Chairman Capito Opening Statement on Needed Improvement to EPA’s Superfund Program

To watch Chairman Capito’s opening statement, click here or the image above.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, led ahearing on identifying improvements to the future management of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Superfund Program. 

In her opening remarks, Chairman Capito detailed the importance of identifying ways to accelerate Superfund cleanups by eliminating unnecessary delays and reducing costs that do not directly contribute to environmental remediation, and began the process of examining why these cleanups often take longer and cost more than state-led or voluntary efforts.

Below is the opening statement of Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) as delivered.

“Today we will discuss challenges facing the EPA’s Superfund program and solutions to ensure it can live up to its full potential.

“Since I’ve become Chairman, I have stressed that the EPA must refocus the Agency’s work on the core environmental missions to deliver the clean-ups and environmental solutions that most benefit the environment and Americans’ health and welfare. The Superfund program, as enacted, is one of the best examples of the EPA executing that core mission.

“Cleaning up our nation’s most contaminated sites directly improves public health and can revitalize struggling communities. I’ve certainly seen that in my own state. Congress established Superfund in 1980 in response to several high-profile environmental disasters. The law was designed to promptly cleanup heavily contaminated sites and to make the polluters responsible for the cleanup.  These are important goals, but the EPA’s management of the Superfund program has not delivered as intended.

“Communities now expect a Superfund cleanup to take more than a decade. I’ve already heard that from our witnesses in our informal conversations. That prolonged timeline sends a conflicting message to communities with a site nearby. You live near one of the most hazardous places in the country, but EPA will let it sit for years before they allow it to be fully cleaned up. Despite the lengthy cleanup timeline, the Superfund program has achieved some critical environmental and public health victories and restored thousands of contaminated sites across the country.

“The reason for delays that rob Superfund of its full potential is that EPA’s implementation of the law prioritizes process over results. The complexity of the law has made it one of the most difficult environmental programs to administer.

“In practice, the main winners in managing Superfund cleanups are the lawyers who profit from endless litigation, while communities wait for promised relief. To manage a law this complex, the EPA has built an entangled web of bureaucracy, work groups, task forces, and committees that too often slow progress instead of delivering results.

“Cleaning up Superfund sites is, naturally, a costly endeavor, but the problems with Superfund cannot be blamed on funding alone. To better help communities get the most out of limited taxpayer funding, Congress and the EPA must identify efficiencies to accelerate cleanups. This is particularly important when considering the overall cost of Superfund cleanups.

“Superfund’s price tag isn’t just about the complexity of environmental cleanup. There is what I call the ‘Superfund premium,’ a concept where the same environmental cleanup becomes more expensive and time-consuming under Superfund compared to a state-led or voluntary cleanup program. Whether managed under Superfund authority or through a state program, remediation is likely to involve the same core work, removing contaminated soil, treating groundwater, and restoring the land.

“Yet, because of the ‘Superfund premium,’ we often see costs just balloon and timelines stretch once a site is listed. It’s not because the environmental standards are higher, but rather because the program’s process has replaced the law’s cleanup mission. The program’s complex bureaucracy generates enormous transaction costs that have nothing to do with actual environmental cleanup.

“Instead of removing contaminants, limited time and financial resources are squandered on endless meetings, redundant studies, and excessive overhead costs completely unrelated to remediation. There is no shortage of responsible parties that are ready and willing to remediate these sites. Even Good Samaritans, well-intentioned individuals and organizations, are often deterred from cleaning up sites because of liability risks and financial barriers.

“Our laws should encourage, not prevent, volunteer efforts to address legacy pollution. Accelerating the pace of Superfund cleanups does not mean cutting corners or sacrificing health protections.

“It means defining an end goal with a clear plan that gets it to a safe, productive end-state as efficiently as possible. The ensuing cleanup is driven by that goal, to the benefit of communities and the environment. Right now, the priority is enforcement first, cleanup second, and leaving communities to wait far too long. That needs to change.

“I look forward to hearing from today’s expert panel on how to improve the Superfund program’s efficiency and accountability.”