As you know, NGA is a bipartisan organization. Our policy recommendations on Superfund and other issues can only be adopted by a vote of at least two-thirds of the nation's Governors and are generally supported by far more impressive majorities. We have certainly found that to be the case with Superfund. Our policy for the reform of this program is based on the states' experience as managers of thousands of site cleanups under state programs and as partners with EPA in many other cleanups at National Priority List (NPL) sites. That is to say, our views on this matter have been shaped not by politics, but by a common commitment: the nation needs hazardous waste cleanup programs that are workable and efficient. Superfund reform has not been a partisan issue among Governors, and we hope sincerely that it will not become one in this Congress.
As you know, the states have a strong interest in Superfund reform and believe that a few critical changes are needed to improve the Superfund program's ability to clean up the nation's worst hazardous waste sites quickly and efficiently. We know that there remain important differences between some of the key players in the Superfund debate, but we see the Superfund Program Completion Act of 1999 (S. 1()9()) as a significant step toward resolving those differences. Clearly, Important compromises have been made in the development of this legislation, and we hope the spirit of compromise will continue on a bipartisan basis.
We are committed to doing everything within our power to assist you in your efforts moving this bill through the legislative process. We hope to continue working cooperatively with both the majority and the minority to develop a final bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support and can be signed by the President.
I will focus my remarks this morning on the two key provisions of the legislation that the Governors strongly support: brownfields revitalization and voluntary cleanup programs, and the Governor's right of concurrence with new additions to the MPL. In both of these areas, the bill provides for flexibility and certainty, which states need to ensure quick and successful cleanups.
Brownfields Revitalization and Voluntary Cleanup Programs
The Governors believe that brownfields revitalization is critical to the successful redevelopment of many contaminated former industrial properties, and we commend you, Mr. Chairman, for making the brownfields issue a critical piece of this legislation.
In considering how to restore brownfields sites to productive use, please remember the importance of state voluntary cleanup programs in contributing to the nation's hazardous waste cleanup goals. States are responsible for cleanup at the tens of thousands of sites that are not on the National Priorities List. A survey completed by the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials reported that 33 responding states currently have 27,235 sites in state cleanup programs. To address these sites, many states have developed highly successful voluntary cleanup programs that have enabled sites to be remediated quickly and with minimal governmental involvement. For each of the past five years, states have completed work on an average of 1,475 sites and have completed roughly 485 removals. It is important that any legislation supports and encourages these successful programs by providing the clear incentives and flexibility states need to continue them.
The Governors believe that this bill provides clear incentives and flexibility to carry out state voluntary cleanup programs. There is no question that voluntary cleanup programs and brownfields redevelopment are currently hindered by the pervasive fear of federal liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. Many potential developers of brownfields sites have been deterred because even if a state is completely satisfied that the site has been properly addressed, and even if the site is not on the NPL, there is the potential for EPA to take action against the cooperating party under the CERCLA liability scheme. The bill addresses this problem by precluding enforcement by anyone at sites where cleanup has occurred or is being conducted under stale programs and by providing needed liability protections for innocent owners and owners of property contiguous to contaminated sites. In the instance where a state is unable or unwilling to take action at a site, there are reasonable exceptions to this preclusion of enforcement.
The Governors believe that it is appropriate for EPA to take action at a site if a state makes such a request. We also commend you for including provisions that would allow EPA to come into a site only after EPA has given the Governor notice and an opportunity to cure. Without this very important provision, EPA would have the authority to take action at a site for virtually any reason. However, if the state has the opportunity to cure, the EPA will only be allowed into the site if the state cannot cure and not because EPA happened to discover new evidence before the state takes action.
The nation's Governors believe that the provisions in your title on state voluntary cleanup programs would greatly encourage voluntary cleanup and thus increase the number of cleanups completed. All Governors are vitally interested in cleaning up hazardous waste sites in their states so that we can provide a cleaner environment for future generations. These provisions will enable states to cleanup hazardous waste quickly and safely and that is good for our environment.
Governors Concurrence in New NPL Listings
Another provision that is important to the nation's Governors concerns the requirement for a Governor to request the listing of a site before a state's site may be added to the NPL. The nation's Governors believe such a provision is vital.
There has been a great deal of discussion in recent years about the future of the Superfund program, and this legislation anticipates and plans for the completion of the Superfund program. EPA has told us that remedy decisions have been made at eighty-five to ninety percent of all NPL sites and that construction is underway. We believe that with the growth and maturity in state programs since the inception of the Superfund program, there will be a natural process of relying more and more on states to do most of the cleanups.
Because of differences in capacities among states, the complexity and cost of some cleanups, the availability of responsible parties. enforcement considerations, and other factors, there needs to be a continuing federal commitment to clean up sites under some circumstances. However, because states are currently overseeing most cleanups, listing a site on the NPL when the state is prepared to apply its own programs and authorities is not only wasteful of federal resources, it is very often counterproductive. resulting in increased delays and greater costs. The Governors fear a case where there will be "two masters" of the cleanup process. This is confusing to the remediating party and to the general public and an inefficient use of remediation resources.
To avoid this, we advocate that Governors should be given the statutory right to concur with the listing of any new NPL sites in their states. The bill accomplishes this by providing for the request of a Governor before a site can be added to the NPL. In the event EPA discovers an imminent and substantial threat to human health and the environment, of course, it could continue to use its emergency removal authority, but any assignment of liability must then be consistent with liability assigned under state cleanup laws. We very much appreciate your recognition of this important provision.
However, we are concerned with the provision that places a cap on additions to the NPL at 30 sites per year. Our position has been that the statutory right of Governors to concur with listing serves as an effective limitation on NPL listings. We fear an unforeseen scenario where a catastrophe occurs and more than 30 sites are in legitimate need of being listed and receiving federal resources. We ask that you remove this provision from the bill and rely on the Governor's concurrence provision to provide an effective limitation on unnecessary NPL listings.
Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to comment on several other provisions that we believe are necessary. S. 1090 provides for much-needed brownfields funding for site assessment and remediation, and we applaud you for this provision. We believe that financial assistance is a critical federal responsibility and this provision will assist in the identification and cleanup of contaminated property. The bill provides for a state cost share of 10 percent for remedial action and the costs operations and maintenance. The provision is important to many states that would otherwise feel the financial burden of paying for 1()() percent of operations and maintenance.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your hard work on this important reform legislation and for providing me with the opportunity to communicate the views of the nation's Governors on Superfund reform. I have attached a copy of the NGA policy statement on Superfund reform and ask that it be included in the record of this hearings along with my statement.
The nation's Governors appreciate your hard work in developing this proposal, and they believe that passing Superfund legislation in the 106th Congress is critical. S. 1090 is an effective bill that we urge members of both parties to support. We hope that members of both parties will roll up their sleeves to pass Superfund reform legislation. The Governors look forward to working with both the majority and minority to bridge any differences and assist in crafting legislation that can be signed into law.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.