these sites PRPs are paying the 
full cost of those cleanups, including reimbursement of all of 
the EPA's direct costs and overhead, and covering most orphan 
shares. Great progress has been made over the last four 
decades, and PRPs, such as the members of SSP, are dedicated to 
the efficient remediation of NPL sites for the benefit of the 
environment and surrounding communities.
    Section 631 of the CLEAN Future Act would require financial 
assurances at facilities that are not Superfund sites, but 
operating facilities.
    Section 631 would impose significant costs on industry 
anticipating release or other impacts due to climate change but 
do nothing to avoid those impacts.
    Further, section 631 would impose financial assurance 
requirements on risks that are beyond the scope and goals of 
CERCLA, because it is untethered to the release or threatened 
release of hazardous substances.
    Instead of providing financial assurance for damage from 
potential extreme events that may never occur, it would be more 
sensible and effective to require companies to spend money to 
protect their facilities against disaster. As mentioned before, 
industry is now subject to numerous preventative Federal and 
State regulatory programs. Specifically with regard to releases 
that could potentially lead to a CERCLA response, these 
existing laws address the range of risks by requiring safe 
operation, implementing programs to minimize a release, and 
requiring addressing any resulting environmental conditions 
promptly if they do occur.
    In short, the risks the proposed section 31 is targeting 
that an operating facility will become a Superfund site can be 
addressed by working within the regulatory structure already in 
place. And indeed, EPA is already--has already begun to address 
climate change impacts throughout its programs, including 
CERCLA response. EPA has a climate change adaptation plan that 
addresses risk through Agency programs that helps to avoid the 
impacts of climate change. EPA's approach promotes resilience 
and strength in the face of extreme events, as compared to 
tying up money to address potential future impacts.
    Imposing financial assurance requirements on industries 
that are generally financially sound is unnecessary. That some 
small percentage of facilities may be at risk cannot justify 
significant financial burden on the large majority. The cost of 
the assurance instruments is not trivial. In contrast, there is 
real potential that the cost could be staggeringly high. 
Accordingly, a potential consequence of imposing these onerous 
financial assurance requirements could be facilities relocating 
from their communities.
    Importantly, the risk that section 31--631, my apologies--
is seeking to address is speculative and would be essentially 
impossible to value. Climate data is inherently limited, and 
modeling and scenario analysis involves a high degree of 
uncertainty.
    Furthermore, as recognized during the development of the 
CERCLA 108(b) regulations, there is significant potential that 
the market would not have the capacity for such a program. The 
breadth of the section and what is sure to be an inability to 
reasonably value a speculative risk would undoubtedly lead to 
multiple legal challenges.
    Section 636 of the CLEAN Future Act is vague and, 
unfortunately, unrealistic. Even if section 636 is limited to 
Federal facilities, the goal is not achievable. Superfund sites 
are complex, and it takes time. Some sites simply need more 
time to allow for study to understand the nature and extent of 
contamination. Some site conditions will not allow for 
expeditious cleanup. Some remedies that may no--that may be 
longer-term solutions can be the better choice, based on 
numerous other factors, including environmental justice. 
Forcing timelines on site remediation also simply hasn't been 
shown to work and may not be in the best interest, even if it 
did. Other sites may be prioritized for more important reasons 
or other considerations than climate change impacts.
    Instead of forced timelines that may end up with decisions 
not based on sound science and not being the best for the 
environment or the community, greater efficiency can be 
achieved by reforms to the program using lessons learned from 
the 40-year experience within the Superfund program. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Matthews follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    Now, Ms. Dinn, you are recognized. Welcome, by the way, and 
you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.

                STATEMENT OF AMY CATHERINE DINN

    Ms. Dinn. Good morning. My name is Amy Catherine Dinn. I am 
the managing attorney for the Environmental Justice Team at 
Lone Star Legal Aid, which is part of the firm's equitable 
development initiative.
    Lone Star Legal Aid is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit law firm 
focused on advocacy on behalf of low-income and underserved 
populations. For the past 4 years, I have assisted these 
communities in Lone Star Legal Aid's 72-county service area 
along the Texas Gulf Coast and eastern Texas to fight 
environmental injustices in their area. Based in Houston, our 
environmental justice team has worked to address disparities in 
these communities, which are particularly vulnerable to 
pollution resulting from climate change because of no-zoning 
policies and the historical siting of facilities that comprise 
the area's significant petrochemical industry in low-income 
areas and communities of color.
    The Environmental Justice Team of Lone Star Legal Aid 
thanks you for the opportunity to speak today regarding the 
Superfund proposals to enhance cleanups, equity, and climate 
resilience in the proposed CLEAN Future Act. Specifically, 
section 631 and 636 of the CLEAN Future Act contain important 
provisions to environmental justice communities in Lone Star 
Legal Aid's service area. These provisions offer protections to 
environmental justice communities, and ensuring legacy 
contamination in flood plains and subject to extreme weather 
events are prioritized for remediation, and that the facilities 
have appropriate financial assurances to guard against the 
known risk posed by climate change.
    In 2017 Hurricane Harvey, which dropped a record 16 inches 
of rain over 5 days in the region, served as a wake-up call for 
the Texas Gulf Coast and the Nation, as the region struggled 
with unprecedented contamination that filled the floodwaters, 
directly impacting the health of many low-income communities.
    In Channelview and the Highlands, the protective cap at the 
San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund site was breached. 
Sampling after the floods of Hurricane Harvey showed very high 
levels of dioxin and furan along the surface of the northwest 
part of the waste pit.
    In the Manchester community near the Houston Ship Channel, 
residents suffered exposure exceeding lifetime cancer risk from 
contaminants which can attach themselves to floodwaters.
    And in Port Arthur, a wastewater facility operated by one 
of the largest chemical product producers in North America was 
responsible for the single biggest wastewater spill during 
Hurricane Harvey, releasing more than 100 million gallons.
    The frequency of heavy rainfall events in the Greater 
Houston Area appears to be increasing. Between 1981 and 2000, 
the odds of a rainfall event of more than 20 inches increased 
by 1 percent. This frequency is expected to grow by 18 percent 
between 2018 and 2100. The reality of climate change and 
extreme weather events puts these environmental communities 
continually at risk for increased exposures to pollution, not 
only from surplus sites, but also other sites where 
contamination is present, such as brownfields.
    There are 33 Superfund sites in Lone Star Legal Aid's 
service area. Twenty-seven of these sites have some identified 
risk associated with climate change or extreme weather events, 
based on the GAO's analysis of data from the EPA, FEMA, NOAA, 
and the U.S. Forest Service. The analyzed risk to these 27 
sites includes threats from flooding, sea level rise, 
hurricanes, and wildfires.
    Superfund sites like French Limited, near a historic Black 
settlement called Barrett Station, have recognized impacts due 
to Hurricane Harvey, where underground plumes of benzene and 
tertiary butyl alcohol at the site moved since the record of 
decision was entered and will continue to threaten adjacent 
communities with the possibility of contamination and, likely, 
flood waters.
    We thank you again for the opportunity to share Lone Star 
Legal Aid's work on addressing community concerns around 
Superfund sites and ongoing threats posed by climate change to 
these sites. We are hopeful that legislation like the proposed 
Act will assist in prioritizing cleanup of these vulnerable 
sites and to ensure that there is sufficient financial 
accountability to address the ongoing threat posed by climate 
change to environmental justice communities.
    Thank you, and I yield back the rest of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Dinn follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Dinn. We now will move to Member 
questions, and I will start by recognizing myself for 5 
minutes.
    The effects of climate change are already here and already 
impacting communities across our country. For communities 
around facilities storing or disposing of hazardous materials 
and communities next to Superfund sites waiting for cleanups, 
the risks from climate change are particularly high. We must 
protect these communities by addressing climate change, 
adapting to extreme weather, and cleaning up the pollution 
already in our environment.
    The CLEAN Future Act would put us on the path to net-zero 
greenhouse gas pollution by 2050 and would align with our new 
NDC under the Paris Agreement with at least a 50 percent 
reduction by the year 2030.
    So Ms. Dinn, how are the communities you represent already 
being impacted by climate change?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Tonko. You need to unmute, please.
    Ms. Dinn. Apologies. As I just outlined in my testimony, 
the effects of climate change are here. We have contaminated 
floodwaters that are flooding communities. And in some ways it 
is difficult to track exactly how much contaminants are being 
carried into these communities from these adjacent sites, which 
is actually beyond the scope of just Superfund sites, because 
of the number of facilities that are operating currently in the 
area and then residual sites that are more classified like 
brownfields. But it is clear that we have----
    Mr. Tonko. OK, and how----
    Ms. Dinn. What?
    Mr. Tonko. I am sorry, go ahead.
    Ms. Dinn. No, it is clear that we have health impacts on 
these communities. We have got cancer clusters being discovered 
regularly in our area that have direct ties to prior legacy 
contamination.
    Mr. Tonko. And obviously, it is imperative that these 
communities be addressed by the risks of climate change.
    Ms. Dinn. I believe so. These sites, particularly, need to 
be prioritized for cleanup to ensure that there are not 
continued health impacts felt over and over again from flooding 
events.
    Mr. Tonko. And as you noted, many of these effects of 
climate change are already here, and adaptation is essential. 
So how can adaptation and resilience help the communities that 
you represent?
    Ms. Dinn. Well, I think we need to be prepared to address 
climate change. And part of that is starting the remediation 
process. So, for example, in the San Jacinto River Waste Pits, 
which I mentioned, prioritizing an actual plan for remediating 
that site, given an acknowledgment, finally, the cap had 
breaches in it and needed to be completely replaced and all of 
the contaminants removed.
    There are some challenges with respect to that site because 
it is in the San Jacinto River, which is its own floodway. But 
there are--at least the communities were responsive to the idea 
of actually prioritizing this site, because not much had been 
done in the last 10 years prior to that--Hurricane Harvey, 
recognizing the real threat that was happening in the 
community.
    Mr. Tonko. Several of the provisions under discussion today 
aim at adaptation by creating incentives. For example, the bill 
makes clear that facility owners and operators will be 
responsible for toxic releases that occur during extreme 
weather events. So, Ms. Dinn, do you agree that making that 
change can incentivize the adaptation that protects the 
communities you represent?
    Ms. Dinn. Yes, absolutely, I think it is essential for the 
communities to be protected and--in that way.
    Mr. Tonko. Liability under Superfund has always been a tool 
to incentivize the safe handling of hazardous substances. Now 
that our climate is changing, the statute should change too. 
So, obviously, extreme weather risks will continue to change as 
our climate changes.
    Mr. Gomez, is there a concern that a remedy selected 20 or 
30 years ago may not have taken into account climate-related 
risks as we understand them today?
    Mr. Gomez. Yes. So that is a good question. And that was 
one of the intents of our studies, right, was to look at those 
sites, especially those sites that have remedies that, as you 
said, are so old. And the question being, are they protected 
today, right? Knowing these potential hazards that exist, is 
that the case?
    Mr. Tonko. And how important is it for EPA to monitor and 
regularly review sites using the latest understanding of 
climate science?
    Mr. Gomez. We would say that it is very important. You 
know, EPA does have--for those sites that are completed, they 
do that review every 5 years, which is a good opportunity, 
then, to revisit that remedy that is in place, to see if it 
continues to be protective, given the information that they 
have today.
    Mr. Tonko. So is it doing enough? Is EPA doing enough in 
accounting for climate risks in its assessments and remedy 
selections today?
    Mr. Gomez. So--right. So what we found is that it was 
incorporating some of this information when it was available, 
and in other cases, when it was not available, people weren't 
doing it. People didn't know where to get it from. People were 
challenged with finding the climate experts, even within the 
same agency, to help them think through those things.
    So part of our recommendations were along those lines, 
right, to ensure that everyone has the information, the 
guidance that they need, so they can make those better 
decisions on the ground.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Gomez. My time is up. I will now 
recognize Mr. McKinley, our subcommittee ranking member, for 5 
minutes to ask questions, please.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I think we all 
have to remember what our goal is here, and that is that we 
want to clean up our sites as expeditiously as possible and not 
put more further impediments in the way with it.
    So if I could turn to Ms. Matthews on--with some questions, 
I--so my first question would be are the provisions in this 
bill that we have talked--are they going to continue the pace 
that the EPA was implementing under President Trump, or are 
they likely to slow down the cleanup process and do less?
    Ms. Matthews. I think that they have some potential to slow 
down the cleanup process and to divert resources to something 
that is not--that isn't part of the cleanup process.
    So what I hear some of my other panelists talk about is 
that things need to happen and that there are impacts from 
climate change. And then--so the sites need to--the response 
actions at those sites need to address that.
    But having those financial assurance provisions is not 
doing that. It is going to put this massive program in place 
that will make--tons of money will be spent on it, and 
resources at EPA will be--will need to monitor it. And not just 
one time, but annually.
    It is a big program. There is a lot of work to be done for 
Superfund.
    Mr. McKinley. OK.
    Ms. Matthews. Let's do the work.
    Mr. McKinley. All right. I think you--and you just touched 
on one thing that Ms. Goodin said, that they don't have 
insurance on the thing. For those of us that are--that come 
from the business world, understand that all of these 
petrochemical companies or all industries that are producing 
these have liability insurance. So she--I think she just 
misrepresented over the insurance provision with it.
    So in--further, in my opening statement, I talked about, at 
the pace we are on, we are talking about--we could be as much 
as 100 years before we clean up existing sites, and then we are 
going to be--as others have said, we are going to be adding 
more to this in the future.
    So my question back to Ms. Matthews again is, how--what 
would you recommend? How can we improve the existing program to 
expedite this cleanup but without adding more bureaucracy, more 
big government? What is your solution to that?
    Ms. Matthews. Like I said in my statement, the Superfund 
program is now very mature. We have 40 years of experience, and 
there are definitely lessons learned where we can start to make 
some progress at streamlining some of the issues.
    The RI/FS, the remedial investigation/feasibility study 
guidance, dates back to the 1990s. Certainly, we know how to do 
things better.
    One of the initiatives that the Superfund Task Force looked 
at under the last administration was adaptive management. 
Adaptive management is something that makes a lot of sense at a 
Superfund site, especially these complex Superfund sites that 
are certainly lagging and remaining on the list for a long 
time. In general, there are opportunities to streamline and to 
make decisions.
    One very successful program in the RCRA corrective action 
area is--it is called RCRA First. It is where parties get 
together, they--all the stakeholders, including the government, 
and discuss what is the end-state vision, how are we going to 
get there, open up lines of communication where decisions are 
being dragged out, elevate the issues. There are 
opportunities----
    Mr. McKinley. OK.
    Ms. Matthews [continuing]. To speed this process up.
    Mr. McKinley. Now, it appears that, instead of prioritizing 
the sites that we have now, that was being done under the Trump 
administration, this legislation, obviously, intends to add 
more sites to Superfund list. It could possibly--not--but 
possibly could be a problem in the future.
    So should we be focusing on the problems we now have 
instead of the hypotheticals?
    Is this another example of making perfect the enemy of 
good?
    Ms. Matthews. I think it is diverting the resources that we 
have, and that we need to make progress.
    So, to be focusing on operating facilities that are already 
subject to pervasive regulation and that are addressing these 
issues, to layer that with another--with a financial assurance 
layer is not necessary.
    Mr. McKinley. OK, in the just few seconds I have left, you 
heard the testimony from the other people and their positions. 
Is there something you want to clarify, or correct their 
statements?
    Ms. Matthews. Well, I guess, just that financial assurance 
isn't necessary for these companies to operate responsibly. 
They are operating responsibly under their--this current 
regulatory regime.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, so I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Pallone, full committee chair.
    Representative Pallone, Chairman Pallone, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. I am now 
referencing an article that was in The Hill that says ``Trump 
EPA has largest backlog of toxic waste cleanups in 15 years.'' 
And just to quote some of it, it says, ``In 2019, the EPA did 
not have funding to begin work on 34 Superfund sites, a number 
more than 50 percent above the highest figures from the Obama 
administration. ... The agency often promotes any closure of 
Superfund sites with press releases, but the figures released 
on Dec. 26 ... show a growing number of projects as the Trump 
administration has repeatedly tried to cut the budget of the 
EPA. ... `Under President Trump, EPA is deleting Superfund 
sites from the National Priorities List at the fastest pace in 
more than a decade.''' This was Wheeler, the Administrator, 
said in a statement.
    I mean, the bottom line is they are deleting sites that 
have not been cleaned up. And this is exactly what happened in 
New Jersey with the Ramapo, which is an Indian Tribe, when Lisa 
Jackson was the Administrator of the EPA under the Obama--she 
went in and found that, you know, a lot--a number of these 
sites had been deleted in the past and were not actually 
cleaned up.
    And so, you know, I understand Mr. McKinley said the goal 
is to clean up sites as expeditiously as possible, but not to 
delist them prematurely. It doesn't help if the site is taken 
off the list and it is not cleaned up. And this was an 
environmental justice community, in particular, with the Ramapo 
Indians in North Jersey, near the New York border. And we went 
in with Lisa Jackson--and Senator Lautenberg was alive at the 
time, he was the author of the Superfund program and the tax, 
initially--and found out that Ford Motor Company hadn't done 
anything, and it was just taken off, you know, by a previous 
administration.
    So this idea that, by delisting, that somehow you are 
accomplishing something is not the case. And basically, under 
the Trump EPA, they had a bigger backlog than ever before. And 
they weren't funding these, because they didn't have the money 
and they didn't put it in the budget under general revenue. So 
that is why we need the tax. And let's not delist these sites 
that need to be cleaned up.
    But anyway, I just wanted to say--I know I don't have a lot 
of time yet--I am just trying to get some general goals here 
for legislation, or for action by the committee. And, 
basically, the general goals I would like to see are that 
polluters should pay for Superfund cleanups, that climate 
change is making the cleanups more pressing, and that 
prevention is better than cleanup whenever possible.
    So let me see if I can quickly go through the three people. 
Let me start with Ms. Goodin.
    Do you agree that polluters should pay for Superfund 
cleanups, yes or no?
    Ms. Goodin. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Pallone. And do you agree that cleanups are becoming 
even more imperative because of climate change, yes or no?
    Ms. Goodin. Yes.
    Mr. Pallone. And do you agree that preventing releases is 
better than cleaning them up after they occur?
    Ms. Goodin. Yes, of course.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. And then, Ms. Dinn, turning to you 
with the same three questions, do you agree that polluters 
should pay for Superfund cleanups, yes or no?
    Ms. Dinn. Yes.
    Mr. Pallone. And do you agree that cleanups are becoming 
even more imperative because of climate change?
    Ms. Dinn. Yes.
    Mr. Pallone. And do you agree that preventing releases is 
better than cleaning up--cleaning them up after they occur?
    Ms. Dinn. Yes.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. And then finally, let me turn to 
Ms. Matthews. I know you represent responsible parties that are 
paying for cleanups under the Superfund program, just as the 
polluter pays principle holds. Is it safe to say that you and 
the companies you represent agree that polluters should pay for 
cleanups, yes or no?
    Ms. Matthews. At their sites, yes.
    Mr. Pallone. And do you agree that climate change is 
impacting existing Superfund sites?
    Ms. Matthews. Yes.
    Mr. Pallone. OK. I noticed that your testimony offered 
several suggestions for preventing the creation of new 
Superfund sites. I just wanted to ask the same question again. 
Do you agree that preventing releases is better than cleaning 
them up after----
    Ms. Matthews. Yes.
    Mr. Pallone [continuing]. They occur?
    Ms. Matthews. Yes.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. And I--you know, again, I am only 
saying this because I think there are some general principles 
that, hopefully, we can agree on. I am not saying that just 
because they, the three speakers, said they do, that that means 
that everybody on the committee, on a bipartisan basis, agrees 
on these principles.
    But I just--you know, again, I want to talk about this 
Superfund tax. Again, I don't want to see general revenue used, 
because I do think that it is harder to get that in the budget 
every year. And that is why the backlog continues. And I just 
think reinstating the taxes is the most important thing we can 
do to speed up the cleanup of sites and better protect 
environmental justice communities, in particular.
    So, you know, I just--if anyone on the committee is 
interested in cosponsoring the Superfund bill, I would 
appreciate it. And I know--I think we do have some Republicans, 
I am not sure, but I just wanted to mention that again, Mr. 
Tonko. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the ranking member of the whole committee, 
Representative Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
    Representative Rodgers, please.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to everyone.
    I know there is a lot to digest from this hearing. I am 
most concerned about creating requirements that are going to 
distract attention and resources from EPA or responsible 
parties cleaning up Superfund pollution, particularly after the 
Superfund cleanup process that was accelerated during the Trump 
EPA. Eighty-two sites delisted, including the North Side 
Landfill in Spokane.
    Ms. Matthews, you caught my attention when you mentioned 
that section 631 requires facilities to purchase insurance to 
protect them from the impacts of climate change and weather, 
but that these impacts go way beyond Superfund. I would like to 
explore that a little bit more. I represent an area that has 
been devastated by wildfires, an event associated with climate 
change. How extensive would the requirement be for people in my 
area to potentially need to buy insurance because they are ``at 
risk''?
    Ms. Matthews. As written, section 631, it does not have 
limits on the type or the size of facilities that would be 
required to provide financial assurance. That would be subject 
to EPA's discretion. And also, the nature of the risk 
identified by section 631 is not limited to the release or 
threatened release of hazardous substances, but rather applies 
to risk associated with impacts of climate change and extreme 
weather on facilities.
    Accordingly, EPA, when they would be developing their 
rules, would have wide latitude in determining what facilities 
would be subject to the requirement and the scope and the 
nature of the requirement.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Does section 631 affirmatively exclude anyone 
who fails in--falls into a class?
    Ms. Matthews. No.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Does section 631 explicitly authorize EPA to 
provide waivers for anyone in the class?
    Ms. Matthews. No.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Are these types of policies expensive?
    Ms. Matthews. Yes----
    Mrs. Rodgers. Does--OK. Does section 31 provide any way to 
defray the cost of these products, based on income level?
    Ms. Matthews. No.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    Mr. Gomez, many of the Republican Members and I support the 
use of opportunity zones to economically jumpstart communities 
that need this help. In fact, a number of census-tract-
designated opportunity zones have been identified in my 
district. Since June 1st, 2018, EPA Brownfields funding of just 
under 29 million in census tract opportunity zones has led to 
accomplishments at 1,255 properties, which have leveraged over 
400 million in additional funding and created 1,500 jobs.
    Has GAO done work in this space to examine the benefit of 
combining these economic and environmental policies?
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you for that question, and that is a good 
question. We have not done work in that area, and we would be 
happy to----
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you. Thank you. Can we work 
together to explore these kind of solutions to increase 
opportunities in communities?
    I think you were about ready to say that.
    Mr. Gomez. Yes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK, super, thank you.
    At the EPA budget hearing 2 weeks ago, I mentioned the City 
of Seattle has been repeatedly exceeding its Clean Water Act-
approved limits for dumping sewage into Puget Sound. The State 
of Washington directly and scientifically confirmed that this 
continued dumping of sewage is damaging the salmon population. 
In fact, Puget Sound chinook and Puget Sound steelhead, their 
populations are in crisis. NOAA has identified that--these 
specific salmon in Puget Sound as the highest priority to save 
the orcas.
    Governor Inslee and the Washington Department of Ecology 
recently proposed a general pollution permit that would allow 
58 sewage treatment plants in King County to continue the 
illegal dumping of sewage in Puget Sound. EPA Administrator 
Regan committed to me to take action to keep the city within 
its permitted discharge limits.
    Ms. Goodin, because exceeding a permitted discharge level 
of pollutants can lead to an additional Superfund designation, 
will Earthjustice also commit to demanding that the city, the 
State, and the EPA ensure that the City of Seattle comply with 
this--these discharge levels?
    Ms. Goodin. Representative Rodgers, we take a number of 
actions to try and clean up the waters in and around Puget 
Sound and throughout Washington to protect salmon and 
steelhead, as I believe you are aware.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Have you looked specifically at these 
discharge permits, and--they are under review right now.
    Ms. Goodin. I personally have not, and I would have to ask 
to see whether anyone in my entire organization has.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you, everyone. With that I yield 
back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Representative 
DeGette, who also serves as chair of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations.
    Representative DeGette?
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I think it is 
really important, as we have these discussions, that we not 
conflate all of our different environmental remediation laws.
    Brownfields are something we all can agree on in this 
committee should be cleaned up. And in fact, I have been 
working on brownfields legislation ever since I was in the 
Colorado legislature in the 1990s. But what we are talking 
about today--and so we are not talking about opportunity zones 
with brownfields cleanup. We are talking about the most 
intransigent environmental sites that we have and the most 
complicated to clean up, and that is Superfund sites.
    And so I want to ask our witnesses about some of these 
Superfund sites. We have some right in my congressional 
district in Denver. And I want to talk about why it is 
important that we look at climate change as we look at 
prioritizing these sites.
    Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are 
correct, it has been difficult for us to get all of these 
Superfund sites cleaned up. And I think all of us agree, 
including, apparently, the Republicans' witness, that polluters 
should have to pay to clean up the sites. But, unfortunately, 
we just have not had the financial wherewithal to do it, and we 
need to expedite it because of climate change.
    So, Mr. Gomez, I want to ask you a couple of questions 
about the GAO study. Now, as I understand it, under the Obama 
administration, the Obama administration decided that one of 
the criteria that should be used in cleaning up these sites is 
climate. Is that correct?
    Mr. Gomez. Yes, that is correct.
    Ms. DeGette. And then, as I understand it, under the Trump 
administration, the EPA was instructed not to take into account 
climate impacts when prioritizing Superfund sites to clean up. 
Is that also correct?
    Mr. Gomez. So it was really unclear to regional staff, 
because there was----
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Go ahead.
    Mr. Gomez. Yes, it was unclear to regional staff, who are 
the ones who carry out the work, what the Agency's goals and 
objectives were, because it was not part of the strategic plan. 
So some field offices did move forward and try to get 
information. Others didn't know where to get it or whether that 
was the direction or not. So it was unclear to some people.
    Ms. DeGette. And so that led to an inconsistent 
prioritization of climate as a factor in prioritizing sites. 
Would that----
    Mr. Gomez. Yes.
    Ms. DeGette [continuing]. Be fair to say?
    Mr. Gomez. Yes, that is correct. And we had a 
recommendation along those lines, to make sure to align all of 
the goals and objectives in the Agency, so people are clear 
about what they are supposed to do and how to do it.
    Ms. DeGette. Now, why is it important to include climate 
change as a factor in deciding which sites to prioritize?
    Mr. Gomez. Well, certainly, I mean, the intent of our job 
was to look at these climate change effects, right? And these 
are existing hazards, right? These are existing risks----
    Ms. DeGette. Right.
    Mr. Gomez [continuing]. Whether it is flooding or fire. And 
really, it was a screening, right, screening mechanism to 
identify those sites where those risks are present and where 
perhaps it is already happening. If a site is being flooded and 
there's concerns about the remedy that is in place, or the 
contaminants, and so what should EPA be doing to ensure, again, 
that that is protective to human health and----
    Ms. DeGette. And, Ms. Dinn, I would like to ask you the 
same question. Is--when we are deciding which sites to 
prioritize, why is it important to include, as a factor for 
prioritization, the issue of climate change?
    Ms. Dinn. Well, I think the San Jacinto River Waste Pits is 
an example of why. It is in the San Jacinto River, there was a 
protective cap in place. There was a known breach in the cap. 
And then, when Hurricane Harvey hit, it was further damaged, 
and dioxin was released into the San Jacinto River, which is an 
extreme contaminant that causes cancer. And that is a showing 
not only of why we need to continue to reevaluate solutions 
that are in place, in light of climate change. Now there is an 
initiative at that site to remove all of the contaminants, 
because the cap cannot protect in that vulnerable situation 
that that site is in.
    And then we need to continue to look at sites that are 
threatened by this, because the release of these toxins into 
flood waters or areas where it may contaminate drinking water 
or other surface waters that are used for agricultural purposes 
is a real threat to these communities that live nearby.
    Ms. DeGette. Thanks. And Ms. Goodin, just quickly, do we 
have sites similar to this site Ms. Dinn just explained 
throughout the United States that are more vulnerable because 
of climate issues?
    Ms. Goodin. I believe we do, yes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
    Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome. The gentlelady yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
    Representative Johnson, you have 5 minutes for questioning.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I 
have grown increasingly concerned that we have now had at least 
five hearings on different sections of the massive CLEAN Future 
Act. And, although I wish it weren't the truth, the prevailing 
sentiment of my Democrat colleagues seems to be, let's just 
pass this thing and see what happens.
    From rushed renewable mandates that could jeopardize grid 
reliability and national security to the plight of oil and gas 
workers who would lose their jobs with no real alternatives, I 
am observing the same blase attitude from some of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle as we take a closer look at the 
Superfund provisions in the bill.
    There is one thing that we all agree on, though: that these 
sites need to be cleaned up as soon as possible. But when we 
examine more closely some of these provisions intended to 
improve the Superfund program, they are filled with vague, top-
down mandates, contradictory requirements, and new rules that 
could actually delay cleanups and further push back productive 
redevelopment of these sites.
    While the Superfund program isn't perfect, it has produced 
some successes, including a few in my eastern and southeastern 
Ohio district, a part of America that has a rich legacy of 
heavy industry. Repurposing and redeveloping these sites has 
resulted in new businesses, community revitalization, and 
hundreds of much-needed jobs in my region of the country. This 
is why it is vital that we get this right and make sure these 
sites are cleaned up quickly but also responsibly.
    So, Ms. Matthews, regarding the point you made about 
section 636 and how it would alter prioritization of sites for 
cleanup, do you believe section 636 could create a conflict 
between its vague new climate change considerations and more 
pressing local human health and environmental risks?
    Ms. Matthews. I think there is definitely a potential for 
that. There may be sites that are vulnerable to climate change, 
but they are sites that are--you will have relatively stable 
conditions, maybe they are a groundwater site that--where, if 
it was a flooding impact, different concerns.
    And then you may have another site that is not vulnerable 
to climate change that doesn't have human exposure under 
control yet. And in that case, what are you balancing, this 
speculative risk at a stable site versus a condition that needs 
to be addressed to get, for example, human exposure under 
control?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, and you actually answered, I think, my 
second question. I wanted you to provide a practical example of 
how the risk to public health and the environment may pose a 
greater risk than sites with this new climate risk designation, 
and I think you just did that.
    So if there is a conflict, is it clear in the legislation 
which side is meant to prevail?
    Ms. Matthews. Well, for section 636, certainly, the 
emphasis would be about the climate, those sites that had the 
climate impact, that those would come first in line.
    Mr. Johnson. And that is going to--I believe that is going 
to be detrimental to public health and environmental concerns.
    Ms. Matthews, continuing with you, your testimony states 
that top-down, forced timelines lead to unscientific decisions 
that are not in the best interest of a community and that 
better outcomes can--and I quote--``be achieved by reforms to 
the program using lessons learned from the 40-year experience 
with the Superfund program.'' Can you expand on this statement?
    What lessons are you specifically talking about?
    Ms. Matthews. I think, at this point, we understand much 
better than we did 40 years ago that if you have, for example, 
a certain type of groundwater contamination in a certain 
hydrogeologic structure, that there are remedies that are going 
to work and remedies that aren't. There are--so there is just 
scientific understandings that we have developed over all these 
years.
    We also are very familiar with the process as PRPs, as 
regulators. We know how to go about this. And all of that can 
be streamlined, because we are all on the same page there.
    Mr. Johnson. OK, all right. Well, thank you, Ms. Matthews.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Representative 
Schakowsky, who also serves as our subcommittee chair for 
Commerce and Consumer Protection.
    Representative Schakowsky, you have 5 minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Schakowsky. There we go. I have a question--actually, a 
question or two--for Ms. Dinn.
    Can you speak briefly to the economic impact that Superfund 
sites have on the communities that surround them?
    Ms. Dinn. Well, for example, the San Jacinto River Waste 
Pits, which I mentioned earlier, is directly in the San Jacinto 
River. And so continued threats of contamination from that 
Superfund site could impact industrial interests in the area 
that rely on water. It impacts recreational interests. It 
impacts fishing of the area because the fish can be 
contaminated, and in fact the fish cannot be eaten in that 
area. For a long time that has been posted.
    And so there are definite impacts if there is contamination 
like dioxin in rivers. And that same type of risk is posed by 
these sites where you would have risk of health impacts 
associated with contaminants that pose health impacts like 
cancer.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Let me ask another question. So job 
creation and workforce development are both essential 
components of President Biden's American Jobs Act. So I wanted 
to ask you, how might workforce development training help some 
of the communities that you represent?
    And do you think the Federal Government should invest in 
training workers from impacted communities to carry out the 
cleanup?
    Ms. Dinn. I think there is a really great opportunity here 
to engage impacted community members in the cleanup response by 
training them and providing them a path to good-paying jobs in 
the industry around cleanups and remediation.
    There are a number of successful programs that I am aware 
of in the brownfields area, and there is not a reason why those 
similar programs couldn't be replicated in a Superfund site. 
There might be some additional challenges associated with it, 
but the remediation processes are still somewhat similar, and 
that would be a good way to engage the community around being 
part of the solution.
    Ms. Schakowsky. All right, thank you.
    So Ms. Goodin, the conversation--a lot of conversation 
now--about this financial insurance requirement--and I was 
really impressed when you first gave a list of the ways that 
insurance is required and various ways that the--where the 
community could be harmed. And actually, you were accused of 
misrepresenting the use of these financial insurance 
requirements.
    And it seems to me obvious--we are talking about Superfund 
sites--that there ought to be insurance. I wonder if you could 
talk a little bit more about that. It seemed kind of like a no-
brainer to me.
    Ms. Goodin. Yes, Representative, it does seem kind of like 
a no-brainer to me too. And just to respond to the earlier 
suggestion that I misspoke, none of these sites--no site in the 
country--has Superfund insurance. Now, some sites might have 
other kinds of insurance to protect against other risks, but we 
don't require even the most risky sites in the country to carry 
any insurance specifically to protect against the risk that 
they could create the next Superfund site and that they could 
abandon that site to the public to clean up. So I see that as a 
huge problem.
    And I mean, again, to put it in more common terms, I have 
homeowner's insurance. That doesn't mean I can avoid carrying 
car insurance. We are talking about different kinds of 
insurance, and none of these facilities have Superfund 
insurance.
    Ms. Schakowsky. So has this ever been suggested, or 
debated, and shot down?
    Ms. Goodin. Well, yes, it has. EPA did a substantial amount 
of work to develop draft Superfund insurance requirements for 
several industries. And then, under the last administration, 
they decided they had the discretion not to require any 
insurance, despite the risks that EPA had identified.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Well, just in closing, let me just say I 
think that this is something that we ought to give some serious 
consideration to. Otherwise, the taxpayers and the communities 
are left hanging to--and pick up the bill.
    So I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome. The gentlelady yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, 
Representative Carter.
    Welcome, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of the 
witnesses for being here. This is certainly important, and I 
want to say it is exceptionally important in my district.
    I have, in my district, which includes the entire coast of 
Georgia, over 100 miles of pristine coastline. I have got three 
Superfund sites, and two of them have been on the NPL list for 
over 20 years. And they are both on the water, by the way. Both 
of them, you know, are in danger of being impacted by flooding. 
So it is very concerning to me.
    And I think I want to start with you, Ms. Matthews, and ask 
you. Everyone here wants to see quicker and complete cleanups 
of Superfund sites. I have been very concerned about community 
input and about the lack of community input in these projects, 
and particularly in my district. And I would like to get your 
thoughts on how we can better build out that relationship.
    Is there anything in this legislation, Ms. Matthews, or in 
the current statute, that would require the potential 
responsible party and the overseeing Federal agency to work 
with and adhere to community interest in the properties?
    Ms. Matthews. There are public participation agreements--
sorry, requirements--in the Superfund process. So, for example, 
when the EPA issues a proposed plan, there is a minimum 30-day 
public comment period. They hold a public meeting. And then, 
when they issue the record of decision, which decides the--what 
is the ultimate response action, they do respond to those 
comments. But they are not required to take them.
    Mr. Carter. Well, that was my question, essentially. And my 
followup question is that, outside of the public comment 
period, is there any kind of requirement to factor in the 
community's input, and--as far as the long-term use of the 
property goes?
    This is a real problem that I have had many calls in my 
office about and many conversations with county commissioners, 
with city council people, with planners in these districts 
where these Superfund sites are located, about the long-term 
use of it. They feel like it is being dictated to them, what 
they can and what they cannot do and what the project cleanup 
is going to be like.
    Ms. Matthews. The cleanup process is very regimented, and 
it is, you know, geared toward an end goal.
    And I agree with you that it makes sense to look at those 
end-state visions up front and tailor the cleanups accordingly.
    Mr. Carter. You know, I mentioned that two--these two sites 
that are in the NPL, they have been in there for over 20 years. 
And it is--you know, it is hard to imagine how it can take 20 
years for something. And they are still in the remediation 
process.
    I mean, it is going to be a lot longer, and it is just hard 
to understand how it can take this long, and it is hard to 
understand, when EPA comes in and they are going to--and they 
said, ``We are going to do this,'' and the community is saying, 
``Well, you know, that would be a great place for a school, but 
if they are not going to clean it up better than that, we can't 
put a school there.'' Public input has got to be paramount in 
some of these cleanup sites. And I certainly hope that we will 
start addressing this.
    I wanted to ask you specifically about the deadlines that 
are set in section 363. It says the 10-year deadline for the 
identification and the remediation of sites that are vulnerable 
to climate change. And as I said, I have got two sites that are 
on the NPL in my district that are right by the water, right on 
the marsh. And they are subject to flooding, and they have been 
in the cleanup process, as I mentioned, over 20 years.
    How would this provision, if at all, how would section 
636--how would it address those existing properties?
    Ms. Matthews. The section is laudable, it is just not very 
practical to think that these sites can all be cleaned up in 10 
years. As you said, your sites are sitting there for 20 years. 
And while that would be great, it is unrealistic.
    The way that this would impact your sites, I am not quite 
sure. The way I read the language, it is unclear if it applies 
to all sites that are being run by--so, like, Federal lead 
sites, as opposed to Federal facility sites, for example, DoD 
or DOE sites. So I think that is a clarification that needs to 
be made, should this section go forward.
    Mr. Carter. And don't you think there is a danger that, if 
we put a time limit like a 10-year--and look, I am advocating--
I am frustrated, obviously, that it has taken 20 years on these 
2 sites and we are still in the remediation process. But if we 
do put a 10-year limit on it, I am worried that it is not going 
to get cleaned up like it needs to get cleaned up.
    Ms. Matthews. Certainly, there are conditions associated 
with Superfund sites that will make that--meeting a timeline 
impossible.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I yield 
back.
    Thank you, Ms. Matthews.
    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome, you are welcome. The gentleman 
yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland.
    Representative Sarbanes, a staunch defender of the 
Chesapeake Bay, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very 
much. I appreciate you holding the hearing. I also want to 
thank Chairman Pallone for his leadership. I know that the 
Superfund program has been a priority of his for many, many 
years. And I certainly appreciate him continuing to push on 
this very important issue.
    I want to focus today, as some others have done--but I 
don't think we can overemphasize this--on the issue of 
environmental justice and how it relates to the contaminated 
properties that we are discussing today. As we know, there's an 
estimated 73 million people who live within 3 miles of a 
Superfund site. That is a pretty startling statistic. These 
communities are disproportionately communities of color and 
low-income communities, and they are bearing the brunt of our 
environmental pollution, oftentimes.
    To add to this, we are experiencing more intense and 
frequent extreme weather events that can and have led to the 
release of contaminants like lead and arsenic into neighboring 
communities, environmental justice communities.
    In my State, my home State of Maryland, we have several 
Superfund sites, and we are also experiencing floods and sea 
level rise, which climate change is exacerbating. So, if we are 
going to protect our residents, we need not only to clean these 
sites up, but we have also got to build resiliency against the 
known risks of climate change.
    I think it is important that we go a step further, though. 
If we are really going to build back better in an equitable 
way--and I know that the President is committed to that--we 
need to not only address these contamination issues but invest 
in these environmental justice communities and provide economic 
opportunity for them.
    In other words, it is not just about doing the right thing 
to make sure that these communities are not disproportionately 
impacted by these environmental contaminants, but it is looking 
at what are the economic opportunities that can be afforded as 
well. That is why I am pleased to see section 234 in the CLEAN 
Future Act, because it would not only help to remediate these 
properties but use it as an opportunity to develop clean energy 
projects and to create jobs.
    Ms. Dinn and Ms. Goodin, if you would like to provide your 
perspective on this, I would appreciate it. Can you share how 
remediating these sites will not only help from a public health 
perspective but also can help in terms of providing an 
opportunity to build a cleaner future for neighboring 
communities and offer some of these economic opportunities?
    Thank you. Ms. Dinn?
    Ms. Dinn. Well, as I addressed to the question raised by 
Representative Schakowsky, there would be, you know, a great 
benefit to the communities, as far as helping stimulate their 
economic progress around these sites through providing job 
training or redevelopment opportunities for these Superfund 
sites once they are fully remediated. I think that those are 
good options. Again, it includes the community in the solution, 
and it makes them invested in a positive outcome here. So those 
efforts are appreciated.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Ms. Goodin?
    Ms. Goodin. Yes, I would absolutely agree. I think there is 
tremendous opportunity, both in the actual cleanup of these 
sites to involve the community and incorporate job training and 
make sure that they are engaged in cleaning up as thoroughly as 
possible. And then, of course, once they are cleaned up, 
there's far more possibilities for redevelopment in that area.
    Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate that. I think where we are 
trying to go with this is a concept of a holistic approach to 
these cleanups that doesn't just look at it as a kind of 
cleanup project in a narrow context but recognizes that it 
presents a tremendous opportunity to achieve a lot of different 
goals simultaneously.
    And I think the Biden administration is bringing that 
perspective. I think it will take advantage of some of these 
provisions in the CLEAN Future Act that we are discussing here 
today. And I know we are certainly committed to it in our 
committee. So thank you for your testimony.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from the State of Utah.
    Representative Curtis, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like many of you, my 
district has a story about these Superfunds. It is, I think, 
particularly relevant. I would like to share it with you, if 
you don't mind. We have a long history of uranium mining and 
processing in my district. And it won't surprise any of you 
that, as a result, we have higher cancer rates, a number of 
abandoned mines that need to be cleaned up.
    One of our Superfunds is the Monticello radioactivity 
contaminated property site, where we have 424 residential and 
commercial properties that were cleaned up. Now, to put that in 
perspective, there is only 2,604 residents of this town, so 1 
in 5 of their buildings had to be dealt with. Listen to this: 
Tailings were used for building materials. We took the tailings 
out and used them for driveways, for backfill, for basements, 
mixed it into concrete. And you can imagine the results of 
this.
    I met with a businessman in this town, and he pulled out a 
map from underneath his desk, laid it out on the table, a very 
mature man, got a little tear in his eye, and started pointing 
to his friends who had contracted cancer. This one, and this 
one, and this one, and this one. It just broke your heart. And 
of course, it won't surprise you, the frustration in my office 
in our inability to get them cancer screening in that town, so 
that they at least can know who is dealing with this problem.
    Well, of course, since we did this, we have learned so much 
about the risks and the things like that. And this cleanup here 
in this town is a perfect example of how the Superfund program 
was designed to help Americans cleaning the environment in a 
way that immediately has an impact and is helpful. And I would 
like to address Ms. Matthews with a question or two.
    Ms. Matthews, the CLEAN Future Act would expand the 
Superfund program to focus on climate impacts more greatly. We 
have heard that a lot today. I just can't express how strongly 
I support addressing the impacts of climate change. As a matter 
of fact, I think that is one of the things that we overlook, 
and not just in this committee but in many places. But I am 
questioning and wondering if the Superfund program is the right 
tool to do that.
    I am worried that this legislation would hurt our ability 
to clean up areas that I have just described that are health 
risks today by focusing on some of the ambiguous goals related 
to potential climate impacts. I am curious, your opinion of 
that, Ms. Matthews.
    Ms. Matthews. Thank you. Section 631, there has been a lot 
of talk about how important it is to prioritize the climate 
change impacts at Superfund sites. But section 631 doesn't do 
that. It provides a fiscal program for operating sites to not 
become Superfund sites.
    But as I said in my testimony, because there--the existing 
regulatory framework prevents that and provides incentive to 
prevent that, we don't need this extra program. And it is--and 
those insurance requirements that these facilities have, these 
insurance policies and the things--they are the Superfund 
assurance, or the Superfund insurance that Ms. Goodin spoke of. 
They are preventing--they are providing funding should anything 
happen. If you have that rusty tank and there was a rupture, 
you have been insured, it will be cleaned up.
    The site you talk about is what I was talking about from 
the--existed because of the lack of environmental regulation 
decades and hundreds of years ago. I have a site where the 
contamination is from the turn of the--not this century--the 
last century. So we are talking about addressing those sites. 
Not--we shouldn't be talking about adding the fiscal program on 
top of the need to do that.
    Mr. Curtis. OK, and I don't want to put words in your 
mouth, but it sounds like--that you would agree with me that 
the proposed revisions to the Superfund may actually undermine 
efforts like--that were made in this town, and we need to be 
super careful with them.
    Ms. Matthews. I think it is important to focus our 
resources where we are going to get the most bang for our buck. 
And, especially where there are limited resources, to have a 
program that is going to be very expensive is not going to 
serve us in getting these sites, including sites subject to 
climate change, off of the list and cleaned up.
    Mr. Curtis. All right, Mr. Chairman, I have used my time. 
Thank you very much. I yield my time.
    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome. The gentleman yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, 
Representative Clarke, who is our most recent former vice chair 
of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    So, Representative Clarke, voice of Brooklyn, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. I thank the chairman, Mr. Tonko, and our 
ranking member, Mr. McKinley, for convening on our Nation's 
Superfund crisis. And let me also thank our witnesses for your 
testimony.
    We know the impacts of climate change are already here, and 
they are being felt most profoundly by our underserved and 
disadvantaged communities. I believe that it is our Federal 
Government's duty to tackle climate change and protect our 
communities. And that is why I recently introduced the FEMA 
Climate Change Preparedness Act, which would ensure that FEMA 
and our entire emergency management community are equipped to 
prepare for and respond to the impacts of climate change. Our 
committee's legislation and the proposals that we are 
discussing today fall under the same exact premise: 
safeguarding our communities from the impacts of climate 
change.
    Right next to my district in Brooklyn is a 1.8-mile-long 
former industrial waterway called the Gowanus Canal, which also 
happens to be one of the most polluted Superfund sites in the 
Nation. It contains more than a dozen individual contaminants, 
and cleanup costs are estimated to be over $1 billion--that is 
billion, not million.
    Eight years ago, during Superstorm Sandy, the Gowanus Canal 
flooded, sending contaminated water into the streets and 
people's homes.
    Mr. Gomez, my question is for you. What are some of the 
major risks that climate change might pose for a site like 
this?
    And what sorts of risks or hazards might the impact be on 
nearby communities?
    Mr. Gomez. Sure. Thank you for that question, 
Representative Clarke.
    So, obviously, as you noted, this is a site that has a lot 
of contaminants. And during Superstorm Sandy it was flooded, 
dispersing those contaminants in the neighborhood.
    You have also heard the case from some of us already, 
Hurricane Harvey in Houston affecting the San Jacinto River 
waste pit site. So, yes, these are very real occurrences that 
do have an impact on the community.
    And you know, really, the focus is on each site, right? 
Because each site is different. Each site may have particular 
contaminants. Each site may just be containing the waste, which 
may be at risk if it is flooded or if there is a wildfire 
nearby. So there are real risks here that are associated, and 
our work was meant to be, again, a screening to let EPA and 
others know, hey, here are sites that may be affected, right, 
and we should pay attention to them.
    Ms. Clarke. And how would our committee's legislation 
address these types of risks at Superfund sites across the 
Nation?
    Mr. Gomez. So, I mean, there are a variety of provisions 
that have been discussed, and one was focusing on Federal 
facilities, and making sure that those Federal facilities are 
also addressed to see if they are affected by climate change.
    In our study, we didn't look at Federal facilities. We only 
looked at non-Federal facilities. So those Federal facilities, 
you know, those facilities that are owned by DoD, DOE, those 
are the ones that perhaps require a look to see if those are at 
risk, as well, from the impacts of climate change.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well. And, of course, climate change isn't 
only a threat to existing Superfund sites. It also has very 
real potential to create new Superfund contamination by 
damaging or disrupting a wide variety of facilities. Consider 
the impacts of extreme weather and sea level rise that we have 
seen already seen on critical infrastructure and the fact that 
climate change is making storms, wildfires, floods, and other 
natural disasters more common and intense.
    Ms. Goodin, our CLEAN Future Act would require that certain 
classes of facilities maintain evidence of financial assurance 
consistent with the risks posed by climate change. How might 
this help to prevent new Superfund sites from being created in 
and around my district due to the effects of climate change, 
such as the next Superstorm Sandy?
    Ms. Goodin. Well, Representative, I think one of the 
important things that section 631 does is direct that the 
amount of financial assurance be tied to the use of best 
practices. And so I think where, you know, where an insurance 
requirement comes with the requirement to take care to put 
preventative measures in place, then I think that can really 
prevent the next release, and the next release due to climate.
    As the chairman mentioned, an ounce of prevention is 
certainly worth a pound of cure here.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well. Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I 
thank our witnesses once again.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
    Representative Palmer, you have 5 minutes to question. 
Welcome.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Matthews, in your testimony you state that, while 
contamination is still being identified, there are--a few sites 
are being created today by today's industrial operations. Can 
you speak more to how the businesses are operating in an 
environmentally responsible manner?
    And more importantly, do they need the CLEAN Future Act to 
pass for them to take responsible steps to protect the 
environment?
    Ms. Matthews. They do not. The industry is subject to a 
very pervasive and wide network of environmental regulations, 
so their tanks are monitored or regulated. Their air emissions, 
their water emissions--if there was a spill, what they have to 
do if there is a spill. It is from--if they generate hazardous 
waste, what happens to the hazardous waste, how it is handled 
on site, how it--where it goes, how it is handled while it is 
transported.
    What happens is that all of the waste and the emissions 
that a facility creates are already subject to regulation. And 
when EPA went back and looked at the potential 108(b) 
regulations for the hard rock mining, electric power, petroleum 
and coal, and chemical manufacturing industries, what they 
found is that, when they looked at sites or facilities after 
1980, there weren't large numbers of Superfund sites being 
created.
    Mr. Palmer. I thought that might be the case. I--part of 
running a think tank, I worked for two international 
engineering companies, one of which was focused on 
environmental systems. And there is an enormous amount that is 
invested into protecting the environment by industrial 
companies. And the engineering company that I worked for--
actually, two of them, but one in particular--designed those 
systems.
    I want to ask you, you mentioned that the financial 
responsibility policies called for section 631 could have a 
very burdensome annual economic requirement. What do you mean 
when you say the cost would be staggeringly high?
    Ms. Matthews. When----
    Mr. Palmer. And I have a followup to that, if you can be 
brief.
    Ms. Matthews. I will. When EPA looked at the 108(b) hard 
rock mining, and they were considering it, they estimated for 
just the hard rock mining sector that the annual financial 
assurance requirement would be 111 million to 171 million 
dollars annually and that over 34 years that they would need to 
assure $7.1 billion. They come at--this is a real cost. I have 
a client who spends over $1 million a year for one Superfund 
site, just to financially assure.
    Mr. Palmer. If you also----
    Ms. Matthews. And that money goes to cleanup.
    Mr. Palmer. You also mentioned that these changes could 
lead facilities to move operations elsewhere. Do you mean 
overseas, or do you mean to other parts of the country?
    Ms. Matthews. You know, these are businesses. They are 
trying to make money. So if you have this large cost that is 
associated with simply your location, if that could be moved 
somewhere else, that would have to be a factor in your business 
decision.
    Mr. Palmer. So if we are talking about a mining operation, 
we have already driven--pretty much driven--our rare earth 
metals mining out of the country. We have driven the refinery--
refinement of those metals for production, for the critical 
microchips and other things that we need. We can't even--we 
couldn't even have this Webex hearing using our laptops and 
other communications devices without rare earth metals.
    So, if we drive those operations offshore--which they 
pretty much are--we get 100 percent of our rare earth metals 
offshore, 80 percent of them come from China. Wouldn't you 
agree that that impacts our national security?
    Ms. Matthews. Well, I am certainly no expert on that, but 
that does sound reasonable to me.
    Mr. Palmer. It also impacts our economy and the ability to 
provide jobs for a lot of people who are suffering economic 
injustice and energy injustice and they don't have access to 
these good-paying jobs. Would you agree that that also occurs 
when we impose these staggeringly high costs on these companies 
that----
    Ms. Matthews. Yes.
    Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Are not able to provide jobs?
    Ms. Matthews. Yes, I agree----
    Mr. Palmer. I thank you for your testimony, and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the Representative from California, the gentleman 
from California, Representative Peters.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes. And thank you for your 
input on the subcommittee routinely. You are recognized----
    Mr. Peters. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And it reminds 
me that I was first--when I was first a lawyer I worked on 
Superfund cleanups in the Midwest. And so this law has come a 
long way, and it has made a big impact through the concept of 
making the polluter pay, which I think has given incentives to 
companies to really mind their business better than they did 
before. I think we should apply that principle, by the way, as 
an aside, to other environmental challenges, like putting a 
price on carbon to address climate change.
    I note also that, with respect to climate change, the 
threat of wildfires is real and growing in California and in my 
district. Ordinary homeowners are working to adapt to the 
threat and reduce their risk. Industrial facilities should be 
doing the same. And these are kind of those commonsense changes 
included in the CLEAN Future Act that would ensure that the 
liability of the scheme of Superfund is in place to incentivize 
that adaptation. According to the GAO, 234 NPL sites are in 
areas that have a high wildfire potential.
    I would just say, with respect to the ``act of God'' 
defense, increasingly these disasters and extreme weather 
events are seen as consequences of climate change, and are 
really, in effect, acts of humans. And I think that there is no 
reason--I don't want to spend a lot of time on questions on 
this, but there is no reason not to adjust our understanding of 
``act of God'' defense to reflect that.
    I did want to ask Ms. Goodin and Ms. Dinn if climate change 
impacts--affects Superfund sites that were previously deleted.
    And then there is a so-called ``act of God,'' or an act of 
climate change. Is the Federal Government able to pursue 
additional money from the private actor originally responsible 
for the pollution, or is that commonly precluded by releases of 
liability as part of settlements?
    Ms. Goodin. Thank you, Representative. I believe in some 
cases it could be precluded, and I think that is a huge 
problem, because I do think climate change does pose risks at 
some sites where we would otherwise have believed that the 
cleanup would be complete.
    Mr. Peters. Well, typically, I think that is the way the 
settlements work. They incorporate a release of liability, and 
I think that is why we are going to have to look for other 
income. And I assume it is going to be some sort of Federal 
appropriation.
    I would ask Mr. Gomez, how would you use health risk--site-
specific health risk assessment to prioritize these sites for 
cleanup?
    And is there a role for that? Is--how would that work?
    Mr. Gomez. Right, so the regional offices, as you know, are 
the ones responsible for these sites. And each office has 
remedial project managers. So they are looking at the specific 
characteristics of a site, doing their risk assessments, but 
really also incorporating information about that site and the 
potential risks that are associated with that.
    Now, what I would also like to point out is, you know, even 
the climate change effects that we used, they are about current 
and past hazards. There are really no national data sets about 
future hazards.
    Mr. Peters. Right.
    Mr. Gomez. So just in the example you used with wildfire 
risk in California, those are current risks. They are not 
incorporating information on future fire risks, because that 
information doesn't exist at a national level. But there may be 
some local places and regional places that have some local data 
that may get at that.
    Mr. Peters. It is very important----
    Mr. Gomez. To answer your question originally.
    Mr. Peters. Mr. Gomez, what is the type and scale of 
resources that EPA needs to meet the 10-year target included in 
section 636 of the CLEAN Future Act?
    Mr. Gomez. That is a really good question and a really big 
question. I am not sure that I have an answer to that, because 
we have been discussing, you know, these are the Federal sites, 
I presume, the Federal facilities, which have lots of 
contamination, been at it for a while.
    So, you know, we have teams at GAO that do work looking, 
for example, at cleanups at DOE, Department of Energy, 
Department of Defense. So it is just a big challenge for the 
Federal----
    Mr. Peters. I----
    Mr. Gomez [continuing]. With huge liabilities, as you know 
well.
    Mr. Peters. I mean, I see it as sort of a fundamental 
question too, because we have to decide, you know, what we are 
going to plan for here. So I don't know if there is a way you 
could think about that or send this to the right people or 
respond in writing: How much money are we going to need, and 
how are we going to prioritize the sites that need to be 
cleaned up?
    It seems to me that site-specific health risk assessments 
would be a useful tool for that. That is just logical to me. 
But whether that information is available or how reliable those 
are, I don't know. But I think at least knowing what the size 
of the problem is, from a monetary standpoint, is important for 
us.
    Mr. Gomez. We----
    Mr. Peters. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
    Representative Crenshaw, good to have you join us, and you 
are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Great to be with you all, and thank you for 
this important topic.
    Ms. Matthews, I would like to start with you. I guess I 
will say first, it is always good to start where we agree. We 
agree that Superfund sites are a problem, and we want to see 
them cleaned up in the most efficient and cost-effective way 
possible. We do believe that, if somebody polluted, that they 
should pay. I think there is broad agreement on that.
    Under the Trump EPA was a record number of Superfund site 
cleanups, and we should be proud of that record and we should 
certainly continue on with that record.
    Then there's other proposed solutions. Now, the solutions 
we are talking about today don't seem to have anything to do 
with cleanup of Superfund sites. They have everything to do 
with an attempt to punish companies, an industry that has done 
nothing wrong, and under the guise of potentially preventing 
more cleanup sites. OK, so that is what we are talking about. 
We are taking extraordinary measures to do so.
    So this bill says that the EPA Administrator is now in 
charge of saying who is required to purchase a certain cleanup 
insurance policy, what the policy is ultimately required to 
cover, how much the policy is ultimately required to cover, and 
how a company might lower their rate if they pay a user fee. 
Ms. Matthews, is that correct?
    Ms. Matthews. That is a fair--yes, I agree.
    Mr. Crenshaw. OK, and if--and what happens if an insurance 
company can't stay in business setting the rates required by 
the Federal Government?
    Ms. Matthews. That was something that was brought up in 
connection with the 108(b) regulations, is that the EPA itself 
acknowledged in their market capacity study that the 
instruments, the availability of the instruments, really 
couldn't be predicted.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Yes, and we have spoken with the insurance 
industry about this, and I would like to submit this letter for 
the record. In plain language, they simply state this would not 
be workable.
    So the unintended consequence of this legislation could 
potentially be insurance companies just can't provide the broad 
insurance that the EPA would demand, and certainly not at the 
rates that they are demanding. Would that be a fair 
characterization?
    Ms. Matthews. Potentially, and then, if that was the case, 
then what would happen is that the companies would have to put 
money in, presumably, in a trust account, so up front, for a 
speculative risk. And----
    Mr. Crenshaw. Yes, but does this--the user fee, does that 
buy them anything? Does that buy them any protection from 
liability? Does that buy them a free cleanup by the EPA, or is 
that just a fee that they have to pay to operate?
    Ms. Matthews. It would be used for future cleanup, if it 
were to actually happen that it was required.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Like, so that company is paying user fees--it 
is--the text is not clear on this, so it is an honest question. 
They are paying into this fund. If they spill, do--does that 
fund then pay for that spill?
    Ms. Matthews. Well, I guess our--two different things. If 
they have a--their own funded trust fund, then that trust fund 
would pay. But if they are paying one of the provisions of the 
bill, like, into the Superfund----
    Mr. Crenshaw. Right.
    Ms. Matthews [continuing]. Fund, that is unclear.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Yes, and our interpretation is that it 
doesn't help them at all.
    So it is very likely that a lot of smaller businesses would 
simply go out of business, and then nobody would be paying into 
any Superfund fund. The insurance companies wouldn't be able to 
handle it. So the unintended consequence of this seems to me to 
be that the--there is not enough money to now do these 
cleanups. And that is what we have to think about when we exert 
an excessive amount of control over this.
    The other question I have in my remaining time is, look, 
when I look at policymaking, I look at it as trade-offs. We 
need to understand the problem before proposing dramatic 
solutions. And this is, indeed, a dramatic solution, for the 
reasons I laid out. It could completely undermine the insurance 
market and put a lot of this industry completely out of 
business. And if you want a quick note of what that might look 
like, just look at the East Coast when a pipeline goes down. I 
don't think America is ready for that.
    So one question I have, Ms. Matthews, is what is the nature 
of the problem?
    It is clearly a problem with legacy Superfund sites. How 
many new Superfund sites are popping up every year?
    Are they on the decline, are they on the incline?
    How should we be looking at this problem?
    Ms. Matthews. Yes, even new Superfund sites are like--are, 
generally, legacy sites that--there aren't a ton of Superfund 
sites that come along from operations that happen today, that 
because of this pervasive regulatory scheme that I have spoken 
about before, we have addressed that issue, and even the new 
sites are legacy sites.
    Mr. Crenshaw. That is great to hear. And so it seems to me 
that we are proposing an excessive solution for a problem that 
may have already been solved, which concerns me a great deal 
when it comes to policymaking.
    I have run out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Dr. Ruiz, our 
Representative from California.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding 
this hearing today.
    The purpose of the Superfund program is to clean up some of 
the most hazardous and contaminated sites in our Nation that 
remain a threat to the public's health. Many of these sites, 
both directly and indirectly, affect Native American Tribes or 
their land. According to the EPA, over 300,000 American 
Indians, roughly 12 percent of the Native population, live 
within 3 miles of a Superfund site. Let that sink in. Twelve 
percent of Native Americans in our country live within 3 miles 
of some of the most hazardous and contaminated sites in our 
Nation.
    This proximity to Superfunds can affect Tribes in a variety 
of ways. For example, in upstate New York, the St. Regis Mohawk 
Tribe has been dealing with the effects of chemical pollution 
from an aluminum plant since 1954. This pollution has poisoned 
the St. Lawrence River, where the Tribe has fishing rights. In 
Arizona, the Navajo Nation has seen their lands contaminated by 
uranium mining that was used to support our Nation's nuclear 
ambitions.
    In 2019, the GAO completed a study at the request of 
Chairman Pallone, myself, and other Members to review Superfund 
sites that affect Tribes and Tribal interests. Specifically, 
the report looked at Tribal consultation practices, and whether 
EPA was fulfilling the U.S. Government's trust responsibility 
and considering the unique needs of Tribes in Superfund 
programs.
    My first question goes to Mr. Gomez. Can you briefly 
describe EPA's findings and recommendations from this report?
    Mr. Gomez. Sure, thank you, Congressman Ruiz. So, as you 
noted, we did a report looking specifically at Superfund sites 
that were on or near Tribal lands, and there were basic 
questions, you know: How many Superfund sites are there?
    EPA didn't really have good, accurate information, so we 
had to work with them to figure out how many sites there were. 
And what we found with EPA, there were 88 Superfund sites that 
were on or near Tribal lands.
    Also, EPA had difficulty documenting when they were doing 
consultation with Tribes. So we made a recommendation that they 
should do a better job documenting that. And so those were the 
kinds of findings that we found.
    Now, since the report was issued, EPA has been--has taken 
action in a lot of those areas. And as you noted, these 
Superfund sites, in particular, you know, affect Tribal 
communities in different ways, because they may be requiring to 
fish at a stream or lake that may be potentially contaminated, 
and that is their subsistence, right?
    Mr. Ruiz. Yes. The EPA has implemented some of these 
recommendations. Have they implemented all of the 
recommendations?
    And do you feel that the EPA consultation and data 
collection process has improved?
    Mr. Gomez. Yes. So they have made improvements on all 
grounds, in all of the recommendations that we made. They have 
improved the data they collected. They have issued memos and 
guidance to all of the regional offices to be clear about what 
is a consultation, make sure you record it, but also to gather 
data on these Superfund sites.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. So now, moving towards the climate 
change effects on these Superfund sites, Mr. Gomez, of 
Superfund sites that are vulnerable to climate change, do you 
have a sense of how many affect Tribal land or have Native 
American interests?
    Mr. Gomez. Yes. So what we did is we took the 88 Superfund 
sites that we did for you in that report and we then looked at 
the ones that we have from climate change effects. And we did 
find that about 70 percent of the Native American--of the 
Superfund sites on or near Tribal lands have impacts from 
climate change.
    As you have also noted----
    Mr. Ruiz. Should they be prioritized for cleanup?
    Mr. Gomez. So this is the--you know, the purpose of our 
work was to do the screening, so that EPA can see----
    Mr. Ruiz. OK, we will discuss that later. But I want to get 
to this one. Your testimony focused on a GAO report that looked 
at a number of non-Federal sites that are vulnerable to climate 
change. Do you know how many Federal sites are vulnerable to 
climate change?
    Mr. Gomez. So we know, at least from your work, for you, 
that there are 11 Federal sites that are on or near Tribal 
lands. And so that is a good question, to see, for the Federal 
facilities, which of those----
    Mr. Ruiz. But in general, in general, as well, the Federal 
lands, it seems like your analysis, the 60 percent of non-
Federal Superfund sites would likely be affected by flood, 
storm surges, or wildfires. It doesn't seem there is to be a 
general analysis for Federal lands. Should a similar analysis 
be conducted for Federal sites?
    Mr. Gomez. Yes, if that is something that Congress wants us 
to do, we are happy to do that.
    Mr. Ruiz. Great. And section 636 of the CLEAN Future Act 
accomplishes this goal, and I yield back my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Representative 
Dingell, who has been an outspoken voice for clean water.
    So thank you for joining us. You are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's 
important hearing on the CLEAN Future Act and for these very 
important provisions to strengthen the EPA Superfund cleanup 
program.
    Climate change and extreme weather events that have been 
bringing flooding, wild storms--or wildfires, storm surges, and 
sea level rising is exasperating--are exasperating our ability 
to clean up toxic Superfund sites. And the--we--as many of my 
other colleagues have talked about, we really need to reduce 
the backlog on EPA's National Priority List. Since the 1980s, 
the Superfund program has proven its ability to transform 
communities through a simple tenet: Those who pollute 
communities and the environment are responsible for paying to 
restore them.
    Today, as we look towards the future of the Superfund 
program, I would like to focus on how we address a harmful 
emerging contaminant that is plaguing our communities across 
the country: PFAS chemicals. Director Gomez, can you briefly 
highlight for this committee the benefits of EPA listing PFAS 
as a hazardous substance under CERCLA or the Superfund program?
    This is a designation called for in bipartisan legislation 
I am leading, the PFAS Action Act.
    Mr. Gomez. Yes, thank you, Representative Dingell, for that 
question. So, you know, by designating, for example, PFAS and 
PFOA as hazardous substances under CERCLA, what that does is 
that triggers three requirements. So one of those is reporting 
releases of these substances, but it also authorizes a Federal 
response, actions that can be taken, and also, lastly, holds 
responsible the responsible parties that are liable for the 
cleanup costs.
    Mrs. Dingell. So thank you. I agree.
    In January, you authored--January of this year, you 
authored a report called ``Manmade Chemicals and Potential 
Health Risks,'' where you talked about this. Yes or no, has EPA 
completed the regulatory process to list these two most 
notorious PFAS chemicals under CERCLA?
    Mr. Gomez. No.
    Mrs. Dingell. In the report it states, ``On January 14th, 
2021, EPA issued advance notice to proposed rulemaking for the 
hazardous substances designation to get public comment and data 
to inform the Agency's ongoing evaluation of the two PFAS.'' 
Director Gomez, can you provide this committee the current 
status, as you know it, of EPA's efforts to designate PFAS as a 
hazardous substance under CERCLA?
    Mr. Gomez. Sure. So in the report that we issued early this 
year, we were tracking the status of EPA's regulatory related 
PFAS actions. It was part of their action plan. And as you 
noted, there was a proposed rulemaking, which is now currently 
under review by the current administration. So I know this is a 
priority for Congress. It is a priority for EPA, but that is 
the current status, as we understand it.
    Mrs. Dingell. So I am going to ask you one more question, 
and I am going to ask for a quick answer, because I want to get 
to a couple of others.
    Over the course of your work, do you have any sense or 
estimates of how long this process could take, or how soon the 
administration could act to list these forever chemicals as 
hazardous under Superfund if the EPA decides to fund this 
process?
    Because, since I have been in Congress, promises, promises, 
promises, promises.
    Mr. Gomez. Well, we do know that rulemaking takes a long 
time. So we are tracking this. We are looking at it. So I think 
we are all waiting to see how quickly this is going to happen.
    Mrs. Dingell. Let's, like, act, if we can at all, please.
    Director Gomez, in my district we have a growing dioxin 
plume that has been spreading through Ann Arbor's groundwater 
for decades, more than 40 years. And for many years now, the 
public has been calling on it to be listed as a Superfund site. 
In the last month, the State of Michigan has allowed the 
process for listing to move forward. Can you explain the 
process for getting a site like this listed to the National 
Priorities List and what factors go into a speedy listing?
    And is the process changing at all as it relates to the 
climate change threat to Superfund sites?
    Mr. Gomez. Sure. So the listing process, you know, they use 
the hazard ranking system, where they are looking at each site 
to see what are the contaminants there, what are the harms. And 
there is a score that takes place.
    So sometimes what can happen is removals can take place, so 
they remove the contaminants, which can sometimes lower the 
ranking score. And, obviously, the listing of a site is also 
done in conjunction with the State. You know, the State is 
usually notified, EPA is working with the State. So that is 
usually what happens in the listing process.
    I would say, with respect to climate change effects, again, 
we have--we did this national screening to show EPA, hey, 
here's all these sites that have these potential effects; you 
need to ensure that the remedies that are in place, that they 
are working on, are going to be protective to the public and to 
the environment.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Dr. Gomez. I yield back, Mr. 
Chair.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Representative 
Barragan.
    We thank you for your work on environmental justice, and 
you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chair Tonko, for holding this 
important hearing on how we can improve the Superfund program 
to achieve faster cleans and environmental justice.
    My district has four Superfund sites: Cooper Drum, the 
Southern Avenue industrial area, and Gervais Web in the City of 
South Gate, a majority Latino community, and Montrose Chemical 
Corporation, which partly spills into my district in Carson. 
All four properties are contaminated in the soils and 
groundwater. No community should have to deal with the impacts 
from one Superfund site, let alone three in South Gate. We have 
to do better for our environmental justice communities by 
reinstating the Superfund tax to fully fund cleanups and hold 
polluting industries accountable before they contaminate a 
site.
    Ms. Goodin, one challenge that EPA has with many Superfund 
sites is that the company responsible for the contamination no 
longer exists or doesn't have the resources to pay the cost of 
cleaning up the site. What tools can we give EPA on the front 
end to hold industrial companies accountable when they apply 
for permits to operate a site, so that we don't need to spend 
years trying to raise funds and clean up a site?
    Ms. Goodin. Thank you, Representative. I think financial 
assurances are exactly that tool. It allows EPA to require 
companies to show that they will be able to clean up their own 
messes.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you. Mr. Gomez, the Government 
Accountability Office reported that climate change threatens 60 
percent of toxic Superfund sites. I represent a coastal 
district, and I am concerned about how extreme weather and sea 
level rise from climate change could impact the Superfund sites 
in my district, three of which the GAO analyzed as having 
moderate to high flooding hazards.
    Can you describe the risk many Superfund sites in coastal 
districts face and how the CLEAN Future Act's proposed 
Superfund cleanup policies can help to lessen that risk?
    Mr. Gomez. Sure. Thank you for that question. And so, 
right, our report was looking at data from NOAA and also data 
from FEMA on storm surge and flooding. And yes, there are many, 
many sites across the country that are at moderate or high risk 
from flooding or inundation, right, from those power surges 
that come from hurricanes. So those are the sites that, again, 
require an additional look, perhaps, to see if what is 
happening at the site is protective but also whether the 
officials there have the information that they need to make 
those decisions, right?
    So those are the important questions that we have raised 
and that we think require attention.
    Ms. Barragan. OK, thank you. Have you had a chance to look 
at the CLEAN Futures Act to see how it might clean up 
priorities and lessen that risk?
    Mr. Gomez. So we have looked at areas that relate to the 
work that we have done. So if it is work that we have done on 
financial assurances, if it is work that we have done on 
different aspects of it, that is where we comment. But in 
general, we don't comment in general, on general bills, unless 
you have a specific question about an area that relates to work 
that we have done.
    Perhaps we have made recommendations to the agencies. I 
know Congress usually implements and includes those in the 
bills, as well.
    Ms. Barragan. OK, thank you, Mr. Gomez.
    The American Jobs Plan proposes $5 billion to invest in the 
cleanup and revitalization of Superfund and Brownfield sites. 
Given all of the cleanup needs with existing Superfund sites, 
and the list of potential sites on the National Priorities 
List, is this enough funding, or do we need to push for a 
greater investment in Superfund cleanup?
    Mr. Gomez. I am sorry, was that a question for me, or was 
that to the panelists?
    Ms. Barragan. That was to you, Mr. Gomez.
    Mr. Gomez. Yes. So in general, like I said, we wouldn't 
comment on, necessarily, whether this is enough resources or 
not.
    We have reported, for example, on the resources that the 
Superfund program has had over time. There was a report we did 
a number of years ago looking at appropriations and 
expenditures. Those have gone down over time. But----
    Ms. Barragan. Well, Mr. Gomez, let me ask a different 
question, then. Would $5 billion be enough to get to all the 
Superfund sites on the National Priorities List?
    Mr. Gomez. I mean, I think that is a really good question. 
We haven't looked to see what are the current estimates, right, 
to clean up the sites. I think you have heard from other folks 
that, to clean up one site, for example, can be hundreds of 
millions of dollars.
    So--and then the Federal facilities cost a lot more money. 
So maybe the answer is there.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. Thank you, Mr. Gomez. My time has 
expired, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the Representative from Delaware, the voice for 
water infrastructure, and very active with the subcommittee.
    Representative Blunt Rochester, you are recognized for 5 
minutes, please.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, for calling 
this important hearing and for your leadership. And also, it is 
good to be with Ranking Member McKinley. And thank you to the 
witnesses for your testimony today.
    Sites managed under the Superfund program are our country's 
most contaminated and hazardous sites. From oil refineries to 
abandoned mines to nuclear waste sites, these sites pose an 
ongoing risk to human health and the environment. Over 72 
million Americans live near a Superfund site, and the historic 
placement of public housing in communities near hazardous 
facilities and the practice of building new polluting 
facilities in low-wealth neighborhoods have created a 
disproportionate environmental burden on our communities of 
color and low-income communities.
    Protecting these communities requires preventing toxic 
releases from facilities in the future and addressing the 
contamination that has already occurred. We need to make sure 
that our policies, moving forward, are inclusive of the 
communities most impacted and look to prevent future exposures 
and releases instead of cleaning them up. And I think that the 
Superfund resiliency and cleanup measures outlined in the CLEAN 
Future Act would do just that.
    Ms. Dinn, how are the communities you work with dealing 
with the combined crises of environmental injustice and climate 
change?
    Ms. Dinn. Well, it is a big challenge that we have here 
because we are continually under threat of severe flooding as 
well as hurricanes on the Gulf Coast. And the fact that these 
sites are still in their community are just a constant sense of 
worry and stress for community members, because it is like a 
ticking time bomb in some of their neighborhoods as to what the 
potential impacts could be in an extreme weather event.
    And, as you know, we just went through an extreme power 
outage, as well, in Houston. And there just seemed to be an 
overwhelming awareness and--as well as stress related to having 
to respond continually to these ongoing threats on top of a 
pandemic.
    And for low-income communities like Lone Star Legal Aid 
represents, we really see these people being pushed really 
hard. And it is something that we try to provide support for. 
But obviously, the Federal Government could play a large role 
in alleviating some of these burdens. And so this proposed 
legislation that could help prioritize cleanups in these areas 
that have either been neglected or are at extreme risk of 
future releases could be a real--of really big benefit to those 
communities.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And are the industries, the polluting 
industries, doing enough to safeguard their facilities and the 
surrounding communities against climate change?
    Ms. Dinn. Unfortunately, no. We are finding that a number 
of the facilities are not current on floodplain regulations. 
They have not maintained or upgraded their facilities to keep 
up with the threats of climate change. We have had a number of 
recent events in Harris County and the surrounding area, where 
we have had extreme environmental conditions.
    But on top of that, we have had industry accidents occur 
that have posed continuing ongoing threats to community health. 
We are talking about large releases of benzene, other chemicals 
in floodwaters that are exposing people to cancer risks that 
are beyond what anyone should see in their lifetime. And we 
really do need better regulation, better enforcement, and 
better protections on the financial side for these communities 
to ensure that these are not continued risks.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. And Ms. Goodin, Delaware 
has 15 sites on the National Priority List, 7 of which are at 
risk of extreme coastal flooding under rising levels. In your 
opinion, are the facilities that handle hazardous materials 
properly prepared for extreme weather brought on by climate 
change?
    Ms. Goodin. I think that many are not.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And we heard some testimony today 
suggesting that financial assurance requirements would 
undermine adaptation efforts. How do you respond to that 
argument?
    And in your experience, do financial assurance requirements 
incentivize facilities to plan for climate risks ahead of a 
natural disaster?
    Ms. Goodin. I think they absolutely would incentivize 
facilities to plan, especially if, as a condition of their 
coverage, they had to take some basic precautions. So, no, I 
don't think it would undermine preparedness at all. I think it 
would greatly increase it.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much. And thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield back 10 seconds.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you for the 10 seconds, and the gentlelady 
yields back. We now recognize the Representative from the State 
of Florida, the gentleman from Florida, Representative Soto.
    Thank you for alerting us to the environmental needs of 
Florida and for your participation routinely with the 
subcommittee. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. Today we have a major 
generational challenge: Whether we are going to allow the 
pollution of the 20th century to persist well into the 21st 
century, whether we are going to allow Superfunds of the past 
to continue to threaten the future of our Nation. It is also 
about whether we are going to hold accountability for polluters 
or set it up for taxpayer bailouts of polluters well after the 
jobs have been lost, the money has been made, and the 
responsibility has left town. And then we remember about the 
communities that are left behind, facing these poisons, this 
cancer, these massive deaths that happen in communities 
affected by it.
    I have heard several times the phrase that it would take 
over 100 years to fix these things. Not if we work together. If 
we work together, we could do this far quicker. We saw what--
when we worked together on the vaccines. People thought it 
would be impossible, and yet now we have well over half the 
American people receiving at least one shot, if not two, and 
going to our young people next. We can do big things in this 
Nation. I know our friends across the aisle believe that. We 
are asking for your help on this. Every district--red or blue, 
conservative, progressive, centrist--has some Superfund sites 
either in them or near them.
    This is about the health of our constituents and the future 
of America in the 21st century. And we ask for your help to 
work with us. The resiliency pieces that are being discussed 
today are particularly critical for Florida since we are facing 
increasingly intense hurricanes and rising sea levels while 
still simultaneously having an increase in population.
    And Chairman Pallone mentioned about the Ramapo Indians. 
While I moved to Florida half a lifetime ago, I grew up with 
those families in Ringwood, New Jersey. I knew those families 
personally. And a cancer cluster ravaged so many of them. 
Deleting a site doesn't take away the risk. We could pat 
ourselves on the back here in Washington and some 
administration can say they got the job done, but all it does 
is set a ticking time bomb for the communities left behind.
    We see a similar situation forming in Piney Point in the 
Tampa Bay area that I talked about in our last committee 
hearing, about an overflow of gypsum stacks from the mining of 
phosphates from long ago in those areas. Rather than cleaned 
up, it led to be--it persisted, and now we have huge issues 
with pollution.
    In my own district we have hope because we have the 
Kissimmee River restoration, an example of how we can restore 
important watersheds to their natural historic environments. 
And the Kissimmee River has been an example of how--of 
increasing and restoring a major river watershed is something 
that is possible if we work together.
    Mr. Gomez, when Superfund sites are remediated, are they 
returned to pristine, precontamination states, or does some 
contamination sometimes remain on the site?
    Mr. Gomez. Right. So in some cases, some contamination does 
remain at the site. Perhaps it is contained with some kind of 
cap. And sometimes the contamination is treated on site. 
Sometimes it is removed from the site to be treated elsewhere. 
So it just really depends. And you have to look at each site 
individually.
    Mr. Soto. So when we are looking at gypsum stacks, 
basically pools of waste left over from phosphate mining in 
Florida, if it gets hit by a hurricane, how does that and other 
extreme weather from climate change threaten the release of 
contaminants in these Superfund sites?
    Mr. Gomez. So I think that is the real concern, right, is 
to then look and see how those pools are perhaps being 
additionally reinforced or made resilient, as you have noted, 
to those impacts. So it does require an additional review, 
perhaps, to see what takes place.
    And now, if it is a site that has been completed, what 
happens, again, is every 5 years EPA comes through and does a 
review. So that would be an opportunity for them to see, if 
conditions are changing, what does it mean. Does additional 
action need to take place or not?
    Mr. Soto. Sure, and I have seen fully restored sites. It is 
actually pretty breathtaking, about how things can come back. 
But it takes resources, it takes communities coming together. 
And we need to have a better system, going forward, to make 
sure we have accountability for polluters, to make sure that we 
are protecting our communities across this Nation.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the very patient Representative from Arizona, the 
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. O'Halleran.
    Thank you for your concern and your work on behalf of 
environment and climate issues. So with that, you are 
recognized, Representative, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking 
Member McKinley, for organizing this. And I want to thank our 
witnesses for testifying today.
    In Arizona the 2020 wildfire season saw over 2,500 
wildfires burn nearly a million acres of State, Federal, and 
Tribal lands. These wildfires happened in almost every corner 
of the State, and definitely throughout my district. This was 
nearly double the 520,000 acres that burned in wildfires in 
2018 and 2019 combined. And we are expecting another active 
wildfire season this coming year.
    It is clear that these wildfires are getting worse. It is a 
problem that needs to be addressed from all angles. Climate 
change is, clearly, continuing to be--to the conditions that 
allow these fires to grow. These wildfires have been 
devastating for many Arizona communities, and resulting in loss 
of life and massive destruction of infrastructure, natural 
resources, and watersheds.
    As we are discussing today, these wildfires can also have 
additional environmental impacts by disrupting Superfund sites. 
The Superfund cleanup process is slow enough already. I can't 
believe how slow it is, when we are talking about 100-year time 
periods. We should do all we can to ensure that they are not 
delayed further by the effects of climate change.
    And one additional item--I try to bring this up as much as 
I can--the Navajo sites for uranium. It has been 80 years. They 
are still not treated, the 520 of them, to anywhere near the 
level they should be. And there's $1.7 billion in the fund site 
right now, in the trust fund site. So I don't know why it has 
taken this long to address.
    Mr. Gomez, your report mentioned that there are 22 NPL 
sites in areas of high wildfire hazard potential in EPA region 
9, which includes Arizona. How would the region 9 officials 
deal with increased threats from wildfires?
    And do you think it will impact the ability to oversee this 
cleanup--these cleanup projects?
    Mr. Gomez. Sure. You know, I talked about the example in 
Northern California, where there is a Superfund site there, the 
Iron Mine site, and where the wildfire, the Carr Wildfire, 
actually destroyed part of the site and almost destroyed the 
water treatment system.
    And so, yes, in all the other sites in Arizona and other 
parts of the western U.S., if wildfire is a risk, EPA needs to 
look to see whether what is happening at the site--whether it 
is already a remedy that is in place, or they are proposing a 
remedy--to make sure that that remedy, or the activities that 
are taking place there, are going to be protective, right, from 
that high wildfire risk, because it could be pretty detrimental 
if that is not the case.
    Mr. O'Halleran. I just need to point out--thank you, Mr. 
Gomez. I just need to point out the current state of the Forest 
Service budget that hasn't allowed that to occur.
    Mr. Gomez, in your testimony you said that EPA regional 
offices are not all on the same page when it comes to assessing 
climate risk at the Superfund sites. What more needs to be done 
to ensure they all have the data necessary that they need?
    Mr. Gomez. Yes, so that was one of the things that we 
found, that not all the sites--not all the regional offices 
were incorporating this data, knew where to get it or how to 
use it.
    So one of the recommendations that we made was for EPA to 
provide clear direction and guidance, and with the information, 
but also actually to work across the offices at EPA, because we 
also heard that some of the Superfund officials didn't know 
where the climate experts within EPA were. So they really need 
to work across and integrate and collaborate to be able to get 
the information that they need to make the best decisions.
    Mr. O'Halleran. And finally, Mr. Gomez, you mentioned 
Superfund sites that have been hit by wildfires such as the 
Iron Mountain one that we talked about. What suggestions for 
climate resilience can the EPA take from that?
    And additionally, I am very happy that you have gone 
through an evaluation from what has occurred over the last 4 
years.
    Mr. Gomez. Yes. So hopefully, again, EPA can learn from 
these examples and share them across the Agency.
    But I also wanted to mention to the committee that GAO 
recently issued a disaster resilience framework, which is a 
framework that we have developed over a long period of time and 
work that we have done, where you can look at Federal actions 
and you can use this framework to make sure that those actions 
are going to be resilient to disasters, to extreme weather, to 
climate change effects. And it is various principles that you 
look at. Do you have the information that you need? Are you 
integrating the information? And can you set up incentives to 
help you?
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you very much, Mr. Gomez.
    And Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, the gentleman yields back, and I 
believe that concludes the list of colleagues who have chosen 
to ask questions of our witnesses.
    So we thank you all, and thank you, most importantly, to 
our witnesses for joining us at today's hearing. Thank you for 
your input, for your patience, and for your answering the 
questions of the many colleagues who joined us.
    I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they 
have 10 business days by which to submit additional records--
questions, rather, for the record to be answered by our 
witnesses. So I ask only that our witnesses respond promptly to 
any such questions that you may receive. And we thank you for 
that.
    Before----
    Mr. McKinley. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Tonko [continuing]. We move to--yes, sir?
    Mr. McKinley. Yes, Mr. Chairman, just a point of privilege 
at the end of this.
    Apparently we have--of the 1,300 sites, 257 of them, 
apparently, are Federal sites. We have been focusing a lot on 
the private sector, but we have got 257 that are our 
responsibility, as Members of Congress. What can we do? What 
would you suggest? Is that maybe you and I, we put together 
something, we----
    Mr. Tonko. Well, you know, we should look at whether----
    Mr. McKinley. Why are they still on the books? Why aren't 
we cleaning them up?
    Mr. Tonko. Right. We should look at opportunities for 
revenues that we could apply, perhaps Defense monies, whatever, 
that would apply to the various sites. So let us look at that 
as a team and see what we can come up with.
    Mr. McKinley. I think it is a good place for 
bipartisanship. That is what I am thinking, if we work 
together. Let's get this thing in focus and get these off the 
books.
    Mr. Tonko. Right. Any site that is contaminating is of 
concern, whether it is private or government-owned. So let's 
commit to doing that.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. So, before we adjourn, there have been many 
requests to include information into the record. So I request 
unanimous consent to enter the following documents into the 
record: an article from High Country News entitled ``Libby, 
Montana, tries to shake its `Superfund stigma;''' a fact sheet 
from the National Mining Association entitled ``Commonsense 
Regulation that Recognizes Existing State and Federal 
Protections;'' an article from the Florida Times Union entitled 
``Off EPA's priorities list, Fairfax Street pollution cleanup 
celebrated as `poster child;''' a letter from the American 
Property Casualty Insurance Association; an article from the 
Montana Standard entitled ``Economic outlook: A look at 
Superfund economics in Anaconda and Butte;'' a report from the 
EPA Superfund Task Force entitled ``Making Decisions and Making 
a Difference in Superfund;'' a report from the EPA entitled 
``EPA Year in Review 2020,'' pages 28 through 32; a 2019 
Petition for Review with Final Action by the EPA, Idaho 
Conservation League versus Andrew Wheeler, Administrator of the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency; a report from the EPA entitled 
``Superfund Fiscal Year 2019: Annual Accomplishments Report.''
    Are there any objections?
    Hearing none, without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the 
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Environmental Protection Agency reports ``Making Decisions 
and Making a Difference in Superfund'' and ``Superfund FY 2019: Annual 
Accomplishments Report'' and the Petition for Review of Final Action 
have been retained in committee files and are available at https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=112592.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Tonko. And with that, I again thank our witnesses for 
enduring here today. Thank you for your appearance and for your 
input.
    And at this time the subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    

                            [all]