Over the last several years, this committee worked very hard on Superfund reform. We have decided, for now, to address only brownfields a single portion of the old comprehensive Superfund reform bills. However, I want to reiterate my eagerness to work with members of this committee and the Administration in the future on small business and used oil recyclers liability relief as well as natural resource damages reforms -- at a minimum.
So if we are only going to do a small portion of the Superfund reform for now, let's get it right. S. 350 contains items, which I like and dislike. However, let me outline issues that -- if addressed -- would make a real difference in our nation's ability to address brownfields and could be addressed in a bipartisan manner. The issues are (1) the legislation's site cleanup finality provisions; (2) the scope of the legislation's cleanup finality provisions; and (3) an administrative cap on the bill.
(1) First, the cleanup finality provision is of concern. Advocates of S. 350 declare that the bill's purpose is to provide assurances to parties, who clean up brownfields under state plans, that the federal EPA will not come back and force further federal cleanups. S. 350 only provides developers with very moderate assurances for Superfund-forced cleanups. I have heard some argue that the bill does nothing to this end.
Many people would, ideally, like for the federal EPA to have no authority under any statute to override a state-approved clean up of a brownfield. However, S.350 takes the other extreme. As it is currently written, S. 350 will allow the federal EPA to overturn a state clean up essentially whenever it wants. Myself and others would like to work to find a more delicate balance between the two extremes.
(2) Secondly, the scope of the cleanup finality provision is of concern. As we will hear from an expert today, if the power of EPA to force cleanups under Superfund is taken away, then the federal EPA can simply side step the bill by using the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or the Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) to force parties to cleanup sites even after a cleanup has been performed under a state program.
I know the federal EPA has never overfiled on a brownfields cleanup. However, it is the perceived threat of a federal EPA overfiling that has hampered brownfields redevelopment. Furthermore, while I have full faith that Administrator Whitman's EPA will do everything possible to encourage brownfields redevelopment, I have serious concerns about legislating for a particular administration. There are no assurances that every future Administrator will have the same mind set. Therefore, I would like to work with the Committee on these two portions of the finality provision to provide the peace of mind so many parties seek before they will enter brownfields redevelopment projects.
(3) Finally, I would like to work with the members of the Committee and the Administration to place a cap on administrative costs of the federal EPA. A cost cap would ensure the states and parties, seeking to redevelop brownfields, are getting the significant majority of the funds for their brownfields programs and cleanups.
Again, there are other areas of concern. But I have outlined three issues, which would make a real difference in our nation's ability to address brownfields and could be addressed in a bipartisan manner.
I look forward to hearing from Administrator Whitman, Robert Fox a true expert on brownfields redevelopment, and the other witnesses on this very important issue. I also look forward to working with Committee members on both sides of the aisle to craft meaningful brownfields and other Superfund-related legislation.