Statement of Senator George V. Voinovich
Superfund Hearing
May 25, 1999

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for conducting this important hearing today on Superfund. I commend the leadership and work that you and Senator Smith have done on this issue.

I strongly believe that the current Superfund law is in need of commonsense reform, as it creates delays in the cleanup process and loss of available funds due to excessive litigation. I support the liability relief that your Superfund Program Completion Act provides for municipalities, small businesses, de minimis contributors, contiguous property owners and prospective purchasers.

In addition, I strongly support the intention to reduce the state cost share to 10 percent across the board for both capital costs and operations and maintenance costs at NPL sites.

Of particular importance to me are the provisions that allow states to release parties that have cleaned up sites under state laws and programs from federal liability.

I strongly concur with your approach that there should be no requirement that U.S. EPA pre-approve state laws and programs. State brownfields programs address non-NPL sites where the federal government has played little or no role.

States are leading the way to cleaning up sites more efficiently and cost-effectively. States average more than 1,400 cleanups per year. And they are addressing approximately 4,700 sites at any given time.

This is helping to revitalize our downtowns, prevent urban sprawl and preserve our farmland and greenspaces. These programs are cleaning up eyesores in our inner cities, making them more desirable places to live. Because they are putting abandoned sites back into productive use, they are the key to providing jobs to inner city people and keeping them off welfare.

Ohio has implemented a private sector-based program to clean up brownfields sites. Ohio EPA, Republicans and Democrats in the Ohio Legislature and I worked hard to implement a program that we believe works for Ohio. Our program is already successful in improving Ohio's environment and economy.

Mr. Chairman, I would especially like to make one thing clear today. I understand that Ohio's voluntary cleanup program has been portrayed to members of Congress, even to this Committee, as an example of a bad state program that demonstrates the need for federal oversight of state voluntary programs. I could not disagree more.

In almost 20 years under the federal Superfund program, U.S. EPA has only cleaned up 15 sites in Ohio. In contrast, 77 sites have been cleaned up under Ohio's voluntary cleanup program in 4 years. And many more cleanups are underway.

States clearly have been the innovators in developing voluntary cleanup programs. And Ohio's program has been very successful in getting cleanups done more quickly and cost effectively. For example, the first cleanup conducted under our program the Kessler Products facility, near Canton was estimated to cost $2 million and take 3 to 5 years to complete if it had been cleaned under Superfund. However, under Ohio's voluntary program, the cost was $600,000 and took 6 months to complete. These cleanups are good for the environment and good for the economy.

In particular, I would like to respond to the criticism that Ohio's voluntary cleanup program does not provide adequate opportunity for public participation. This is just outright false. Ohio carefully crafted its program to balance the needs of public participation, but not allow for significant delays in the cleanup process.

The Ohio legislature drafted and debated the legislation which governs Ohio brownfields cleanup. The Ohio EPA then provided public hearings when it set the cleanup standards that "standard" sites must comply with under the law. For more complicated sites, or sites that require air or water discharge permits, the state follows the public participation procedures outlined in the federal and state laws regulating the issuance of permits. The public is involved in setting the levels permitted to be discharged.

In addition, documents used or developed in connection with a cleanup under the program are retained for at least 10 years and are available to the public on request. Anyone may challenge the Director of Ohio EPA's decision that a site is or is not clean enough.

Mr. Chairman, these are just a few examples. I ask that a summary of the public participation opportunities under Ohio's voluntary cleanup program be submitted for the record along with a copy of my written statement.

Mr. Chairman, Ohio and other states have very successful programs that cleanup sites more efficiently and cost effectively. S. 1090 would help build on their success by providing parties assurances that when they clean up a site correctly, they will not be held liable under Superfund further down the road. This bill creates incentives for more parties to come forward under voluntary cleanup programs to clean up sites and put them back into productive use.

I look forward to today's hearing.