Statement of Senator Jon S.
Corzine
Environment and Public Works
Committee
July 31, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Thank
you, Madame Chairman. I want to thank
you for your commitment and leadership on Superfund. I also want to welcome our colleagues to the committee,
particularly Senator Torricelli.
Senator Torricelli has been fighting to clean up New Jersey’s Superfund
sites his whole career in Congress. It’s
been an honor for me to join him in that effort.
Madame
Chairman, it’s an unfortunate fact that you’re never far from a Superfund site
in New Jersey. We have more sites than
any other state, and I have visited many of these sites already in my first
term.
When you
talk to the people who live around these sites, you hear about cancer
clusters. You hear about contaminated
streams, and rabbits that have turned green from exposure to chemicals. And you hear the frustration of people who
can’t get a straight answer from EPA about when a site is going to be cleaned
up.
Madame
Chairman, I share my constituents’ frustration, because I can’t seem to get a
straight answer out of EPA either. It’s
been almost four months since our last hearing on this issue. At that time, I asked EPA about whether
cleanup of the Chemical Insecticide Corporation site in Edison, New Jersey
would be funded this year. The answer I
got was “we don’t know and we can’t tell you.”
THE
CHEMICAL INSECTICIDE CORPORATION SITE
Madame
Chairman, you have alluded to the Chemical Insecticide Corporation site in your
testimony already, but I think it’s worth talking about in a bit more
detail. From 1954 to 1972, pesticides,
herbicides, and fungicides, including Agent Orange, were manufactured
there. After the owner went bankrupt,
the residents of Edison were left with a vacant lot with heavily polluted soil
and groundwater. Contaminants at the
site include arsenic, heavy metals, pesticides, and dioxins. Many of these are known carcinogens. The Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease
Registry examined the site and declared it a “Public Health Hazard.”
This
site was added to the Superfund list in 1990—twelve years ago. But not much happened at the site until
local residents got actively involved.
In April, one of these people, Bob Spiegel, testified before the
Environment and Public Works committee about the site. I won’t read the full testimony, but I want
to quote his description of his first encounter with the site. Mr. Spiegel said, quote:
“In the spring of 1991, a friend asked if I
wanted to see "green” rabbits.
Armed with a video camera, we took a short ride to the Chemical
Insecticide Superfund Site. The first
thing that struck me was the smell -- the smell of death and decay. Nothing grew on the property except a
strange florescent green moss. Small
animal carcasses littered the area, and there were, indeed, “green” rabbits
living there. The rabbits had developed
an abnormal greenish yellow undercoat that I would later discover was the
result of Dinoseb, a pesticide disposed of in large quantities throughout the
site.
We
followed a trail of yellow liquid draining from the back of the site downstream
past a neighboring industrial bakery and into the Edison Glen and Edison Woods
residential developments. There we
video taped a child playing in the poisoned stream who told us
it was a
good place to hang out and look for frogs and turtles. I subsequently found out that the vacant CIC
lot was a playground for local children, the chemical lagoons were their wading
pools, and adults routinely scavenged materials from the site.”
Madame
Chairman, this site has taken a toll on the community. Several people who live near the site or
worked near the site have died of cancer that they believed was linked to the
pollution. One of the families affected
was that of a local police officer, who developed a rare blood disease, and whose
wife developed reproductive problems.
Property values have been hit hard as well.
With the
prodding of local residents like Mr. Spiegel, some progress has been made at
the site through the Superfund program.
EPA has cleaned up some areas in nearby residential developments. In addition, EPA has put a liner on top of
the site to keep contaminants from continuing to wash off of the site. And they have decided what they need to do
to clean up the site. In January of
this year, the end appeared to be in sight, when an EPA employee told residents
at a public meeting that cleanup would begin in November. But EPA has since said that they don’t think
cleanup may not go forward due to lack of funding.
EPA HAS
NOT BEEN FORTHCOMING WITH INFORMATION
As I
mentioned earlier, I asked EPA at our last hearing about whether the CIC site
would be cleaned up. EPA told me that
they didn’t know and couldn’t say.
Several weeks later, the EPA Inspector General released a report showing
that cleanup at 33 sites in 19 states are not going forward because of funding
shortfalls. Five New Jersey sites were
on this list, including the CIC site.
According
to the IG report, the EPA Region 2 office requested $28.5 million for this
fiscal year to begin final cleanup at CIC, but no funds have yet been
provided. And according to information
on EPA’s website today, EPA has still not committed any FY ’02 funds to
cleaning up this site.
Madame
Chairman, this is unacceptable. We have
EPA information to suggest that among Superfund sites where cleanup is not
going forward, the CIC site is one of the most hazardous to human health. We also know from people who live near the
site that the temporary remedy—a tarp placed over the site—is failing, and that
toxins are once again washing off of the site when it rains. How can EPA possibly continue to justify not
cleaning up this site, Madame Chairman?
Madame
Chairman, I expect answers today about that site, and about how the funding
process works at EPA. Because the story
of the Chemical Insecticide site is the story of just one Superfund site. I have focused on it because it is one of
the most dangerous sites in the country, and it is not being dealt with. But similar stories could be told about many
other sites in New Jersey and in states across the country. It is our duty to ensure that these sites
get cleaned up, and we need much better cooperation from EPA so that we can
understand what is going on in the program.
We also
need to address the macro issue of funding.
We know from the Inspector General report that there is a funding
shortfall of more than $200 million in FY ’02 alone. We also know
that the Superfund is nearly bankrupt.
When the
Superfund tax expired in 1995, the Superfund had a balance of $3.6 billion
dollars. Since that time, the balance
of the fund has steadily dropped.
According to the president’s FY’03 budget, the fund will have only $28
million left at the end of the next fiscal year. That’s not even enough to fully clean up the one site that I have
been talking about in New Jersey.
So when
the Superfund runs dry at the end of the next fiscal year, the entire Superfund
budget—which has been $1.3 billion per year in recent years—will be paid out of
general revenues. As we all know, we’re
in deficits now, so that money will be coming out of the Social Security Trust
Fund.
That’s
just not fair. It’s not fair to ask the
people of Edison, NJ to pay to clean up the Chemical Insecticide Corporation
site. And it ’s not fair anywhere else
in this country. The polluters ought to pay.
That’s why we need to reinstate the tax. And we need better cooperation and more transparency out of
EPA.
Thank
you, Madame Chairman.