Frank Pallone Pushes For ‘Additional Appropriation For Superfund’ Sites

3 months ago

Last month, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) questioned EPA officials on superfund sites and cleanup plans during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00 I recognize as the former chair, or former ranking member of the full committee,

00:05 some things change while you're gone, the ranking member of the full committee,

00:10 gentleman from New Jersey, Representative Blum, for five minutes of questioning.

00:14 You can call me whatever you like.

00:16 Congress successfully reinstated the Superfund tax in the bipartisan infrastructure law and

00:24 the Inflation Reduction Act, but last year the tax brought in more than $1.2 billion in receipts,

00:29 and this represents significant savings for American taxpayers, despite being lower than

00:34 Treasury's estimates. But that's what I want to issue, Administrator. I understand Treasury is

00:39 responsible for estimating Superfund tax receipts each year. How is the EPA adapting to significant

00:46 discrepancies between the Treasury forecast and the actual Superfund tax receipts?

00:52 Well, we are continuing to collaborate very closely with our partners in Treasury,

00:56 and as you've mentioned, you know, the projections that Treasury gave us fell short this time,

01:05 and so we're fine-tuning that system, which is why in this budget we're asking for $300 million

01:12 in appropriated resources. We believe that we can take that $300 million plus those tax receipts

01:17 that we have seen come in and keep pace in terms of cleaning up these Superfund sites,

01:22 in addition to some of the resources that you all have allocated through Bill.

01:26 The demand is higher than the resources that we have. Many of our communities are not as

01:32 economically as vibrant as they could be because they're not as clean as they could be,

01:37 and so we believe that we can make up for that gap with this appropriated request,

01:41 and then the future will be brighter in terms of funding this program through tax receipts.

01:45 Well, I appreciate that, and I do actually support having additional appropriations for Superfund.

01:51 You know, my fear always is, well, now we get the money from the tax and therefore we

01:56 lag on the appropriated amount, so I'm glad that you're, I mean, this is $300 million more than

02:04 last year, right, from what I understand. Well, let me ask you, what would happen to these cleanups

02:10 if EPA does not receive the full amount requested, including that $300 million?

02:15 Well, unfortunately, we'll see a slowing in our ability to clean up these Superfund sites. I

02:21 think that South Plainfield, New Jersey would have to wait on the cleanup of PCBs. We know that we

02:28 can do it. We have the expertise. We just need the resources to keep pace, and again, when we are able

02:34 to list these communities, do this work as quickly as possible, we see our communities bouncing back,

02:41 not just from a health standpoint, but from an economic development standpoint as well.

02:45 And let me say, you know, I understand you're saying you need the extra $300 because of

02:50 lagging or possible lagging Superfund receipts, but, you know, I support additional funding from

02:56 appropriations beyond that anyway because we always need more money, and I don't want

03:00 appropriations that just, you know, make up for the Superfund receipts. I think we should be doing

03:07 both, frankly. I also wanted to applaud the decision to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous

03:15 substances under Superfund. Now, but I understand that you released a separate enforcement discretion

03:22 policy to make it clear that the agency will focus its enforcement on the polluters who significantly

03:28 contribute to the release of PFAS into the environment. So what does that mean? In other

03:34 words, you know, I know the water utilities, the farmers, you know, they're concerned. Does this

03:40 separate enforcement policy make it clear that we're talking about manufacturers? What are the

03:46 different groups that you're talking about here? Well, I appreciate that question, and we have

03:50 authority to have this discretion, which we've used before, whether it's regulating lead or other

03:57 listed pollutants. But I want to be very clear that we are focused on the polluters. We are

04:02 focused on the manufacturers that have deposited this into our water, into our air. This enforcement

04:08 discretion policy makes it very clear that we have the discretion not to pursue or go after the

04:14 farmers, the water systems, those who are also being victimized by the dumping of this PFAS as

04:20 well. So we want we wanted the public to be clear of who we were pursuing and who we're not. Well,

04:26 thank you. One last question I want to say, you know, obviously I would like to see all the PFAS

04:31 elements, you know, designated as hazardous substances. I know that's difficult because

04:38 there's so many, and you've designated now PFOA and PFOS. But are we going to see other elements

04:46 of PFAS also designated at some point? Is that what's going on? We will. I think when we look

04:51 at cleanup and PFAS in our drinking water, we are pursuing the processes. The proper process is to

04:58 look at the health and the economic impacts of these forever chemicals, and we will go through

05:05 a rulemaking process. We've done that for cleanup for these two. We've done six for drinking water.

05:10 We have 29 more listed, and so we're making our way through that list. Too many people have been

05:16 impacted by these pervasive forever chemicals, and we're going to stay focused on the job.

05:21 Thank you very much. Thank you for all you do.

Frank Pallone Pushes For ‘Additional Appropriation For Superfund’ Sites

Category

Transcript

Recommended