hazardous substances. This comprises site specific determinations based on good commercial standards and practices at the time of the defendant's acts and omissions. It also provides for appropriate inquiry into site conditions by innocent purchasers, based on customary standards and practices at the time of acquisition. These two provisions dealing with innocent landowners and new purchasers guard against EPA's imposing current standards of knowledge and technology that did not exist at the time of the relevant acts. This should provide some responsive reference to Administrator Browner's statement this morning about people who bought properties before Superfund's enactment when these standards did not apply and no one could have knowledge of such standards.

Regrettably, however, in amending Superfund section 107(b), we think that section 303(a) places an unjust burden on the landowner to establish its eligibility for the defense. In fairness, the plaintiff should have the burden to establish the landowner's guilt, rather than for the landowner to prove its innocence. On the other hand, section 104 properly releases parties that comply with State programs, correctly recognizing that site owners and developers need assurance that their investments and cleanup to meet State standards will not come back to haunt them.

Site purchasers also need to know that they will not face future Federal liability for properties cleaned up under State programs. This applies both to EPA enforcement, and even more importantly, something people have not addressed here today, trailing liability from lawsuits filed by private parties long after a party who owns or purchases the site no longer has involvement. They are not just afraid of an unreasonable EPA; they are concerned about somebody 30 years later coming back and sinking a footer someplace where no one had ever expected contamination to be. And despite reasonable efforts to cleanup the property, they are stuck with liability, even if they did not create the problem. This is a major reason these properties are not moving and remain mothballed.

H.R. 1300 will provide reasonable finality with statutory protections for persons who meet the requirement of state programs. While neither the Federal Government nor private parties will able to bring cost recovery or contribution actions, the State governments, which issue the final releases will continue to be able to pursue their Federal Superfund remedies, an adequate level of protection.

H.R. 1300 also protects human health and the environment where conditions warrant Federal reopening of State approved cleanups. This reopener and the ability of the States to reopen belies what I think is a cynical assertion that the States will compete to establish the lowest cleanup standard among themselves in order to attract business. It is just the opposite. It will encourage the development and use of successful State programs, like Pennsylvania's. Section 401 addresses unrealistic cleanup standards also in Title IV. This avoids unrealistic standards which mandate actions whose costs exceed the value of the property to be cleaned up. Referring back again to Pennsylvania's land recycling program, part of its extraordinary success is due at least in part to allowing cleanups with site specific risk-and use-based cleanup standards instead of inflexible standards that may be technologically or finan

cially unattainable. We think section 401 of H.R. 1300 adopts this concept, and we share the skepticism expressed by Mr. Reilly, and others about reading this bill to dilute protection of human health. The bill, by requiring EPA's exposure assessments and remedy selections to adopt this concept, makes it consistent with current and reasonably anticipated uses of the property. A steel mill, after all, should not have to meet the standards of a day care center.

Section 102 provides significant financial incentives for brownfields cleanup, but we think it would be a better bill if those incentives were a bit more market oriented. Site cleanup alone cannot assure access for a brownfields. Oddly, while the incentive provisions for grants for site inventories and assessments has these economic standards, the provision for site remediation grants does not.

We encourage you to act now. We have a great window of opportunity while we have economic prosperity. Let us act while prosperity exists and get some of our developers to get into those urban infills. Thank you.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thanks very much.

Now, this is what happens on the Hill. We have got a call in the House for a vote. Mr. Milne, we will be able to conclude your testimony if you reasonably stay within the five minute limit. So, would you go forward, please?

Mr. MILNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Tom Milne, Executive Director of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, which is half of my time just saying the name of the association. We serve all 3,000 local health departments in the country. As you probably know, local health departments are the agencies on the front lines in protecting and promoting the health of their communities.

I personally spent 25 years in the practice of local public health, the last 15 of which was as an Agency Director in southwest Washington State. We are honored to have this opportunity to comment on H.R. 1300, and I will limited my comments today to just those public health aspects of the bill.

We believe the bill will significantly strengthen public health and community participation in Superfund, and has the potential to assist in the responsible development of brownfields. We are very grateful, Mr. Chairman, for the attention that you have given to the public health role in Superfund, including the role of local public health departments. Public health considerations have been built into the Superfund from the very beginning, and have been carried by the actions of ATSDR. However, the full potential for public health intervention to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Superfund has not been realized.

To achieve this potential, the Superfund program must require full involvement of public health experts from the earliest stages of the Superfund process.

H.R. 1300, as you know, Mr. Chairman, recognizes this by requiring the consultation with local public health officials at the time of preliminary assessments and site inspections and then regularly thereafter.

When a hazardous waste site is identified, everybody in the community has questions. Public health assessments using the best sci

entific methods and data available help to answer those local questions and alert all parties to the key public health issues, and equally importantly in some instances the assessments can also mitigate local concerns by demonstrating that there, in fact, is not a health problem.

Once a hazardous waste site is identified, there is a window of opportunity for establishing baseline health and exposure data to understand the potential health risks that exist and to develop plans for remediation that specifically address those health risks. This window all too often closes before public health has a chance to intervene.

H.R. 1300 encourages the completion of public health assessments prior to the choice of remedial activities, lending to the higher likelihood that health considerations will be included. As you know, Superfund process is governed by State and Federal agencies, and local health departments have not had statutory authority. But they do have the responsibility for the protection and promotion of health for their entire community. It is critically important to bring local public health agencies to the table, then, to understand demographic and cultural characteristics that apply to remediation.

Let me say a few words, if I can, about brownfields. While the statutory authorities differ widely from Superfund, the same health and public health principles apply. Local public health officials dealing with the 600,000 brownfields, the number that we are using, know that the health of the public is intimately linked to economic prosperity. Economic development is vital to creating and sustaining healthy communities.

Done carelessly, however, economic development can have a negative impact on the health of the public. The local public agency's role in brownfields includes the application of professional expertise to determine the readiness and the appropriateness of a property for redevelopment. It includes determining the baseline health status of the community members that are potentially affected by the site. Public health authorities can serve as brokers between developers, redevelopment authorities, and the community at large. They may conduct long-term monitoring of the site as well.

Done well, public health oversight of brownfields can protect the investment of the developer and the health of the community. As with Superfund sites, health protection of the special vulnerabilities of children is especially critical.

Redevelopment of a waste disposal site in Weld County, Colorado, illustrates the benefits of public health involvement. The county commission, aware of an abandoned waste site-and that it was lying unused-requested the health department to investigate the site to determine what, if any, contamination remained. An assessment revealed that the soils beneath the facility were contaminated. The health department worked with the prospective developer to establish a common-sense plan involving soil treatment, which the development paid for. The project was completed. The county is now assured that there is no risk of future public health problems due to contamination, and the property is back on the tax roles.

H.R. 1300 establishes a number of granting mechanisms, which you are well aware of. We would suggest three changes three additions that the mechanisms also include funding for: assessments of local public health impacts of redevelopment and remediation activities; secondly, ongoing monitoring of human health and environmental effects; and lastly, ongoing enforcement of institutional controls that may be delegated as laws change and affect local health authorities.

We have additional comments in writing, Mr. Chairman, but just to reemphasize, we very much appreciate your leadership in this. We think it is an important bill, and we support its passage.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Milne. As I think it is very apparent to one and all, public health and the environment need to be protected, and that is the purpose of this bill.

We have a call in the House, and I could ask you to hang around for a half hour. That would not be fair to you. Let me say all of your statements are in the record in their entirety. We appreciate your comments. We appreciate your constructive suggestions. We appreciate the spirit with which you come before this committee. Together, we can get something accomplished that is going to be good for all.

So I thank you for your input, and I would declare this hearing adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:11 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

STATEMENT OF

CAROL M. BROWNER
ADMINISTRATOR

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 12, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you to discuss H.R. 1300, the "Recycle America's Land Act of 1999," as well as the Agency's record of accomplishments over the past several years in fundamentally improving the Superfund program.

Before addressing the bill or the successes of the current Superfund program, I believe it is important to recognize, from the outset, Superfund's mission. Superfund is an important, and above all, necessary program, dedicated to cleaning up our nation's hazardous waste sites, including those caused by the Federal government, and protecting public health and the environment for citizens no matter where they live in our country. EPA has worked closely with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in evaluating the impacts of these sites on public health. Superfund site impacts are real. ATSDR studies show a variety of health effects that are associated with some Superfund sites, including birth defects, reductions in birth weight, changes in pulmonary function, changes in neurobehavorial function, infertility and changes in blood cells that are associated with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. EPA also works with other federal agencies to assess the significant adverse impacts Superfund sites have had on natural resources and the environment. Together, the efforts of these agencies, working with EPA, provide the basis for targeting cleanups to protect public health and the environment, and show the need for Superfund.

SUPERFUND PROGRESS

The Superfund program is making significant progress in cleaning up hazardous waste sites and protecting public health and the environment. EPA has significantly changed how the Superfund program operates through three rounds of administrative reforms which have made Superfund a fairer, more effective, and more efficient program. EPA has made considerable progress in cleaning up sites on the National Priorities List (NPL). The Agency has gone from cleaning up 65 sites per year to cleaning up 85 sites per year. As of March 17,1999, 90% of the sites on the final NPL are either undergoing cleanup construction (remedial or removal) or are completed: