[Senate Hearing 106-965]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-965
OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE AT THE EPA, AND OTHER PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
__________
ON
S. 1763, OMBUDSMAN REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999;
S. 1915, SMALL COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1999;
S. 2296, PROJECT SEARCH ACT OF 2000; AND
S. 2800, STREAMLINED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
ACT OF 2000
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-526 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
second session
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri HARRY REID, Nevada
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BOB GRAHAM, Florida
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Dave Conover, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 8
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 1
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 9
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 7
WITNESSES
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado...... 3
Baumann, Jeremiah, environmental health advocate, U.S. Public
Interest Research Group........................................ 17
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Responses to additional questions from Senator Smith......... 53
Bisbee, George Dana, assistant commissioner, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services, on behalf of Data
Management Workgroup and Local Government Forum of the
Environmental Council of the States............................ 15
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Responses to additional questions from Senator Smith......... 46
Bruzelius, Ken, executive director, Midwest Assistance Program... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Cooper, Ben, senior vice president of Government Affairs,
Printing Industries of America................................. 29
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Response to additional question from Senator Smith........... 69
Prescott, B. Roy, chairman, Jerome County, Idaho, Board of
Commissioners.................................................. 63
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Responses to additional questions from Senator Smith......... 64
Sanchez, Deborah Spaar, cofounder and administrator, Overland
Neighborhood Environmental Watch............................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Thompson, Diane E., Associate Administrator for Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations, Environmental Protection Agency;
accompanied by: Michael Shapiro, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response; Margaret
N. Schneider, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Environmental Information...................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Regulation, Draft Guidance for National Hazardous Waste
Ombudsman, Federal Register................................ 82
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 78
Senator Smith............................................ 76
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Articles:
Finally, A Logical Move by EPA............................... 102
Vigilance Wins in Superfund.................................. 101
Letters:
Chalmet, Roger A............................................. 89
Giles, Glendas............................................... 88
Giles, Robert................................................ 88
Letters-Continued
Olympic Environmental Council................................ 99
Pi-Pa-TAG, Inc............................................... 100
South Central Idaho Tourism and Recreation Development
Association................................................ 93
USPIRG....................................................... 97
Statements:
Brian, Danielle, executive director, Project on Government
Oversight.................................................. 86
Dunham, Frances, Citizens Against Toxic Exposure............. 90
OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE AT THE EPA, AND OTHER PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:39 a.m., in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, the Hon. Robert C. Smith
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Smith, Crapo, Warner, Baucus, and
Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo [assuming the chair]. This hearing will come
to order. Before I proceed, I would like to indicate that
Chairman Smith has been delayed briefly. Because of some time
pressures that Senator Allard is facing, we wanted to get going
as quickly as we could. So, Senator Allard, we will begin.
Before I do that, however, I want to indicate that today's
hearing might be cut short. For those of you who are here,
ready for other panels and for other testimony, I should
indicate to you that the Minority has invoked what is called
the Two Hour Rule. The rule prohibits a Senate committee from
meeting for more than 2 hours past the time that the Senate
begins its daily session.
I hope that we will be able to conclude this hearing by
then, but I am not sure that we will. In order to help ensure
that the committee can hear from all witnesses, I will not ask
any questions at this point, or during my time period, to help
the witnesses move forward as quickly as possible.
I think the chairman is intending to waive his time, as
well. We will wait until he gets here, to see if he does do
that.
We hope to ensure that we can hear from all witnesses who
have come today, some of whom have traveled a long distance, in
order to testify.
In addition, because of this procedural objection, we need
to change the order of testimony of the witnesses. Ordinarily,
we have representatives of the Federal Government testify after
hearing from any member or officer of Congress.
Today, however, in order to ensure that our witnesses from
places such as New Hampshire, Idaho, and Minnesota, who have
traveled so far, can testify before the committee, we will
allow them to testify before we hear from the EPA. The Federal
witnesses who live here in town will, therefore, appear on the
last panel.
In addition, one of our colleagues could not speak here
today on behalf of the bill because of the Minority's
procedural objection. Senator Jeffords had planned to speak on
behalf of S. 1955, the Small Community Assistance Act of 1999,
but has been unable to make it to the hearing because of other
procedural problems. We expect that he will submit testimony
for the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Crapo follows:]
Statement of Hon. Mike Crapo, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation for your holding
this important hearing on pending legislation making improvements to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This is a critical issue and one close to my heart, not just
because I am either a sponsor or co-sponsor of all the bills before us
today. Each of these measures attempts to fix an overlooked problem
within the EPA and each does takes a unique approach to problem-
solving. Although I am a strong supporter of each bill, I would like to
take few moments here to specifically address S. 2296 and S. 1763.
As many here today know, I have been working with the EPA National
Ombudsman in his investigation of allegations of long-term agency
wrong-doing in North Idaho. Each effort made by the Ombudsman in this
case to date has turned up further evidence of questionable behavior by
agency officials. The North Idaho community has welcomed the
Ombudsman's interest and has willingly provided much information
critical to the Ombudsman's investigation.
I am sure that all of us here today recognize the importance of
accountability and responsibility by Federal agency officials. Without
public confidence in the agencies charged with protecting the
environment and allocating scarce taxpayer resources properly, it will
be difficult for any community to support Federal policies. In North
Idaho, a long history of EPA intransigence and lack of cooperation with
the community has all but eroded the confidence of the public in the
conduct of agency officials. It is my understanding that this chasm of
trust exists in many other communities where the EPA has used the
Superfund Program.
The activities of the National Ombudsman provide a real opportunity
to restore the confidence of the public. If the Ombudsman can correct
agency mistakes and highlight inappropriate behavior that is ultimately
corrected, communities will have a greater confidence that agency
officials are acting with their best interests at heart. If the
Ombudsman discovers that the EPA is acting appropriately, the public
will also breathe easier.
Now, however, we have reports that the EPA is attempting to
restrict the autonomy of the Ombudsman and this has raised alarm in
many communities across the country. If the so-called watchdog of the
Superfund program is not allowed to fully and freely investigate
allegations of wrong-doing, the public will be the ultimate loser. We
cannot allow the Ombudsman to be silenced in the proper conduct of his
responsibilities.
For this and other reasons, S. 1763 would provide the assurances we
all need to know that the Ombudsman is working to protect communities
and taxpayer dollars. I call on this committee to demonstrate the
importance of this measure by quickly enacting this much-needed reform
of the EPA.
S. 2296 would authorize a national environmental grants program for
small communities called Project SEARCH. The national Project SEARCH
(Special Environmental Assistance for the Regulation of Communities and
Habitat) concept is based on a demonstration program that has been
operating with great success in Idaho in 1999 and 2000. In short, the
bill establishes a simplified application process for communities of
under 2,500 individuals to receive assistance in meeting a broad array
of Federal, State, or local environmental regulations. Grants would be
available for initial feasibility studies, to address unanticipated
costs arising during the course of a project, or when a community has
been turned down or underfunded by traditional sources. The grant
program would require no match from the recipients.
Some of the major highlights of the program are:
A simplified application process--no special grants
coordinators required;
No unsolicited bureaucratic intrusions into the
decisionmaking process;
Communities must first have attempted to receive funds
from traditional sources;
It is open to studies or projects involving any
environmental regulation;
Applications are reviewed and approved by citizens panel
of volunteers;
The panel chooses number of recipients and size of grants;
The panel consists of volunteers representing all regions
of the State; and
No local match is required to receive the SEARCH funds.
Over the past several years, it has become increasingly apparent
that small communities are having problems complying with environmental
rules and regulations due primarily to lack of funding, not a
willingness to do so. They, like all of us, want clean water and air
and a healthy natural environment. Sometimes, they simply cannot
shoulder the financial burden with their limited resources.
In addition, small communities wishing to pursue unique
collaborative efforts might be discouraged by grant administrators who
prefer conformity. Some run into unexpected costs during a project and
have borrowed and bonded to the maximum. Others are in critical habitat
locations and any affected project may have additional costs, which may
not be recognized by traditional financial sources. Still others just
need help for the initial environmental feasibility study so they can
identify the most effective path forward.
In 1999, a $1.3 million EPA demonstration grant program for Idaho's
small communities with populations of 2,500 or less was created.
Idaho's program does not replace other funding sources, but serves as a
final resort when all other means have been exhausted.
The application process was simplified so that any small town
mayor, county commissioner, sewer district chairman, or community
leader could manage it without hiring a professional grant writer. An
independent citizens committee with statewide representation was
established to make the selections and get the funds on the ground as
quickly as possible. No uninvited bureaucratic or political intrusions
were permitted.
Although the EPA subsequently insisted that grants be limited to
water and wastewater projects, 44 communities in Idaho ultimately
applied, not including 2 that failed to meet the eligibility
requirements. Ultimately, 21 communities were awarded grants in several
categories, and ranged in size from $9,000 to $319,000. Communities
serving a number of Native Americans and migrant groups and several
innovative collaborative efforts were included in the successful
applicants. The communities that were not selected are being given
assistance in exploring other funding sources and other advice.
The response and feedback from all participants has been
overwhelming positive. Environmental officials from the State and EPA
who witnessed the process have stated that the process worked well and
was able to accomplish much on a volunteer basis. There was even
extraordinary appreciation from other funding agencies because some
communities that they were not able to reach were provided funds for
feasibility studies. The only negative comments were from those who
wished that the EPA had not limited the program to water and wastewater
projects.
The conclusion of all participants was that Project SEARCH is a
program worthy of being expanded nationally. So many small communities
in so many States can benefit from a program that assists underserved
and often overlooked communities.
I would like now to take a moment to welcome Roy Prescott, a Jerome
County, Idaho, county commissioner, who will be testifying on the third
panel. Roy has had extensive experience with Idaho's Project SEARCH
program and will be sharing many of the highlights of the program. He
has been instrumental in proving that a volunteer-based grant program
can function effectively and respond to real-world problems. I
appreciate his participation in the process and know that many small
communities in Idaho are in his debt.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Without anything further, so we can move on
as quickly as possible, we will turn to you now, Senator
Allard, and you can make any statement that you would like to
make.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
COLORADO
Senator Allard. Thank you, Senator Crapo, or I might say,
Chairman Crapo.
Senator Crapo. For the time being.
Senator Allard. It is good to be here before this committee
to testify. I thank you and the regular chairman, Mr. Smith,
for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Senate bill 1763.
It is legislation that I recently introduced to reauthorize the
Office of Ombudsman of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I would like to keep my remarks brief, just for the very
reasons that you shared with everybody, because I have to
testify at 10 o'clock before the Commerce Committee, and then I
have my own committee hearing at 10:30, so I am under the gun,
myself.
I want to share with the committee my reasoning and
interest in this issue. I introduced the legislation because of
an ongoing battle between the citizens of a Denver
neighborhood, and the Environmental Protection Agency,
concerning the Shattuck Superfund site. Only through the work
of the Ombudsman's Office did the truth finally become known.
The story surrounding the Shattuck side in the Overland
Park neighborhood in Southwest Denver and what the EPA did to
this community will have a lasting impact, not only on the
residents of the Overland Park neighborhood, but on each and
every one of us who looks to the EPA to be the guardian of our
Nation's environmental health and safety.
In 1997, after several years of EPA stonewalling, the
residents of Overland Park in Denver brought their concerns
about a Superfund Site in their neighborhood and their
frustrations with the Environmental Protection Agency to my
attention. I learned that the neighborhood had run into a wall
of bureaucracy that was unresponsive to the very public it is
charged with protecting. I requested the Ombudsman's
intervention.
In early 1999, the Ombudsman's Office began an
investigation and quickly determined that the claims made by
the residents were not only meritorious, but that EPA officials
had engaged in an effort to keep documents hidden from the
public, thereby placing their health in danger.
The Shattuck saga has been a frustrating and often
disheartening experience for all involved. It is an example of
what can happen when a Government entity goes unchecked. For
the residents of Denver, the Office of Ombudsman has afforded
the only opportunity to reveal the truth, and for the health
and safety of the public to be given proper priority.
In fact, the Ombudsman was so successful at uncovering the
facts surrounding Shattuck, his investigation has resulted in
EPA officials now looking at restructuring the office, so its
actions may be restricted and its independence compromised.
In essence, I fear that the EPA may be moving to gut the
Ombudsman's Office. In effect, this means the EPA's actions and
decisions in future cases like Shattuck may go unchecked, and
citizens in other States might not have a public avenue to
address concerns and get answers from the EPA.
Mr. Chairman, this cannot be allowed to happen. Without the
Ombudsman's investigation at Shattuck, the residents of
Overland Park would have never learned the truth. The
Ombudsman's investigation brought integrity back into the
process. Without the Ombudsman's work, a trusted Federal agency
would have been able to successfully hide the truth from the
very people it is charged to protect.
The Shattuck issue is a decade long example of why
citizens' trust in their Government has waned. My bill would
preserve the only mechanism within the EPA that the public can
trust to protect their health and safety.
I am not alone in my concerns, and the Shattuck case is not
unique. Many of my fellow Senators and Representatives have
experienced similar battles with the EPA in their States. There
is companion legislation in the House.
I would also like to point out to the committee that the
project on Government oversight and independent Government
watchdog organizations has submitted written testimony in which
they cite many other examples of EPA interference in Ombudsman
inquires of other Superfund cases. I would like to ask that
this testimony be included in the record.
Senator Crapo. Without objection, it will be.
Senator Allard. Let me make it clear that my main priority
in introducing this bill is to keep the EPA Ombudsman's Office
open for business. I want to make sure that the EPA does not
pull the plug on this office. God only knows what would have
happened at Shattuck without it.
I believe that in the future, my colleagues may find
themselves in a similar situation, and I want to make sure that
they have every assurance that the public's safety is
protected, its voice is heard, its questions are answered, and
that its concerned are addressed.
Mr. Chairman, those are my brief comments for the
committee. Senator Smith, thank you for allowing me to testify.
I expressed my thankfulness to Senator Crapo and the whole
committee for allowing me to testify.
There is going to be Deb Sanchez from the Overland Park
neighborhood, and you have got her scheduled to testify on the
fourth panel. I think you have moved that up. She is going to
give a very heart-rendering testimony on her experiences with
the Environmental Protection Agency and the cleanup of this
site.
I realize that there is work to do on this particular
legislation. That is why we have hearings. Your having this
hearing today expresses the committee's and your interest, Mr.
Chairman, and profound concern about this particular issue, and
is helping to move this forward. I really appreciate that.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Well, thank you very much, Senator Allard.
As I indicated, because of the time pressures that we are
under, we will not ask you any questions at this point in time.
But I did want to tell, on a personal level, that I strongly
support the legislation that you have introduced. As you know,
I am the co-sponsor.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Senator Crapo. You indicated in your testimony that you
were concerned that other communities in the country might face
the same thing. In fact, in a community in North Idaho, we are
concerned that we may also be facing the same type of thing. We
have actually dealt with efforts by the Justice Department to
tell the EPA that they had to muzzle the Ombudsman in hearings
that the Ombudsman was holding in North Idaho.
Fortunately, the EPA did not follow that recommendation
from Justice, and we were pleased with that. But we are aware
that the EPA is now developing guidelines and rules for the
Ombudsman's Office. We think it is entirely appropriate that
the Ombudsman operate under the American Bar Association's
standards, rather than specific standards that we feel could be
far too restrictive.
So I am very concerned about the issues that you raise
here. I look forward to doing everything possible to help this
legislation move along on an orderly path.
Senator Allard. Senator Crapo, you have been a very strong
agent in helping me with this particular legislation. Our
staffs have been working together, and I appreciate your
support.
Senator Crapo. Well, thank you.
At a later point in the hearing, if it turns out that we do
have time, I am going to make a longer statement on this issue.
But we would release you at this time, and encourage you to get
over to the next hearing where you have to testify on time.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allard follows:]
Statement of Hon. Wayne Allard, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of
S. 1763, legislation I introduced to reauthorize the Office of
Ombudsman of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I'd like to keep my remarks brief, but I want to share with the
committee my reasoning and interest in this issue. I introduced the
legislation because of an ongoing battle between the citizens of a
Denver neighborhood and the EPA concerning the Shattuck Superfund site.
Only through the work of the Ombudsman's office, did the truth finally
become known.
The story surrounding the Shattuck site in the Overland Park
neighborhood in southwest Denver and what the EPA did to this community
will have a lasting impact not only on the residents of the Overland
Park neighborhood, but on each and every one of us who looks to the EPA
to be the guardian of our nation's environmental health and safety. In
1997, after several years of EPA stonewalling, the residents of
Overland Park in Denver brought their concerns about a Superfund site
in their neighborhood and their frustrations with the EPA to my
attention. I learned that the neighborhood had run into a wall of
bureaucracy that was unresponsive to the very public it is charged with
protecting and I requested the Ombudsman's intervention. In early 1999,
the Ombudsman's office began an investigation and quickly determined
that the claims made by residents were not only meritorious, but that
EPA officials had engaged in an effort to keep documents hidden from
the public thereby placing their health in danger.
The Shattuck saga has been a frustrating and often disheartening
experience for all involved. It is an example of what can happen when a
government entity goes unchecked. For the residents of Denver, the
Office of Ombudsman afforded the only opportunity to reveal the truth,
and for the health and safety of the public to be given proper
priority. In fact, the Ombudsman was so successful at uncovering the
facts surrounding Shattuck, his investigation has resulted in EPA
officials now looking at restructuring his office so that its actions
may be restricted, and its independence compromised. In essence, I fear
that the EPA may be moving to gut the Ombudsman's office. In effect,
this means that the EPA's actions and decisions in future cases like
Shattuck, may go unchecked and citizens in other states may not have a
public avenue to address concerns and get answers from the EPA. Mr.
Chairman, this cannot be allowed to happen.
Without the Ombudsman's investigation on Shattuck, the residents of
Overland Park would have never learned the truth. The Ombudsman's
investigation brought integrity back into the process. Without the
Ombudsman's work, a trusted Federal agency would have been able to
successfully hide the truth from the very people it is charged to
protect. The Shattuck issue is a decade long example of why citizens'
trust in their government has waned. My bill will preserve the only
mechanism within the EPA that the public can trust to protect their
health and safety.
I am not alone in my concerns and the Shattuck case is not unique.
Many of my fellow Senators and Representatives have experienced similar
battles with the EPA in their States. There is companion legislation in
the House. I would also like to point out to the committee that the
Project on Government Oversight, an independent government watchdog
organization, has submitted written testimony in which they cite many
other examples of EPA interference in Ombudsman inquiries of other
Superfund cases. I would like to ask that this testimony be included
into the record.
Let me make it clear that my main priority in introducing this
bill, is to keep the EPA Ombudsman Office open for business. I want to
make sure that the EPA doesn't pull the plug on this office. God only
knows what would have happened at Shattuck without it. I believe that
in the future, my colleagues may find themselves in a similar situation
and I want to make sure that they have every assurance that the
public's safety is protected, that its voice is heard, that its
questions are answered and that its concerns are addressed.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Before I turn the chair over to Senator
Smith, I am going to launch the next panel. Then we will
proceed from there.
In our haste to get going here, I did not actually describe
the hearing. This is the hearing on Environmental Protection
Agency Improvements. It is a hearing on S. 1763, the Ombudsman
Reauthorization Act of 1999; S. 1915, the Small Community
Assistance Act of 1999; S. 2296, the Project SEARCH Act of
2000; and S. 2800, the Streamlined Environmental Reporting and
Pollution Prevention Act of 2000. We will have witnesses who
will be testifying on one or the other of each of these bills
on the panels that follow.
For the Senators who just arrived, I want to repeat what I
indicated before, as we began the hearing. That is, because we
are now operating under the Two Hour Rule, we are going to let
the witnesses who are from out of town testify first, so that
those who traveled long distances are not deprived of the
opportunity to testify.
I will announce the next panel. While the next panel is
being seated, I will then turn to either of the two Senators
who have just joined us, to see if they would like to make an
opening statement.
But while we are doing that, let us have the next panel
come up. It would be the panel identified as Panel III in the
schedule, which is Mr. George Dana Bisbee, the Assistant
Administrator of the New Hampshire Department Services on
behalf of the Environmental Council of the States; and Mr.
Jeremiah Baumann of the Environmental Health Advocate of the
U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
Gentlemen, if you would come forward. While you are doing
so, I will turn first to Senator Smith, to see if he would like
to make any statement.
Senator Smith. I have an opening statement, which I will
place in the record. I want to thank you for filling in for me,
as I battled the Washington traffic this morning. I am going to
ask you if you would please just stay right there, since I have
not had a chance to really look through the materials as much
as I wanted to. I appreciate you filling in for me.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bob Smith, U.S. Senator from the State of
New Hampshire
Welcome to all the witnesses, especially those who traveled some
distance to be here today. In particular, I would like to welcome Dana
Bisbee, the assistant commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services. I look forward to hearing Dana's testimony, as
well as the testimony of our other witnesses, on four bills aimed at
making improvements within the Environmental Protection Agency.
Although there is little time left in this Congress, I want to take
advantage of the time that does remain by looking at a few bills that
fit into the long-term authorization process. As you may know, at the
full committee level I have initiated an oversight effort into EPA's
budget that will ultimately lead to an EPA authorization bill in a
future Congress. We have held hearings on that subject already, and I
expect that we will hold additional ones in the future. In fact, we
have another one scheduled for next week. This hearing is a step in
that process.
Although the bills before us today address separate problems, I
would characterize them as an attempt to help the ``little guy'' deal
with issues related to the environment. Small businesses and small
communities are especially burdened by the onslaught of far-reaching,
complex, and sometimes unnecessary Federal laws. In addition, the large
number of complex regulations places an especially weighty burden on
small businesses and communities. Large businesses and large
governments have greater resources than small businesses and small
communities to deal with the never-ending growth of the Federal code.
Bearing witness to that fact is that no large business was interested
in testifying before the committee today.
I would like to speak briefly about the four bills on today's
agenda. S. 1763 is the Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 1999,
introduced by Senator Allard. It would reauthorize, for 10 years, the
Office of the Ombudsman within the EPA Office of Solid Waste. This
Ombudsman's Office has provided communities across the country with an
opportunity to voice their concerns. In my home State, issues
surrounding the incineration of waste and landfill space in Claremont
and Newport as well as Bethlehem are the sort of issues that small
communities could raise with the Ombudsman's Office.
S. 1915 is the Small Community Assistance Act of 1999, introduced
by Senator Jeffords and other members. It would direct the EPA to
establish a Small Community Advisory Committee and within each region,
a small community ombudsman. This bill would help small communities to
be heard in the regulatory process and provide a contact in each region
as an advocate for small community issues.
S. 2296 is the Project SEARCH Act of 2000 introduced by Senator
Crapo. It would authorize the EPA to fund environmental projects in
small communities in each State through an independent citizens'
council. The State of Idaho has had some experience with a program like
this one, and, from what I understand, the results have been positive.
S. 2800 is the Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution
Prevention Act of 2000 introduced by Senator Lautenberg, Senator Crapo,
and others members. It directs EPA to integrate and streamline
environmental reporting requirements to ensure simplicity and
consistency in reporting.
Before I turn to my colleague, the distinguished ranking member
from Montana, Senator Baucus, I would like to make a few other points:
Today's hearing might be cut short. The minority has invoked what
is known as the ``two-hour'' rule. That rule prohibits a Senate
committee from meeting for more than 2 hours past the time that the
Senate begins its daily session. I hope that we will be able to
conclude this hearing by then, but I am not sure that we will. In order
to help ensure that the committee can hear from all of the witnesses, I
will not ask questions during my time period. By waiving my time, I
hope to ensure that we can hear from all of the witnesses, some of whom
have traveled quite a distance to testify before us today.
In addition, because of the minority's procedural objection, we
need to change the order of testimony for the witnesses. Ordinarily, we
have the representatives of the Federal Government testify after
hearing from any member or Officer of Congress. Today, however, in
order to ensure that our witnesses from places such as New Hampshire,
Idaho, and Minnesota can testify before the committee, we will allow
them to testify before we hear from the EPA. The Federal witnesses
therefore will appear on the last panel.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I
will have mine inserted in the record, too. I have just a
couple of points.
First, there is a fellow here who is very instrumental in
Montana. His name is Ken Bruzellius. Where is Ken? There he is.
He is coming up later. I look forward to Ken's statement.
Second, I am interested in the role of EPA Ombudsman. That
is basically because a few years ago, a train derailed in
Alberton, MT, losing tons of chlorine and other chemicals.
Frankly, we have had a hard time getting documents. I think
that the Ombudsman is a process which makes some sense.
Also, even though he is not here, Senator Lautenberg does
not have many more days remaining in this committee. I was
going to praise him for his efforts in helping the Superfund,
the Community Right to Know, and his very keen interest in the
communities. I will wait until he arrives. There he is. I will
give a more flowery statement at a later time.
Senator Crapo. All right, thank you, we have had two other
Senators join us. I would advise the Senators that we are
operating under the Two Hour Rule, because of the objection
that has been made on the floor. Therefore, we have encouraged
the Senators to shorten their opening statements, if possible,
but we certainly would give you the opportunity to make one, so
that we can make time for the witnesses who have traveled a
long distance.
Senator Baucus. Do they know what the Two Hour Rule is?
Senator Crapo. Yes, I explained it to them.
Senator Baucus. Good.
Senator Lautenberg. John was a step ahead of me in front of
the door. Frankly, I do not mind acknowledging seniority.
Senator Warner. No, no, do not worry about seniority. I
just want to add my accolades to my distinguished colleague, as
he winds down another chapter of his career. We are sort of
contemporaries. We both served in the tail end of World War II,
and came to the Senate about the same time.
Senator Lautenberg. I thought I was in Vietnam, were you
not?
Senator Warner. I was there as Secretary of the Navy, but
anyway, not as a soldier.
You have made great contributions. We have served together,
particularly, in the highway areas. You have been instrumental
in TEA-21 and other pieces of legislation.
We have had our combative hours on the floor, but also I
have joined him on some of his crusades in terms of, while not
directly related to this committee, smoking on aircraft. You
are the man that eliminated that throughout the United States
of America. There is no question about that.
Now we take it for granted, and we all accept the improved
quality of life on our aircraft. But I can remember when that
was a tough battle to get through the Congress of the United
States. You have also spearheaded some legislation on alcohol
and highway, which I have joined you on, I think, most of the
time.
So you have left your mark in the Senate, my good friend,
as you go on to another chapter of another distinguished
career, whatever it may be.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very kindly.
Senator Crapo. Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to just get a little time extension. First, I
want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding a hearing on these
bills, especially on the section that we have called the
Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution Prevention
Act, which was introduced by Senator Crapo and myself.
For a moment, I want to just say thanks to those who have
had nice things to say, particularly my good friend from
Virginia. We do go back to World War II, even though I think we
fared fairly well over the long period of time.
I have enjoyed serving with Senator Warner. We see each
other on an occasional social moment, and we enjoy that. I am
going to miss our contact in the future, as I am with all of my
colleagues, here.
I have worked closely with Senator Baucus. We have searched
for lights at night from an airplane over Montana. I am was
amazed at the paucity of illumination there. But when you do
not have any people, you do not have many lights.
Senator Baucus. Amazed is an understatement. You were
apoplectic.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. I have been out in the country before.
I once hiked 5 miles from the city. It was quite a trip.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. And I have got to say to Senator Smith,
I looked at that bill on the Everglades. It is a massive piece
of critical legislation.
I know that in New Hampshire, it is not the New York Times,
but is it the Manchester Leader that is the big paper up there;
but the New York Times was very nice in their article, Mr.
Chairman, today, and I commend you for it.
So Senator Crapo, we have been dealing with a couple of
things. I love your State. I love those streams that I once
fished for salmon. I think it was a long time ago, but now I
understand you can get canned salmon easily in the local
markets.
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo. Unfortunately, it is not salmon reared in
Idaho. We are looking to improve that.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, and I love those mountains, as
well.
So I just want to say that EPA has no bigger fan, I do not
think, in the Senate, than me. I have watched the improvements
in efficiency and productivity there. I am pleased to note it.
I think the Administrator, Carol Browner, has done a superb
job, as well as the heads of the various departments.
I believe that the quality of life in the United States,
the health of the public and the environment, and even the
health of our economy has been increased immeasurably by the
work of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The bill that I propose would advance EPA information and
management reform. It is offered in this spirit of continued
improvement.
Further, the bill addresses a problem that largely the
Congress is making. That is kind of the fragmentation of EPA's
environmental programs. The intent of EPA's creation, three
decades ago, was to gather the Federal Government's many
environmental programs into one agency, to eliminate their
piecemeal nature.
However, today, we have at EPA, an air office, a water
office, a solid waste office, pesticide office, each of which
do excellent and essential work in their own bailiwick, but do
not always work together as we would like to see them do.
One by-product of this piecemeal approach is the additional
administrative burdens borne by businesses reporting
environmental information to EPA. For example, a work group
convened under EPA's common sense initiative discovered that 48
different EPA reporting and record keeping requirements might
apply to one given manufacturer.
But what is the price of requiring a business to find and
read through 48 complicated requirements, and to find those
handfuls which apply? There is obviously an economic cost of
business, but there is also some needless confusion.
The result of the cost and confusion is, in some cases,
under-compliance and even inaccurate information. When we
weaken EPA's information base, we weaken the very foundation of
sound environmental policy.
Obviously, nobody wants such a situation, either within EPA
or outside EPA. EPA, itself, has tried for over 20 years, under
Republican and Democratic Administrations, to fix this
fragmentation. If their efforts have fallen short, we in the
Congress have to take some of the responsibility. After all,
Congress wrote the air, water, waste, and pesticide laws each
with its distinct approach, and has rarely examined the intra-
sections.
My bill will compliment the existing laws. Under it, EPA
will continue to implement the laws, but present itself to
industry with one voice. Doing so will not only lighten the
load for hundreds of thousands of businesses, but it will
improve environmental information, and with it, environmental
policy.
This is a win/win situation, endorsed by business and
environmental organizations and by EPA, itself. So today we are
going to hear about some excellent work being done, both by EPA
and State agencies, on this issue. My bill will ensure that
this work comes to fruition.
Mr. Chairman, just as you have graciously granted us this
hearing, I hope you will give us the opportunity to report this
bill out of committee, so we can get to its enactment.
My bill is one of four bills that we are going to be
discussing today, two of which I have co-sponsored. The other
bill amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act, which is in the
jurisdiction of the subcommittee, for which I am the ranking
member.
I would like to briefly note that although I remain an
advocate for giving communities a meaningful voice at all
hazardous waste sites, there are technical issues which I would
like to see resolved before we take action on that bill.
So Mr. Chairman, I will take a moment, and I am talking to
both the chairman and the chair and the committee chairman, and
I would like to take another moment to reflect on this last
time that I participate in a hearing on EPA.
I am enormously proud to have served on this committee for
over 18 years. It is a particular honor to have served with
you, Senator Smith.
At the risk of repeating some of the things that I said
earlier today, I say that since becoming chairman of the
committee, you have demonstrated true leadership qualities.
While we may not a have agreed on every issue, I think it is
fair to say you have shown fairness and respect in dealing with
the many different interests that those of us on this committee
represent.
After I am gone, I hope that you will continue the proud
tradition of New Englanders from your side of the aisle, who
have led this committee: the late friend of all of us, Senator
Chafee, and Senator Stafford during my tenure. It was very able
leadership. I know that they would be proud of the work you are
doing to continue their legacy.
So I thank you for this and for your assistance in passing
the Beach bill. I have been working on that legislation to
protect our coastal waters for 9 years. Things do not always
move in a hasty fashion around here. It is wonderful to see it
finally working, and moving toward enactment.
There are other things that we have worked on, the members
of this committee, to protect our environment, cleaning up
toxic waste sites, Brownfield sites, stopping ocean dumping of
sewage, sludge, and plastics, and making sure citizens have the
right to know about what toxic chemicals are in their
communities, protecting the public health from radon gas, and
improving transportation in our Nation.
So I want to thank the members of the staff, both the
Republican and Democratic side, who worked very hard to advance
the environmental agenda. Then I talked particularly about the
folks on my team, Amy Marin, Nicki Roy, Lisa Hagee, and Mitch
Warren.
With that, I thank all of you for your indulgence. I
apologize for having taken those extra minutes. But just think
about this, you will not have to listen to me again next year.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]
Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the State of
New Jersey
I would like to thank the chairman for holding a hearing on these
bills and especially on the Streamlined Environmental Reporting and
Pollution Prevention Act, introduced by myself and Senator Crapo.
EPA has no bigger fan in the Senate than me. I believe the quality
of life in the United States, the health of the public and the
environment, and even the health of our economy have been increased
immeasurably by the work of the Environmental Protection Agency.
My bill, which would advance EPA information management reform, is
offered in the spirit of continuous improvement. Furthermore, the bill
addresses a problem that is largely of Congress's making the
fragmentation of EPA's environmental programs.
The intent of EPA's creation three decades ago was to gather the
Federal Government's many environmental programs into one agency to
eliminate their piecemeal nature. However, today we have at EPA an Air
Office, a Water Office, a Waste Office, and a Pesticide Office, each of
which do excellent and essential work in their own bailiwick, but do
not always work together as well as we wish they would.
One byproduct of this piecemeal approach is additional
administrative burden borne by businesses reporting environmental
information to EPA. For example, a work group convened under EPA's
Common Sense Initiative discovered that 48 different EPA reporting and
recordkeeping requirements might apply to one given manufacturer.
What's the price of requiring a business to find and read through
48 complicated requirements to find those handful which apply? There's
obviously an economic cost to the business, but there's also needless
confusion.
The result of the cost and confusion is, in some cases, under
compliance and even, inaccurate information. And when we weaken EPA's
information base, we weaken the very foundation of sound environmental
policy.
Obviously, nobody wants such a situation, either within EPA or
without. EPA itself has tried for over 20 years, under Republican and
Democratic Administrations, to fix the fragmentation. If their efforts
have fallen short, Congress must take some of the responsibility. After
all, Congress wrote the air, water, waste, and pesticide laws, each
with its distinct approach, and has rarely examined the intersections.
My bill will complement the existing laws. Under it, EPA will
continue to implement the laws, but present itself to industry with one
voice. Doing so will not only lighten the load for hundreds of
thousands of businesses, it will improve environmental information,
and, with it, environmental policy. This is a win-win bill, which is
endorsed by business and environmental organizations, and by EPA
itself.
Today we will hear about excellent work being done by both EPA and
State agencies on this issue. My bill will ensure that this work comes
to fruition.
Mr. Chairman, just as you have graciously granted us this hearing,
I hope you will also give us the opportunity to report this bill out of
committee, so we can seek its enactment.
Mr. Chairman, my bill is one of four bills we will be discussing
today, two of which I've cosponsored. The other bill amends the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, which is in the jurisdiction of the subcommittee
for which I am the ranking member.
I would like to briefly note that, although I remain an advocate
for giving communities a meaningful voice at all hazardous waste sites,
there are some technical issues which I would like to see resolved
before we take action on the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take another moment to reflect on
what will be the last time I participate in a hearing of the
Environment and Public Works Committee. I am enormously proud to have
served on this committee for over 16 years.
It's been a special honor to have served with you, Mr. Chairman. At
the risk of repeating some of the things I said at our committee
meeting last week, I want to say that, since becoming chairman of the
committee, you have demonstrated true leadership qualities.
While we may not have agreed on every issue, you have shown
fairness and respect in dealing with the many different interests that
those of us on this committee represent. After I am gone I hope that
you will continue the proud tradition of New Englanders from your side
of the aisle who have led this committee: the late Senator Chafee and
Senator Stafford during my tenure.
I know that they would be very proud of the work you are doing to
continue their legacies.
I want to thank you and Senator Baucus for all of your assistance
in passing the Beach bill. I've been working on this legislation to
protect our coastal waters for 9 years.
It's wonderful to see it finally moving toward enactment. There are
so many other issues I've worked on with the members of this committee
to protect our environment: cleaning up toxic waste sites, bringing
brownfields sites back to productive use; stopping ocean dumping of
sewage sludge and plastics, making sure citizens have the right-to-know
about what toxic chemicals are in their communities; protecting the
public health from radon gas; and improving transportation in our
nation.
I also want to thank the members of my staff who have worked very
hard to help advance my environmental agenda: Amy Maron, Nikki Roy,
Lisa Haage, and Mitch Warren.
Senator Crapo. Senator, we are not concerned about that. We
all appreciate your service and the opportunity to work with
you. I believe Senator Smith wanted to add one more comment.
Senator Smith. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to say, Senator Lautenberg, we politically probably do not have
a lot in common, but we were both born in New Jersey. We both
went to college on the GI bill which, without it, I probably
would not have been able to go to college, in my case.
But it has been a pleasure to work with you, over the
years. I remember, I guess, 3 or 4 years of constant
negotiations with you on Superfund. It never really came to
fruition, but it was not for lack of trying and working
together in a spirit of cooperation and bi-partisanship.
You do have a great legacy. I respect you for it. I am
proud of the things that you have accomplished, especially, I
think, in the area of expansion of parks, refuges, open space.
You mentioned the Right to Know, as well as the beaches, and
beaches are very important in New Jersey, as you and I both
know.
So, you know, I hate to always say goodbye, but I want to
say that in a spirit of friendship. It has been a pleasure to
work with you.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Crapo. Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. I know you are pressed for time for the
hearing. But I would like to say to everyone in this room and
in the world, in fact, that anyone who appreciates no smoking
on an airline, and I dare say that is a good number of people,
has Senator Lautenberg to thank.
Senator Lautenberg spearheaded that effort. He was an
indefatigable champion to get rid of smoke on airlines. He
started it. He pursued it. He finished it. I think we all owe a
deep, deep sense of gratitude to the Senator from New Jersey.
He is the one.
Another is the Community Right to Know. If there is any
recent provision in environmental law, that has been a major
breakthrough to help cleanup the air and the water,
particularly air, it is the Community Right to Know issue.
That is where companies have to disclose the pollutants
that they put out in the air. It is just the mere fact of
disclosure. That is all it is, the mere fact of closure. It has
been a major, major, major help in cleaning up the environment.
Again, that is Senator Lautenberg. That was his idea. He
pursued it. He pushed it. It is an indication of a guy who (a)
knows a good idea when he sees one; (b) pushes it; and (c)
aggressively. I mean, he is no wall flower. He is no shrinking
violet. He gets the job done.
There are others, but those are the two that I will always
remember him by, as long as I live. I think all of us are
deeply grateful for it.
Senator Lautenberg. I thank you very much. I was
anticipating these tie-ups in airplane traffic, and just
thought how horrible it would be to sit 3 hours before you take
off, with the pilot fighting with the passengers saying, give
us a chance to smoke, with the pilot making these life and
death decisions.
Senator Smith. Now in your retirement, get to work on some
of these European Airlines, where they still smoke.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. They are doing better, Mr. Chairman. In
many of the countries, I know that you can fly across the
Pacific or across the Atlantic.
Senator Baucus. That is right.
Senator Lautenberg. Competition is what drove them there,
once people saw how good it was.
Senator Baucus. That is right. Even on an Air France flight
recently across the Atlantic, I was amazed.
Senator Lautenberg. There are some Japan Airlines flights
that have it. Those people do not want to be drowned in smoke
any more than we do. They would rather drown you in pates and
things like that. We do not. I am not going to try to develop
legislation against those kinds of things, I promise you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo. Well, Senator Lautenberg, as one who spends
about 10 to 12 hours a week on airplanes, I join with the
millions of American who thank you for that work of yours.
I would also note that although we come from a different
political perspective, you and I have found opportunities to
work together on issues where we find common ground. I was a
joint sponsor together with you on your S. 2800 today. I think
we have found some good common ground to improve environmental
work there.
Senator Lautenberg. That is absolutely true.
Senator Crapo. Let us proceed now to the witnesses. To not
only this panel, but all panelists, I would like to remind you,
especially today, because we are under such a short timeframe,
to watch the clock.
We know that you have a lot more to say than you will have
time to say in your 5 minutes. We have your written testimony.
We have reviewed it, and we will review it carefully.
So we ask you to please watch the clock. The green light
means you have got time to speak. Yellow means you have got 1
minute left. When the red light comes on, we ask you if you
would please wrap up your thoughts at that point, and trust us
that we will review any items that you have not been able to
cover.
With that, let us start with you, Mr. Bisbee.
Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Bisbee starts, I
just want to say to you that today is Dana Bisbee's wedding
anniversary. He flew all the way down here for this hearing. So
we want to make sure he gets the opportunity. That is real
dedication.
Senator Crapo. Maybe it is appropriate then that he is the
first witness.
Senator Smith. Yes.
Senator Baucus. Did your wife join you?
Mr. Bisbee. She is not here.
Senator Crapo. We better cut him loose early.
Senator Smith. You should wrap up soon and get back home.
Mr. Bisbee. That is right.
Senator Crapo. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE DANA BISBEE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NEW
HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF
DATA MANAGEMENT WORKGROUP AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FORUM OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF THE STATES
Mr. Bisbee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a pleasure
to be here this morning. I do very much appreciate the courtesy
of putting us out-of-State witnesses on early here.
If I may, in my small way, Senator Lautenberg, offer my
thanks and congratulations to you, as well.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Mr. Bisbee. I am here to address three of the four bills
before you this morning. The bulk of my 5 minutes will be
devoted to S. 2800, and the remainder of my time will be on the
two small community assistance bills.
I am here as the Deputy Commissioner in the State of New
Hampshire for the Environmental Services Department. I am also
chair of the Environmental Council of the State's Data
Management Work Group. I am speaking on behalf of that work
group this morning on S. 2800, and also on behalf of the Local
Government Forum at ECOS, the Environmental Council of the
States, on the two small community bills.
On S. 2800, I want to say first that we strongly support
the general concepts and actions that are required by the bill.
We agree fully with the one stop reporting concept, the
integrated reporting component of that, the electronic
reporting component of that, and the consolidated reporting
aspect to an integrated data reporting scheme.
We also fully agree with the notion that data standards are
at the core of any new integrated data system. We believe and
we trust that the integrated reporting system that S. 2800
incorporates is consistent with the work that we are doing
jointly right now, the States with EPA, on developing a
national environmental information exchange network.
I do have three general observations and related concerns,
however, that I would like to address. The first is that while
this bill is necessarily focused on EPA, and Senator Crapo, you
made that remark earlier, I believe, there is a significant
State role in this whole data management arena.
The States are very active in data management. Roughly
speaking, the States provide roughly 94 percent of the data
that is maintained in the national data bases at EPA.
The States have made a significant investment in IT
infrastructure. It is essential that this bill not undermine
the State role in any way in the data management arena, and
that it also be flexible enough to accommodate the different
infrastructure needs that the States have. We should not
mandate a one-size-fits-all approach in this bill.
The second point I wish to make is that it is important to
the States that S. 2800 fully support the notion of the
partnership that has developed between the States and EPA in
recent years in the data management area.
We really have developed an effective working relationship.
We formalized it some 3 years ago with the creation of a joint
work group between the States and EPA on information
management. We have already created a Data Standards Council,
and that council is hard at work now in developing
environmental data standards.
We also are jointly engaged right now in the design and
development of this national environmental information exchange
network, that we believe is consistent with the integrated
reporting system that S. 2800 provides for.
The concern we have is that we make sure that nothing in S.
2800 inadvertently is inconsistent with the network approach
that we are jointly developing by either creating an
unnecessary hurdle in the creation of this network, or in
delaying it. We want to make sure that any of the language in
S. 2800 does not provide for any unintended consequences in
that regard.
The last point on S. 2800 is the simple question of
resources. I just want to say that there is a significant
initial investment required to do what we are doing. There are
State infrastructure needs that have to be addressed. There are
EPA internal capacity needs that have to be addressed. There is
joint development work with the States and EPA, and the tribes
are included, that needs to be supported as well.
We strongly encourage this committee to authorize the
funding to make this happen.
If I may use the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman, to
address the two small community assistance bill. On behalf of
the Local Government Forum at ECOS, let me simply say that we
support the general concepts and the underlying principles in
both S. 1915 and S. 2296.
It's importance to our small communities we see first-hand.
It is important that they have a strong role in the development
of regulatory programs. EPA is making progress in this area,
and we believe that S. 1915 should enhance that effort.
Furthermore, on the funding side, in S. 2296, while we are
concerned that the other current funding programs that are in
place--most particularly the SRFs, the State revolving fund
programs are not undermined--we believe that targeted
assistance for the smallest of our communities does make sense.
We are supportive of that notion.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Bisbee.
Mr. Baumann.
STATEMENT OF JEREMIAH BAUMANN, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADVOCATE,
U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP
Mr. Baumann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Lautenberg. It
is an honor to be here to testify in support of two bills,
today, the Ombudsman Reauthorization bill and the Streamlined
Environmental Reporting bill.
First, let me introduce myself. My name is Jeremiah
Baumann. I am an environmental health advocate for U.S. PIRG,
which is the National Advocacy Office for the State Public
Interest Research Groups, a nationwide network of public
interest advocacy organizations, active on issues including
health care, environmental protection, and consumer protection.
We welcome the opportunity to testify in support of these
two bills. I have submitted comprehensive testimony, but would
like to just take a few minutes to briefly comment on the two
bills, and what we see as the public interest priorities, as
these reforms are made.
First, I will discuss S. 2800, the streamlined
Environmental Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act,
introduced by Senators Lautenberg and Crapo.
U.S. PIRG supports this bill as an essential reform at EPA
that makes some very critical improvements in EPA's information
systems. It addresses one specific long-standing problem at
EPA, which is that the agency collects an enormous wealth of
information, over the course of years, or in some cases multi-
year cycles, but various pieces and types of information are
collected by different programs and different offices at EPA,
held by different programs and offices at EPA.
Those parties who do the reporting often are reporting at
different times of the year, resulting in some pieces of
information, or similar pieces of information, being held more
than once, and some critical pieces of information not being
held at all.
This bill could not only address that problem and directly
improve EPA's environmental information management, but by
doing so, would actually improve EPA's work in protecting the
environment, specifically by encouraging providing
opportunities for facilities and States to promote pollution
prevention.
One way that it does this is simply by consolidating these
reporting requirements into one system, it would give those
reporting, whether it is facilities or States, the opportunity
to view all of that information at one time, which is critical
to assessing their own environmental impacts, and then
identifying ways that they can reduce their environmental
impacts.
This bill, however, even goes a step further by providing
those people, providing EPA with information, the information
for the facility or the State to use on pollution prevention
opportunities. So the reporting party can both see their
environmental impacts, and identify their own ways of reducing
their pollution, but then also is provided with additional
information from the agency on how to reduce that pollution
through pollution prevention.
The bill would also, we believe, encourage pollution
prevention, simply by making it easier to report more
accurately and more consistently. Reporting all information
through one system and one point of contact would make it
easier to identify and correct errors before the data is even
submitted to EPA, which would inherently increase data
accuracy.
It would also make it easier for facilities and States to
increase compliance, simply by reducing the confusion created
by a myriad of reporting requirements at EPA. All of these
things would lead to better policymaking by EPA for the long
term.
Our one concern about this bill is that by not requiring
reporting parties to use the system, and by allowing EPA to
establish different methods of providing that information, it
could create problems of data consistency and data
comparability. We think these problems are very easy to avoid.
The major problem would be that if some parties are using
the system and others are not using the system, EPA or the
legislation needs to take strong steps to ensure that the data
will be consistent and will be comparable, which could be as
simple as allowing facilities who chose not to use an
electronic reporting system to use the same integrated
reporting system, but in paper format, so that information
could easily be integrated with the larger data system.
My final thought is, as many of you are familiar with, U.S.
PIRG and the State PIRGs have long advocated for improving
EPA's information resources by increasing information collected
by EPA, filling in gaps in EPA's information resources.
This bill does not do that but, instead, improves EPA's
information, simply by making it easier to report, by making
reporting more efficient, and without adding any new reporting
requirements.
We see this bill, however, as a much needed reform that we
strongly support, and hope it is enacted into law before the
Congress leaves.
I will comment just very briefly on the Ombudsman
Reauthorization Act of 1999. The most important aspect of this
bill is its most basic act, simply reauthorizing the Office of
the Ombudsman, who provides an important service to communities
around the country, affected by problems of hazardous waste,
and who sometimes do not feel their concerns are appropriately
addressed by EPA.
Senator Allard mentioned some of the major concerns, both
in getting EPA's attention, and having the concerns addressed;
and then, also, in EPA's interactions with the Ombudsman.
We fully support extending the Ombudsman's independence and
authority in compliance with the American Bar Association's
model Ombudsman statute.
A couple of recommendations would be to consider adopting
those reforms, especially in this legislation, rather than
requiring the administrator to consider it, or to adopt the
reforms to the best of her ability, to ensure that all of the
Ombudsmen are publicly available; all the Ombudsmen's findings
and recommendations are publicly available; and then in order
to avoid having the Ombudsmen become entangled in turf battles
or political wrangling, to ensure that Ombudsmen's mission is
the same as the EPA's mission, which is to protect human health
and the environment.
Thank you very much.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Smith would like to make a very quick announcement.
Senator Smith. We had planned to have a business meeting
off the floor, during this vote, in order to pass out the bills
that we had the meeting on last week. We were unable to do it,
because we did not have enough members.
I am going to cancel that or postpone that meeting for the
benefit of members and staffs, so that I can go down and vote,
come back, and then Senator Crapo can stay. Then he can leave.
That way, it is at a deference to the witnesses and the time
constraints we are in. So we will postpone that meeting. I will
go ahead and go down and vote. You can go when I get back.
Senator Lautenberg. Then, Senator Crapo, may I just ask a
couple of questions here while Senator Smith goes to vote, and
we will kind of sequence this?
Senator Crapo. Yes, I was going to withhold any of my
questions. If you have a few questions, we would be glad to do
so.
Senator Lautenberg. I have just a couple of quick ones, I
promise. I thank each of the witnesses, Mr. Bisbee and Mr.
Baumann, for your comments.
I think we are on the right track, as evidenced by your
testimony. The fact is, Mr. Bisbee, some of the questions you
raise, I think, some are already taken care of, I believe, and
a review of the bill would help establish that. If not, we
would look forward to working with you, to try and get it done.
In terms of the funding, the resources, and you mentioned
that in your commentary, as well, there is a request for some
$30 million to get this done.
I would ask each of you, in short form, what would be the
effect, because we do not have it provided on the House side,
of not providing the financial resources? What do you think the
result might be if we did not?
Mr. Bisbee. If I may address that first, we are talking
about an area of technology that is changing so rapidly that
the concept is to take advantage of it as soon as possible.
My personal view is the time is ripe and the time is right
to invest in this technology to make happen what we know the
technology will allow.
The harm that will come from delayed funding or no funding
is a longer time for us to be able to put in place the kinds of
data reporting processes that we feel can work, and will be a
tremendous improvement over what the current system is.
Mr. Baumann. I would only add that EPA has had information
reform and integration and electronic reporting on its agenda
for several years now. After several years of working with the
Agency, most of those reforms have not actually come about.
As a result, in response to many industry requests for
burden reductions, EPA has been forced to respond reactively
with proposals to cut important information requirements and
other vital public interest information resources.
We feel this is a great proactive approach to reducing the
burden, and it would make reporting more efficient. Having the
necessary funding to enact these reforms immediately is crucial
to prioritizing this at the agency.
Senator Lautenberg. I think timing in this case is really
critical. If we are agreed that this has value, that we want to
get to kind of a one stop approach, then we ought to get on
with it. Delaying it, for whatever the reason, does not help
anything or anybody.
I think that when we have an opportunity to bring business
and the environment community and citizens generally together,
I think that is the time that you move on these. I am hopeful
that we can get the funding done.
I had one other question, and the chairman mentioned this
also, I think. That is whether or not there has to be a degree
of conformity to the reporting structures. Why could we not, as
we go through this, establish a relatively common format, to
get the data moving in and out? Do you think that would be a
serious problem?
I come out of the computer business. The problem is that it
was 18 years ago. I am still considered a pioneer, but I do not
know in what.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Our experience goes back to the
earliest 1950's, and uniformity was always a problem, in
companies that operated in all the States and several countries
around the world, besides ours.
Do you not think that a good effort could be made to reduce
the differences, without imposing too heavy a hand in there, to
make sure we get the information that we want?
Mr. Bisbee. Again, I will be happy to address that, first.
I do agree with you. There is an absolute need for consistency.
The data standards are at the heart of that effort.
By creating data standards that are adopted by those
reporting parties who participate in the system and in the
network, that will allow for the integration of the data, and
the usability of the information across Government lines, State
to Federal, and across State lines, as well. That is really
driving our efforts here.
So on one hand, there is very much a strong need for the
underlying creation of data standards to allow for the
integration to occur.
There is work being engaged in right now, Senator, along
those lines. A tremendous amount of work is happening within
Government. It parallels work that is happening in the e-
commerce arena, outside of Government. Our effort is to take
advantage of what is being learned in e-commerce and apply it
to Government.
So, yes, there is definitely a need for this type of
standardization. I would not call it, necessarily, uniformity.
It is happening. It can happen. It relates to the resource
question, as well, with an infusion of additional resources for
the States and EPA. That effort can be hastened significantly.
But I do want to mention, too, that we are talking about
standardization of the tools needed to transfer the information
and integrate the information. That is different from
uniformity in the underlying data bases that the States have.
There has to be flexibility to allow for different kinds of
platforms at the State level, so that we do not mandate a
particular type of system at every State. That is unlikely to
work as a practical matter, and it does not need to happen,
because the technology will allow for that type of flexibility.
Senator Lautenberg. I agree.
Do you have any comment on that, Mr. Baumann?
Mr. Baumann. I would just add that the consistency of data
standard performance is one of the most important aspects of
this kind of integration. I think especially between States and
EPA making data more comparable and more consistent, it is
crucial, especially in issues raised by the Ombudsman
Reauthorization bill, making EPA and State agencies more
accessible to citizens at the local level.
Senator Lautenberg. I agree. I think that we can continue
to allow the States to maintain their own data bases, as they
see fit, but there has to be some commonality, some formatting
that is consistent, so that you can patch the information with
ease and reliability.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator.
As I indicated, I will withhold my questions, so we can
move to the next panel. I did want to say something, however,
with regard to the comments provided by both of you.
Mr. Bisbee, I am the main sponsor of the Project SEARCH
legislation. I appreciate the support that you indicated for
it. You did raise the question of wanting to be sure that the
money was not diverted from other funds that are also helpful
to the States. Certainly, that is not the intent of the
legislation.
It would be my intent that that legislation would not only
authorize the additional funding for the small communities, but
that that funding be additional funding, so that we can
continue strengthening these communities. So your point is well
taken. I appreciate your support and your comments.
Mr. Baumann, you made a comment that I wanted to follow-up
on quickly. In fact, I might break my rule and ask you a real
short question.
You said that you supported the Ombudsman legislation, but
that you thought that maybe an improvement could be made by
having us, in the legislation, adopt the ABA standards. Did I
understand you correctly, there?
Mr. Baumann. Yes.
Senator Crapo. I like that suggestion. The question I had
was, do you believe that the legislation, as it is written
right now, does not assure that the EPA has to adopt those
standards?
Mr. Baumann. We believe that by directing the Administrator
to adopt them to the maximum extent possible, given the
inherent conflicts that the Ombudsman is intended to
investigate the agency and the Administrator, it would probably
make more sense for a third party, i.e., this committee or
Congress, to legislate those standards, and especially to adopt
those to the office, seems most appropriate.
Senator Crapo. You know, I think that is a very good
comment on the legislation, because to the maximum extent
possible still leaves the potential that they could be adjusted
somewhat in ways that the conflict you identified could become
expressed. I do not think that would be appropriate.
So I appreciate that suggestion. It is one that I will
encourage the committee to consider. With that, thank you very
much, both of you, and we would excuse this panel at this time.
Senator Lautenberg, I intend to stay here until Senator
Smith comes back, if possible. I know that we are getting close
to the late time on the vote.
Senator Lautenberg. No, we are still going.
Senator Crapo. We will hang in there.
We will call up the next panel now. The panel is identified
as Panel IV: Ms. Deborah Sanchez, the co-founder and
administrator of the Overland Neighborhood Environmental Watch;
Mr. Ken Bruzellius, executive director of the Midwest
Assistance Program from Minnesota; Mr. B. Roy Prescott,
chairman of the Jerome County Board of Commissioners, from my
home State, Idaho; and Mr. Ben Cooper, senior vice president of
Government Affairs of Printing Industries of American, from
here in Alexandria, VA.
We welcome all of you to the panel. You have heard all of
the instructions so far. I would just again remind you to
please try to watch the clock, so that we will make it through.
It is possible that if the chairman is delayed, we may have
to delay the hearing for just a few moments until he gets back,
while we run over to vote.
Senator Lautenberg. I would like to hear the full
testimony.
Senator Crapo. Yes, hopefully, we will be able to make it
through. So without any further delay, we will begin in the
order that you were announced.
Ms. Sanchez.
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH SPAAR SANCHEZ, COFOUNDER AND
ADMINISTRATOR, OVERLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL WATCH
Ms. Sanchez. My name is Deborah Spaar Sanchez. I live 500
West Jewell Avenue in Denver, CO, approximately 300 yards from
the Shattuck Chemical Superfund site, a toxic radioactive waste
dump. I am a founding member of Overland Neighborhood
Environmental Watch, a community organization of concerned
citizens.
I am honored that you have invited me to speak today. I am
also honored to be representing my community, and am grateful
that they have funded my trip here.
I also want to honor the work of this committee, of
industry, of EPA, and of the citizens of this country, for
doing what I believe to be the sacred work of restoring to
wholeness and protecting the life-giving systems of this earth
and this Nation.
I will do my best to tell my own and my community's story
in the time I have been given, but if you have questions,
please call me. If I cannot answer them, I will put you in
touch with those who can.
I have come to voice my strong support for Senate bill
1763, the EPA Ombudsman Reauthorization Act. I am convinced
that continued funding and independence of the EPA Ombudsman
Office is the only way to ensure that citizens and communities
across our country have a voice in the Superfund process, and
in decisions which directly affect them, their families, and
the environment.
I have also come to share my thoughts with you about my
community's experience with EPA National Ombudsman, Robert
Martin. By the time Senator Allard had asked EPA Ombudsman
Martin to help our community in early 1999, I personally had
been in a war with Region 8, EPA, for 12 years.
I had been given misinformation. The EPA FOIA officer wrote
me a letter in response to a request that I made in 1987
telling me that there were no national priority list sites in
my zip code, when, in fact, Shattuck had the same zip code as
me, and had been placed on this list 5 to 7 years before.
Mistakes had been made, and there was no interest in
correcting them. When I pointed out that a flood plain map used
to determine that the site was not in danger of flooding,
actually showed water running uphill, EPA seemed unconcerned
and did not offer any further explanation, even though the
community asked for new research to be done.
There were constant contradictions in the information being
given to my community. At one point, the EPA project manager
told us at a meeting not to eat the fruits and vegetables from
our gardens, and then without doing further research, later
told us that it was OK to eat them.
Our State Health Department and the EPA sent us a proposed
plan with a preferred remedy to excavate and remove, and we
were told that this was the only remedy which would ensure the
health and safety of our community.
Then, after closed meetings with EPA, State Health, and the
PRP, a ROD was signed, ordering the company to treat and bury
the radioactive soil in our neighborhood. They did this without
coming back to our community to tell us that they had changed
their minds.
When we asked to see the documents and records of the
meetings that would explain to us why they changed their minds,
we found that the documents had now been classified and were
being kept from public scrutiny.
I was suspicious. I was exhausted. My husband had died
suddenly of a heart attack the year before, and I was living
with unspeakable fears that the health problems my son, Lucas
have, were as a result of radium contamination.
I felt assaulted by the Government that I had been raised
to trust. I had become like a citizen in one of those other
countries where people can never relax. They go to bed at
night, fearing that, at any moment, their Government will make
a decision which will put them and their families in harm's
way.
I did not feel seen. I did not once feel heard. I felt
completely disregarded, as if I were invisible. I wanted to
take my son and move out of the beautiful, passive solar home
my late husband had designed and built for us, but even that
thought brought fear. I could not think of trying to sell our
home without disclosing to a buyer that somehow our Government
had allowed a powerful company to bury radioactive toxic waste
in the middle of our lovely neighborhood.
My next fear was that I might not be able to find a new
home that was not also potentially contaminated by some other
toxic waste. I could ask, like I did last time, but since I had
received misinformation before I could not trust that I would
not receive more misinformation.
The EPA Ombudsman first got involved in this issue
approximately 10 years after the community began dealing with
it. The first thing that he did was to listen to us. He and his
small staff came and they listened. They placed no
restrictions, no time limits, no agendas on their listening.
Bob Martin, the EPA Ombudsman, listened and listened. He
listened to our pain. He listened to our anger. He listened to
our fears. He listened to our frustration, and he listened to
our disillusionment with our Government and with the EPA.
He also listened to our good ideas, and to the wisdom we
shared about our own community, and what we knew about our own
environment; wisdom seldom tapped into by the EPA, because the
system has been structured to exclude community input. Instead,
it places EPA technical scientists, addressing most of the
concerns of the money-oriented businesses, responsible for the
pollution or responsible for cleaning it up.
He listened with respect and he listened to us for as long
as we wanted to talk. Then he promised to uncover the facts for
us.
He began to meet with EPA Region 8 staff, and began working
with Senator Allard and this very Senate committee to release
the many documents which had been hidden from us. He then began
planning and scheduling public hearings.
It was not until Mr. Martin's office, Senator Allard, and
other elected officials convened public hearings in the
community with the press present that I finally felt true
democracy was taking place, and I was able to regain at least a
little of the faith that I had lost in my Government.
Involving the community from the beginning of the process,
and actually listening to our suggestions would bring wisdom to
the Government process from the governed, which would not only
be good for all concerned from a spiritual and democratic
perspective, but also from a monetary and a practical one. When
problems arise and mistakes are made, and even when mistakes
are covered up, because covering up mistakes and making them
are human, it is only by exposing them to the light of day that
we have any hope in correcting them.
The independent Ombudsman process is crucial for exposing
the truth to the light of day for the citizens of this Nation.
Knowing the truth is the only way that we can remain free and
truly self-governed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee. I
will be happy to answer any questions that you may have of me.
Senator Smith [assuming the chair]. Thank you for your
testimony, Ms. Sanchez.
Mr. Bruzellius.
STATEMENT OF KEN BRUZELLIUS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MIDWEST
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Bruzellius. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
it is my pleasure to be here to speak on behalf of Senate bill
1915, the Small Community Assistant Act of 1999.
My name is Kenneth Bruzellius, New Prage, MN. I am the
executive director of the Midwest Assistance Program, which is
non-profit that provides technical assistance to very small
communities in the Midwest.
I have also been a member of the EPA Small Town Task Force,
and more recently, the Small Community Advisory Subcommittee of
the local government advisory committee.
I want to express my appreciation to Senator Jeffords for
initiating this legislation. I would speak in support of it,
not on my own behalf only, but also a coalition of local
officials and other grassroots organizations.
Establishing a Small Community Advisory Committee as a
permanent committee, instead of a temporary subcommittee is
extremely important. Small communities represent an
overwhelming percent of local governments, over 26,000.
Additionally, unincorporated communities, subject to EPA
regulation, would be heard and benefit from the Small Community
Advisory Committee.
It is important that these stakeholders have a direct voice
to EPA decisionmakers without the filter of a committee
dominated by larger cities and metropolitan areas. This message
came out loud and clear in the Small Town Task Force Report. It
has come out loud and clear in the current Small Community
Subcommittee. The report of the Small Town Task Force and the
Subcommittee both go along with the requirements of the Act.
Basically, what it says is, we need environmental
protection. We need to understand how new regulations will
accomplish that. We need input so that when regulations are
promulgated, they are appropriate to our situation. We need
advice and technical assistance in how to implement, and we
need access to resources.
I want to commend EPA staff for their seriousness and
commitment that I have seen in their pursuit of their
responsibilities. It is because of this commitment that I am a
little discouraged that they are not willing to offer to small
community officials an opportunity to express their similar
commitment to fully participating in the job of protecting the
environment and public health.
Creating a permanent Small Community Advisory Committee
with the objectives stated in S. 1915 is a small but extremely
important mechanism toward offering small community officials
this opportunity.
S. 1915 would establish the advisory committee. It would
also allow for representation from Federal, State and public
interests. It would seek to improve the working relationship
between the Agency and small communities.
It would provide for early involvement in the development
of environmental regulations. It would report its activities to
Congress, and it would assist the EPA Administrator in other
important matters.
Now I would ask, who could reasonably deny small community
officials this opportunity to show their commitment to helping
themselves and their neighbors to meet essential environmental
responsibilities?
Besides that, S. 1915 offers EPA an opportunity to better
understand small communities. Section 8, the survey of small
communities, identifies relevant information needs that, if
appropriately collected and compiled, would enable EPA and the
Congress to improve environmental services and quality of life
in small town America.
I would like to also speak to the Ombudsman provision of
the Act. The concept of Ombudsman was stated in the Step
legislation of 1992, requiring EPA to create such, and they did
not do so. The Small Town Task Force has also encouraged that
in its report. It has not been done.
The Small Community Advisory Subcommittee is currently
working on that issue. In fact, the recommendation has gone to
the Administrator. We think the best hope of having that happen
is for Congress to enact S. 1915, that would require Ombudsman
for small communities, just as they have for small business and
for Superfund.
I see my time is up. Thank you very much for your time.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bruzellius. Unfortunately, we
are under these time constraints; otherwise, I could let you go
a little bit longer. As you know, we have to stop at 11:30.
Mr. Prescott.
STATEMENT OF B. ROY PRESCOTT, CHAIRMAN, JEROME COUNTY, IDAHO,
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Prescott. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to
be here today. I am Roy Prescott. I am the chairman of the
Board of Commissioners in Jerome, ID.
I apologize for my attire this morning. I was assured that
as I left Boise, ID, yesterday afternoon that I and my clothes
that I had packed were all on the craft. I have consequently
been assured that Northwest is shepherding, at some point. I
hope that that wardrobe is as well fitted as I am at this time.
I do apologize for that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. Well, I think you have set a standard that
makes us all jealous.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Prescott. I am quite certain that if Senator Lautenberg
can talk about smoking in aircraft, certainly he can do
something. So there is work ahead for him in the next 3 months.
Senator Smith. That has happened to me several times. My
attitude on it is, go out and buy a brand new suit and bill the
airlines.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Prescott. I will use you as the resource.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Prescott. I am here this morning to give a brief
insight and the implementation benefits of S. 2296. I would
suggest to you this morning, Senator, that I represent, in
fact, a great part of those commissioned, which are part of
each and all those States, which are on this commission.
We look at the small communities, of which there are over
26,000 of them in this Nation, and what qualifies for small
communities. They are a population of 2,500 or less.
I would like to talk about 2296, the bill that would
establish Project SEARCH, the Special Environmental Assistance
for Regulation of Communities and Habitat Programs, funded
through the Environmental Protection Agency for small
communities under that 2,500 people.
Rural Idaho communities are facing many of the same
environmental challenges seen throughout the United States,
including the protection of groundwater, the disposal of
wastewater, protection of critical habitat and many others.
Yet, these small communities often find themselves without
the financial resources to undertake the size and scope of
projects necessary to respond to environmental challenges.
In answer to their call for help in meeting environmental
regulations and providing for livability, several communities
in Idaho prevailed on Congress to provide funding through a
project SEARCH demonstration project this last year.
Our focus was to use these funds to help small rural
communities solve their environmental problems. We targeted
these communities because they were generally with small
operating budgets, only part-time staff, and lacked financial
reserves so critical to being competitive in the normal public
sector for the grant process.
The 1999 initial grant of $1.3 million from EPA went to a
local non-profit. This regional planning association, the
Region 4 Development Association, has considerable expertise
with the grant process in helping small communities.
The association created a simple grant application that
part-time city officials or mayors could complete. A notice of
the grant program availability and the application was sent to
all Idaho counties, and to all cities in the State with
populations of less than 2,500.
To review the applicants and ensure a fair, locally-driven
process, a seven-member citizen advisory committee was formed.
The committee was comprised of one representative appointed by
the local board of each of Idaho's six economic development
planning regions, and one person who brought to the group his
experience as a small town mayor, and to the EPA Small Town
Task Force. This individual served as the committee's chair.
These seven individuals, of which I was one, reviewed the
applicants, and made the funding decisions. Of the 47
applications received, we were able to fund only 21. The funded
applications ranged from as low as $9,000 for facility plans so
that the housing authority could resolve its wastewater
problems, to a high of $319,000 for part of the funding needed
for construction of a wastewater treatment facility, a very
sensitive environmental area.
The project that we funded close to my home involved a
community of 150. I might give you a little personal background
on that area. In a population of 150, my folks met there,
romanced, and married, teaching in a school that is still
presently used, with no major additions or any kind of rehab,
59 years ago. That gives you an idea and a favor of that
community.
This 150 were attempting to install their first wastewater
treatment system using the community residents for the needed
labor. This self-help project had been struggling for a couple
of years with pipe stockpiled on the ground, and no financial
resources to finance a section of dangerous trenching that no
volunteer felt safe or capable to complete.
Project SEARCH funds enabled this community to complete
this aspect of the project and focused on getting the remainder
of the sewer system completed. These people in this community
will hook on this fall; where if Project SEARCH were not an
assistance, this project would still be years away from
completion.
Implementation of Project SEARCH was not without its tense
moments. In our community, the local water and sewer district
was awarded a $20,000 SEARCH grant for planning a study to
determine the feasibility of installing a state-of-the-art
waste treatment facility, coupled with the tours and recreation
development association, a non-profit tourism and recreation
group, we received a separate grant, planning through EPA's
SCAS, the Small Community Advisory Subcommittee.
This has the potential to result in development of a major
eco-tourism park in our community, as well as protecting the
point source of the drinking water source for neighboring
community. These two groups will provide written testimony
concerning this important success story.
The Project SEARCH concept provides the flexibility of
needed public infrastructure and grant programs. It has to be
implemented.
To typify, I think, and to top off what we are trying to
say here, when Senator Crapo announced those which would
receive the funds, a mayor from a small town, Idaho City, less
than 100, stated, ``To you, this might not represent much in
the form of the dollars that you have to work to. But with us,
it is an absolute Godsend.'' I think that typifies what the
issue is.
We would encourage you to support it, in any way that you
can. It is the only means that small communities under 2,500
have really to realistically look at the problems that they
have to resolve.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Prescott.
Mr. Cooper.
STATEMENT OF BEN COOPER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS, PRINTING INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA
Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you in support of S. 2800, the
Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution Prevention
Act of 2000.
S. 2800 is important legislation. It is important for
today, but it may have greater value, as the impact of Federal
environmental regulations is extended to smaller and smaller
companies.
For smaller companies, reporting can be a complex and
sometimes error-prone process. These companies often lack the
tools and experience to provide the information. Often small
companies have to rely on suppliers or material safety data
sheets to determine the volatility or toxicity of a chemical.
The level of complexity is also a factor in the rate of
error. The more complex the reporting requirement, the greater
the chance of error.
S. 2800 could provide significant help in reducing the time
required to file. If the reporting is consolidated into fewer
reports, it is possible that the rate of error will be reduced,
simply by minimizing the time required to fill out forms.
In terms of reporting burden, it is not unusual for a
printing company to file quarterly, semi-annual, as well as
annual, emission reports. A printer may also have to file an
additional State emission statement, with a different format
and data element presentation requirement to a different branch
of the same media program.
Some air programs, such as title 5, can also require
additional annual reports, when mandatory annual training is
completed. These various annual reports have different
deadlines.
These companies must also account for any significant
changes. The purchase of a new press, or an expansion of the
facility triggers other series of reports, including new
permitting, new source review, and more.
Frankly, we do not believe that Congress considered the
purchase of new equipment in a small business as an event
triggering new source review, but that is where we are today.
In light of these concerns, we think S. 2800 provides an
opening to some genuine reporting reform. For a smaller
printing company, the most accurate reporting is by inventory
or use of input materials, not outputs, such as emissions,
effluence, and waste generation.
Companies buy a certain quantity of ink, solvents, and
other chemicals. The process of accounting for these chemicals
provides information about emissions and waste. Additionally,
inventory accounting may also indicate areas where changes can
be made to reduce or eliminate problems. Inventory accounting
can also be more accurate.
Another benefit of consolidated reporting is to improve
EPA's inventory of pollutant loadings. One of the ongoing
disputes that we have with EPA is the emissions inventory. EPA
determines the emissions inventory and the emissions of
particular industries through emissions factors.
These factors are not changed often enough to account for
new technology. Since printing and other manufacturers have
been through a technology revolution in the past decade, old
data is worthless data.
It is my opinion that the challenge that is facing EPA is
not a lack of desire to make the change. Instead, the lack of
success may be due to the statutory ``balkanization'' of EPA
into media programs.
Each of these programs has developed data that is important
to the individual program. There is almost certainly a level of
concern about a proposal such as this that would consolidate
such data into a single point, since data is a form of power.
One question about this legislation is, why is it
necessary? Experience tells us if we want consolidated
reporting, it will be necessary to legislate it. It is our hope
that the legislation goes where EPA would go, anyway.
Would EPA accomplish the same goal, absent legislation? For
some of the reasons stated above, we do not believe so. EPA's
priority is the environment. From the environmental community
side, that means enforcement. From the business side, that
means communication and regulatory efficiency.
Enforcement tends to win this battle. However, at some
point, every constituent of EPA must realize that improvements
in data gathering also help improve the environment. Better
communications help. Regulatory flexibility can also help.
The primary benefit of consolidated reporting is that fewer
man hours will be spent reporting data to the Government, and
fewer hours will be spent by the Agency in processing the data,
once it is received.
However, there are other benefits that have environmental
significance. Consolidated reporting has the additional benefit
of giving the business the opportunity to look at a larger
picture of chemical use. Small companies are able to manage the
entire company at once. Likewise, if chemical data and use is
managed as a whole, problems and opportunities become more
evident.
If the report only addresses air emissions, the use of a
specific chemical may not be in sufficient quantities to pass a
reporting threshold. However, if that same chemical causes TRI
reporting, a waste restriction or a discharge limit, the
business may also be able to see that through consolidated
reporting. In effect, consolidated reporting presents an
opportunity for pollution prevention by highlighting emissions,
effluents, and waste as whole, and not in parts.
While we think EPA has done a good job at improving its
communication with the regulated community, it has not
succeeded in reducing the reporting burden. We cannot find a
single example of a company that has had its actual reporting
burden reduced through EPA's One Stop Reporting Program, for
example.
If this legislation will produce results, it is worth the
effort to pass it. We urge your support and prompt action on S.
2800.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Cooper.
Senator Lautenberg, do you have any questions for this
panel. I would remind you, we have to stop at 11:30.
Senator Lautenberg. OK.
Senator Smith. We have one more panel.
Senator Lautenberg. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to have the support for S. 2800 that we have.
When it comes from an organization like the Printing Industries
of America, it strikes a particularly good cord. That is an
industry that is comprised of lots of small businesses. It is
an industry that touches every other industry, and has an
impact on our lives, one way or the other.
I know that the environmental questions have long been a
problem for the industry. So I am pleased to have the
endorsement of your organization, Mr. Cooper.
I would just make an assumption about lots of these smaller
companies. I have a nephew who is in the printing business, in
a family business. It has been there for two generations. They
operate in New York City, and life is complicated, getting
materials, et cetera, moved back and forth.
Do most of your members, would you say, have any awareness
that they have got to be in touch with the environmental
statutes and requirements? Or is this something that sometimes,
I will not say, gets overlooked, because I know they are a law-
abiding group of businesses, but is it the kind of burden that
is often discouraging for those types of businesses, and
difficult for them to respond to, to the requirements that they
have to fulfill before they can use some materials or discharge
some types of materials?
Mr. Cooper. Senator, I think the biggest problem, in
listening to the situation with the small communities, it is
not significantly different for small companies. You have to be
a fairly large printing company before you can afford an
environmental specialist.
Consequently, I imagine in the case of your nephew's
company, he is doing the reporting. He is the one doing the
calculation, and he is also doing the wage and hour reports. He
is also buying the paper.
Senator Lautenberg. Absolutely.
Mr. Cooper. He is also selling the printing. So that is
where the difficulty comes in. So it is really a question of
where the priority falls.
We have done a great deal of work, over the last decade, in
trying to improve information flow to our members, and get them
in compliance. New Jersey has a marvelous small business
compliance program that has helped tremendously with that.
Nothing, though, seems to reach out to literally millions of
companies as effectively as we would hope it does.
The real burden is that there is just not enough room in
the budget for the kind of people to do this kind of work. So
it is much like taxes, if you do not have a CPA on staff, you
have to find some simpler way of doing it. That is the burden
we are facing.
Senator Lautenberg. So obviously, as a result of your
encouragement here, companies have been surveyed pretty much to
see their attitude, and they are positive about it?
Mr. Cooper. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. We appreciate your encouragement.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I have.
Senator Smith. Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Sanchez, I will start with you. I appreciate your
testimony and support of the Ombudsman's Act that we are
considering.
It seems to me that whether it is from the communities that
have been impacted by EPA actions, or whether it is from the
environmental groups that have seen the value of the
Ombudsman's ability to intervene and assure that the
environmental statutes of this country are properly being
enforced, that we see strong support for the Ombudsman
throughout this country.
As you probably know, we have a situation similar to yours
in Idaho, where we have been very concerned at the community
level that the Ombudsman be independent.
I think it is critical that we, in Congress, assure that we
not only reauthorize the Ombudsman's Office in the EPA, but
that we assure that that office is independent. That requires
both that it is independent in terms of its budget, as well as
that it is independent in terms of the rules under which the
Ombudsman's Office operates.
You may have heard the testimony earlier by Mr. Baumann,
who indicated that he felt that one improvement in the act we
are considering is possibly for Congress, itself, to adopt the
ABA standards, rather than to leave that up to the discretion
of the EPA, or in other words, letting the EPA determine how
much those standards can be adopted in consistence with their
operations. Would you support that kind of a change in the
statute?
Ms. Sanchez. I certainly would. I have read the ABA
standards, and I feel that they are very well thought out. I
know how the ABA does things. I know that the words that they
choose are very specific.
Although I do not have a copy right in front of me, I
believe the ABA standards begin by listing that one of the main
duties of the Ombudsman is ``to criticize'' the agency process,
or whatever is going on. I would just suggest that the word
``criticize'' be taken out and another word be used, because I
think that one of the problems we had at Region 8 is that they
felt the Ombudsman was criticizing them.
You know, when people make mistakes, they get very
defensive when other people come in and start criticizing them.
So that may seem like a trite suggestion. But I think that
from our community's perspective, bringing the facts to the
light of day and uncovering the facts, I know that the critical
process was inherent in that. But I think that maybe
``uncovering the facts'' would be a better choice of words.
Senator Crapo. Maybe a concept of oversight or
investigation would be a proper focus.
Ms. Sanchez. Right, hopefully it would help people not be
so defensive about the process.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. It also seems to me that the
budget for the Ombudsman should not be something that is up to
the discretion of the very agency which the Ombudsman is
overseeing in investigating. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Sanchez. I certainly would agree with that.
I also wanted to add that, you know, I have seen over the
years a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars being used for our
city attorneys to sue the EPA, which is represented by the
Department of Justice attorney in Federal Court, et cetera. The
taxpayers are paying for all of this.
If the Ombudsman could be brought in earlier in the
process, it could certainly help save the tremendous waste of
taxpayers' dollars in all these lawsuits.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Prescott, I apologize that the vote took me away for
the beginning of your testimony, but I did get back to hear the
vast majority of it.
I understand that as you began, you pointed out that the
airline still has your suitcase. I have experienced that
myself, so I can empathize with your feelings. However, it did
give you the perfect excuse to dress comfortably today, and you
have got us all feeling very envious up here.
Senator Lautenberg. And thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo. I appreciate the fact that you have done so
much good work out in Idaho, and that you have come here to
tell the Nation what a good experience we had with the pilot
project of Project SEARCH out in Idaho. I just wanted to give
you an opportunity to describe a little better why we need
this.
I know one of the objections to this legislation is a
concern that has been raised that by providing funding to this
project, Project SEARCH, that we would divert funding from
other needed water quality and other projects that are helpful
for the small communities.
But nowhere in this legislation does it take the money from
other sources. It simply authorizes the appropriating committee
to provide this funding for this project.
I guess I would simply state at the outset that the
question of funding is one that came up, as we investigated the
fact that some of these very small communities simply do not
have access to current funding sources.
In fact, one of the requirements under this project is that
they have to have tried to get the other funding sources and
have failed, before they qualify for these projects; is that
not correct?
Mr. Prescott. Yes.
Senator Crapo. So any small community that can adequately
and effectively access the other avenues of support that we
already have, like the State revolving funds and so forth,
would not necessarily be tapping into these funds, in any
event, would they?
Mr. Prescott. No, they would not.
Senator Crapo. You reminded me, it was Idaho City, was it
not, that you referred to in your testimony? You reminded me of
the press conference we had, when we announced these projects,
and how the mayor of Idaho City indicated that had this project
not been available, Idaho City would not have been able to
obtain this funding from any other source. If it had been
available, or they ultimately could get it, it would have been
years down the line.
Could you just expand a little bit on your experience, as
you have worked with this project on its pilot basis in Idaho,
as to what kinds of challenges these small communities truly do
face in trying to get resources to apply to their water quality
needs?
Mr. Prescott. Mr. Chairman and Senator Crapo, you found in
this, as it was developed in this program, and I think each of
you have a feel for that, first the community of which it
serves, if you take a community of less than 2,500, far too
often, particularly in these 47, those applications that were
received by us in Idaho, there were not any of those that
approached the 2,500 population.
It was more on the average of 100 to 200. More of those
which were making application that had a part-time, whether it
be a clerk for the city, whether it be a volunteer group that
was there, trying to go out and look for those moneys.
It was interesting, as the process went along, and you
noticed that to those communities which this serves, they
sought as the absolute last means to implement, which they had
been required to do, I say, a standard of life. It does not
really matter to them whether they lived in New York City or
Chicago or Los Angeles. In fact, they lived in Eaton, ID, with
a population of 75.
The very idea of having to finance a perimeter fence around
an open lagoon system caused problems for those people; let
alone the idea of having to design it, engineer it and, in
fact, implement those engineering features.
They did not know, and this is generally that I speak, and
I could get more specific. Generally, they spoke that they
could not find the funds. In those areas which they had looked
for, they did not quality.
Part of what happened in our particular situation was the
match. There were some areas that EPA worked out extremely
well, in the Boise office, to resolve those issues.
This money is last resource for communities that have no
other way to either find them, to apply for them, and if those
are in place, to even receive funds for them.
Senator Crapo. Yet, these communities are still subject to
the mandates of Federal law, that they comply with the
standards that they must achieve.
Mr. Prescott. Absolutely.
Senator Crapo. If I recall correctly, some of these
communities were facing a mandate that they spend amounts
which, for the number of people in this community, was
absolutely prohibitive. Because the engineering costs for these
systems, the construction costs, and all of the other costs,
which a larger community like a Los Angeles, a Chicago, or a
New York can more easily spread over a diverse population,
those costs are not necessarily that much smaller for these
types of systems.
I realize you have got larger costs, because they are much
bigger systems. But it is not on the same ratio of reduction in
cost, is it?
Mr. Prescott. No, and I will give you an example. There is
a small piece in one country whose total tax base was on 279
taxpayers within that entire country. Imagine a system, and you
work with those numbers much more than what I do, of $100,000,
how that impacts that 279 families.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
I think it is important for us to realize that as we work
to achieve the water quality standards that this Nation
desires, and water quality is one of the most important aspects
of quality of life in America, that as we set these standards
at the Federal level, we have let a major group of people fall
through the cracks. It is the people who live in these small
communities that do not qualify or do not have the resources to
be able to effectively participate in the programs that we have
already put together.
Yet, the people who live in a small town of 75 or 250 or
whatever are every bit as much entitled to have clean water as
the people who live in larger communities. That is why we have
to insist that we recognize this need.
I appreciate your being here to testify, and hope that you
find your suitcase soon.
Mr. Prescott. So does my wife.
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I have one observation.
Senator Smith. Go ahead.
Senator Lautenberg. I do not know Idaho well, but I have
been out there. I have been to the places that the tourists go,
like Sun Valley. I like to ski in those mountains.
But people do not realize that in my State, which is the
most densely populated State in the country, New Jersey has
almost eight million people, and we are 150 miles long, and as
Senator Smith knows, it is maybe 50 miles, in some places,
wide. So you have got a lot of people in a very small space.
Our small kind of miniature cities are 20,000 or something
like that. It is quite a different problem, when you are
working with communities of less than a 2,500 size.
You know, this is not an uncommon problem. This is where we
have some philosophical differences here, as well as on other
committees. That is, how far does the hand of larger government
go? That is in contrast to the question, Mr. Prescott, of how
do small communities?
We have it in our State, in different ways. If you have
police departments, they do not have a bomb squad. They do not
have a particular research kind of facility. They do not have
the kind of armament that they need in the event of a hostage
situation or something like that.
It is a question that is larger than the one that we are
dealing with, but I think this one is important. I commend
Senator Crapo for leading this legislation.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. But it does raise the question of where
does Government come in, and where does it stay out.
Senator Crapo. One of the problems we are facing is the
Government has come in, and these small communities are facing
Federal mandates, but they have no access to the traditional
resources.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
Senator Smith. Let me just ask anyone who might like to
respond, and perhaps you, Mr. Prescott, I am not sure, how do
we ensure that the grants are awarded to different communities
and the more influential communities do not go to the well too
often, to the detriment of others? How would you suggest we
avoid that?
Mr. Prescott. If I could, I would suggest that first, you
make that invitation which was done with this pilot, that was
last year worked on in the State of Idaho.
Every community under the population, and we will break
that at 2,500, was given an invitation to make application for
that. Second, I think, and equally as important, is that it has
to be regulated by a group or committee, whoever would sift
through that, of peers.
It was based on, in our case, there were six. They were
from the economic districts across the State. I have never been
more impressed than with that group that knuckled down to the
real issue, and that was absolute need. It had nothing to do
with the volume of projects, until you get down to that last
piece. But as importantly, they looked at need, and they looked
at how they had done in the past.
You did find those communities which made application
because it was easy for them. It has to be local. It has to be
controlled by those people which really understand what the
process is.
Senator Smith. One other thing, and I think it is in 2296,
I am all for local control, as local as you can get, for
decisionmaking. But we do have a situation here where you have
private citizens making grant decisions that may otherwise have
been made by, say, the Governor or other local officials. Do
you see any problems with that, in terms of 2296?
Mr. Prescott. I do not. The reason why I say that is, I
firmly believe that for the most part, these committees are by
appointment. Those appointments are made by individuals which
understand what the real process is. It is not a political
appointment of design to fix, in any way, that you really try
to get to in this area.
The issues that individuals, and I would suggest, Governors
or whoever, would have to make, they will not recognize the
sensitivity that you just addressed put on those areas of
concern and responsibility, those which would look to that, as
compared with what the real needs would be.
Senator Smith. All right, does anyone else have another
comment?
Senator Lautenberg. I have just one. I am sorry, Mr.
Chairman, that I interrupted your flow before.
But when people look at New Jersey, with all those teaming
masses that we have, and we have 92 communities, I am reminded,
that would be eligible for assistance under the bill, we still
have those smaller communities, and they need help.
Senator Crapo. They do, in fact, Senator Lautenberg. We
started this as a pilot project because of the need that was
expressed to me by my constituents. But it was so successful in
Idaho, that other communities across the country started
hearing about it and saying, ``Well, what about us?''
As we looked into it, we found that even in the most
populated of States, like New Jersey, there were needs of this
kind. So I think this legislation is truly a national need.
Mr. Bruzelluis. The Small Community Advisory Subcommittee
members, at least those who recently retired from the
subcommittee, certainly endorse and support this SEARCH
legislation, as well.
We believe it goes hand in hand with the need for small
communities to have a national advisory committee, and also a
regional Ombudsman and task force. But the implementation at
the community level with resources really meshes well with the
concept. I believe that there will be written testimony
presented, in addition to what has been here, that will endorse
that concept.
Senator Smith. We do have to stop after this question,
because we have to quit at 11:30.
How do you view the Ombudsman? Should that person be an
advocate, or should that person just be a receiver of
information?
Mr. Bruzelluis. It should be some of both, but primarily an
advocate. There are unintended consequences of what
environmental regulations do in very small communities that
somebody needs to be able to step forward that has resources to
work with that community, with the agency, with the State, to
help resolve those issues. It is very important.
Senator Smith. In your case, Ms. Sanchez, it is more of an
advocate?
Ms. Sanchez. Well, I was thinking of an advocate for
uncovering the truth; so an advocate for bringing forth the
facts. I think that, the community has its own wisdom, if we
had had access to the documents that had been classified, if we
had had access to the meetings, if we had had access to a
process in which to give our input--but we did not have that.
So I think that the most important thing that Mr. Martin
did for our community was to assure us that if there were
documents out there with information that was pertinent to us
that we should have access to those documents, that would give
us information about our own health and safety, he was there to
get it for us.
You know, just recently, we had some problems with the
community advisory group. The EPA evidently had not even read
their guidance, showing that the community should take the lead
in setting up the community advisory group. One of their
facilitators just sort of set it up and excluded members of our
community.
We asked Mr. Martin what his thoughts were. He basically
said, you are the community. You can go take back that process
and work with the EPA. I read the guidance, talked to the EPA,
and we were able to work out the problem.
The Ombudsman has given us information. He has reminded us
where we have power and where we have rights. He has been able
to uncover documents for us that gave us information that we
needed and deserved to have. That is the long story, but
thanks.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much.
Let me thank this panel and also the previous panel, who
traveled here a long way. I apologize to have to shorten the
hearing for you.
There could be other questions presented to you from
members. If so, then you would have some time to respond to
those questions in writing. We thank you all.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you very much.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Smith. The next witness is Diane Thompson, the
Associate Administrator for the congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations of the EPA; accompanied by Mr.
Michael Shapiro, who is the Deputy Assistant Administrator of
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; as well as
Margaret Schneider, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Environmental Information.
We thank you all for being here. We have about 12 minutes
before we have to stop. I believe you want to speak, right, Ms.
Thompson? So we will start with you. We will let it go up until
25 minutes after, in case a member has a question or two. So
please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DIANE E. THOMPSON, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY: MICHAEL SHAPIRO, PRINCIPAL
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE; MARGARET N. SCHNEIDER, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Ms. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make my
opening remarks as brief as possible. I appreciate your doing
the introductions for me, so I do not need to do that. Briefly,
I will address each of the four bills that are before the
committee today.
With respect to S. 2800, the goals of this legislation are
consistent with the Agency's ongoing efforts to improve the way
we collect, manage, analyze, and provide access to
environmental information for the American public.
Last fall, Administrator Carol Browner created the Office
of Environmental Information, and directed it to design and
implement a comprehensive new information integration effort.
The Agency has already begun work to create a national
environmental information exchange network, in partnership with
the States and others, to improve data quality and accuracy,
ensure the security of sensitive data, reduce data redundancy,
and minimize the burden on those who provide and access
information.
As we work to implement these and other components of a
national environmental information exchange network, we are
committed to building a secure network that will ensure the
integrity of our data holdings.
We very much look forward to continuing to work with
Senator Lautenberg and other members of this committee to
assure that this legislation first, provides the flexibility we
will need to deal with rapidly changing technologies; that it
affirms that the primary Federal role in streamlining the
reporting process should be standard setting and not as
software developer or licensor; that it recognizes the critical
importance of public access to high quality environmental
information; that it ensures enforceability comparable to
existing practices; that it recognizes the key, the very key
role, of the States in this process, as the committee has heard
in previous testimony; and, of course, ensures that there is
adequate funding to address this significant challenge.
With respect to S. 1915 and S. 2296, the two small
community bills, one of Administrator Browner's key goals has
been to strengthen EPA's relationships with its State and local
government partners. We know that small town governments face
special challenges when it comes to environmental protection.
Acknowledging the special needs of small communities, the
Agency has initiated a number of programs to assist them. We
have established a standing advisory panel, focused on small
communities, the Small Community Advisory Subcommittee, which
is a subcommittee of the local government advisory committee.
This subcommittee advises the agency on ways to enhance
small town participation and involvement in Federal
environmental planning and decisionmaking, and has consulted on
specific regulations.
The Agency has dedicated staff in both the program offices
in Washington and in the regions to work specifically with
small towns, and we have initiated a number of programs to
provide continuing compliance assistance.
Another element of our small community environmental
planning effort has been to find ways to better involve small
towns early during our regulatory development process. We have
been doing this through vigorous implementation of the unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and
implementation of Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism.'' We are
continuing to strive to improve this approach to small town
consultation.
Much of the emphasis of S. 1915 appears to be aimed at
improving the access of small communities to regulation
development. We agree that that is an important goal, but we
believe it is currently being addressed in the various
initiatives that the Agency is undertaking, as is outlined in
my written statement.
Turning now to S. 2296, this legislation would direct the
Administrator to provide grants in the amount of $1 million
annually to the Governors of each State, for use by small
communities. We are concerned that S. 2296 could divert scarce
resources from EPA's budget for State revolving and grant funds
supporting critical State programs.
These funds have been targeted specifically for the highest
priority public health and environmental needs in each State,
such as sewage treatment and safe drinking water.
As detailed in my written statement, we also have a number
of concerns regarding some of the more technical aspects of the
legislation: how it would provide for accountability for the
funds, and how it would determine priorities, for example, to
ensure that these funds are being used, in fact, for the
highest priority projects.
Finally, with respect to the Ombudsman legislation, we
should begin by stating that the Agency strongly supports the
Ombudsman. I think the testimony that we have heard today, the
very compelling testimony from Ms. Sanchez, would strongly
suggest that the Ombudsman program is working. The Ombudsman
program played a very significant role in what occurred with
the Shattuck Superfund site.
This Ombudsman function was established first in 1984, as
part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. When the
authorization expired in 1989, the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response retained the function, as a matter of
policy.
In 1991, it was broadened to include other statutes,
particularly Superfund, and in 1995, the Agency created
regional Ombudsmen, as part of the Superfund administrative
reforms.
We are concerned that the legislation, as proposed, in
addition to simply reauthorizing the Ombudsman position, would
propose that the structure of the Office of Ombudsman conform,
to the maximum extent practicable, to the structure of the
model Ombudsman statute for State governments, developed by the
American Bar Association.
We think some of the aspects of that model are
problemmatic. In fact, we should note that the ABA, itself, is
doing an additional model that would provide the guidelines for
use in the Federal administrative context. We think it would be
useful to look to that model, as well, to address some of the
inconsistencies that might occur by relying on the State model.
We welcome the opportunity to work with the committee and
the sponsors of all of this legislation, as these proposals
move forward. We thank the committee for the opportunity to
appear before you this morning.
My colleagues and I would be happy to respond to any
questions.
Senator Smith. Given the short timeframe, and since many of
these are Senator Crapo's bills, I am going to yield to him, at
this point.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
try to be very quick.
With regard to S. 2296, I understand the Agency's concern
that we not divert money from other funds that are provided for
States and local communities. Certainly, that is not the intent
of the legislation. If we were able to address that issue,
would the Agency's primary concerns be alleviated?
Ms. Thompson. I think the Agency not only has a concern
with that, but it also goes to the question of whether funds
will be used to really address priority problems.
As I am sure you are aware, $50 million represents three
times the amount of funds that the Agency has for its entire
National Wetlands Program. It is also approximately half of
what the Agency has in its Safe Drinking Water Program. So I
think there is a concern there in that regard.
Then there are obviously the concerns that I am sure we
could address, working together, about accountability and
assuring that these funds are actually being used appropriately
in the context of their being Federal funding.
Senator Crapo. Well, let me just comment on that, and then
go to another question. I understand the point you are making.
However, I think that the pilot project that we utilized in
Idaho has proven that the process that we put together does
truly have the accountability and gets the dollars to the most
significant needs. Therefore, it meets the priorities.
Now we may have a difference on that. But one of the
concerns that I strongly want to address in this legislation is
to create a
locally-controlled decisionmaking body; not one with a whole
bunch of Federal rules and regulations that create the rigidity
that we are trying to avoid, and let local decisionmakers apply
this to the most effective and important needs. Again, these
are needs defined by Federal statute. So I think the priorities
will be met.
Ms. Thompson. Senator, if I may, with respect to the pilot
project, you may recall there was some concern about whether
that pilot could be constructed under the necessary
authorization.
Senator Crapo. Right.
Ms. Thompson. So that authorization was, in fact, changed
to ensure that the pilot would be authorized under our existing
programs. Those existing programs have the type of safeguards
in them that we are talking about, that we think are necessary
to ensure accountability.
I think the other issue with respect to the pilot, and we
certainly understand that your intent would not be to divert
funds from perhaps these other programs that I have mentioned,
Wetlands or Clean Water, but in fact the way the pilot was
funded, was to designate, it is my understanding, funds from
our existing account. So the way the pilot worked, it was not a
situation that you have envisioned.
Senator Crapo. Right, although the legislation does not do
that.
Ms. Thompson. No, it does not do that. But what we are
concerned about is with its silence, the practical effect has
been, at least through the pilot, that it was done as an
earmark, which displaced funds from other programs.
Senator Crapo. Well, what this legislation will do, in that
context though, is to authorize the money. Then our job, as
Senators, is to go to get the appropriators to put the money
there, without diverting it from other resources. So on that
one, we agree. We are going to try to fix it in that way.
Let me go quickly, with the time that I have, to the
Ombudsman's legislation. First of all, I appreciate the
Agency's extension of the Ombudsman's functions, when its
authorization expired, and your support for the reauthorization
of that function.
As you know, I have strong concerns about the independence
of the Ombudsman's Office. To give you just an example of that,
in your written testimony, you indicated that one conflict with
the ABA model statute was an inconsistency with the
recommendations of the Administrative Conference of the United
States, which provides, and this is a quote,
The Ombudsman should refrain from involvement in the merits
of individual matters that are the subject on ongoing
adjudication or litigation, or investigations incident thereto.
That was exactly the position taken by the Justice
Department with an Ombudsman investigation in Idaho. Frankly,
the EPA did not follow the Justice Department on that
recommendation, and I appreciated that.
But with regard to that position, if we are going to say
that the Ombudsman's Office should not get involved in anything
that is the subject of adjudication or litigation, then
basically, in today's world especially, are we not saying that
the Ombudsman's Office cannot get involved in anything that is
significant?
I mean, is almost every major EPA action not going to be
the subject of some kind of challenge at some point; and, if
so, then we are saying the Ombudsman's Office cannot function?
Ms. Thompson. I think it is certainly an unfortunate but
accurate observation that the Agency is involved in litigation,
certainly in a large number of the actions which it initiates.
The point of the concern expressed in the model that you
spoke about was obviously to ensure that we do not have
processes that undermine each other. It is certainly
appropriate to provide safeguards, that you do not have one
process going on, on the one hand, that is undermining another
process.
As you noted, in the Ombudsman hearing that was held in
Coeur d'Alene, the Agency did participate, because there are
ways certainly to address issues that can provide those
safeguards. Perhaps Mr. Shapiro would like to elaborate on
that.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Shapiro, would you like to elaborate?
Mr. Shapiro. Just to extend the comments, one point is that
I think the Administrative conference guidelines speak to
active litigation.
Obviously, many things we do will ultimately wind up in
litigation. But even those guidelines, if strictly followed,
would not preclude Ombudsmen from looking into situations that
were not yet in formal litigation.
A second point, and I think this speaks to the Idaho
situation, is that even though some aspects of a particular
site or set of issues might be the subject of active
litigation, there may be many other aspects that are not in the
key area, that are being addressed by the litigation.
Indeed, in the case of Idaho, we attempted to cooperate as
fully as possible with the Ombudsman in the hearing. I
understand that the hearing went well, and that all parties
felt that they had the ability to provide their views.
But there were issues, had they come, where the EPA
representative, would have had to say that because of
litigation they could not respond with certain information.
We think, in many circumstances, the litigation language in
the Administrative Conference recommendations would not
preclude Ombudsman work at a particular site or on a particular
set of issues.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. I know my time is up, so thank
you.
Senator Smith. Just so I can explain to those who may not
understand why we have to stop here, there is a Senate rule,
Rule 26, and in this case, 26-5[a]. We call it the Two Hour
Rule, which says that 2 hours from the time the Senate opens,
if anyone asks that the Two Hour Rule be invoked, as the
Minority has, that we have to stop all committee business.
The penalty would be that there could be a point of order
raised on any piece of legislation we might be considering. I
do not know that they will drag us off to jail or anything,
although you never know.
So anyway, the hour of 11:30 having come, because we did go
into session at 9:30, we are going to have to adjourn the
hearing.
Let me just also indicate that there may be some members
who have questions and other letters that may have to come in.
People have expressed interest in sending some letters in
regarding this legislation. So I will keep the record open
until the close of business on Friday.
At this point, I would thank all the witnesses for coming.
I apologize for any inconvenience that it may have caused.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I have one process
question. I assume that the record will reflect the statements,
as we have heard them. But also, can we be assured that the
questions that would be posed are included in the record, as if
they were in direct response to witnesses' testimony?
Senator Smith. Yes, certainly.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Senator Smith. At this point, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of George Dana Bisbee, Assistant Commissioner, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services, Chairman, ECOS Data Mangement
Workgroup
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My name is Dana Bisbee,
and I am the Assistant Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services. I bring along greetings to you, Mr. Chairman,
from Governor Shaheen and Commissioner Varney.
I am testifying today on behalf of the Data Management Workgroup
and the Local Government Forum of the Environmental Council of the
States (ECOS), which is the national, non-profit, non-partisan
association representing the State and territorial environmental
commissioners. I serve as the Chairman of the Data Management
Workgroup. On behalf of ECOS and the State of New Hampshire, I very
much appreciate your invitation to join you today.
As requested, I have prepared comments on the four bills you are
considering today. I will address them in turn.
s. 2800, the streamlined environmental reporting and pollution
prevention act of 2000, introduced by senator lautenberg and senator
crapo
This bill addresses a very important issue facing government
agencies and one that deserves the scrutiny you are providing today.
The ECOS Data Management Workgroup endorses many of the principles
contained within the bill. In fact, we have been working to implement a
number of them over the past 3 years in partnership with the
Environmental Protection Agency.
We applaud the concept of a ``one-stop'' reporting system proposed
in the bill, both for those who report directly to EPA and for the far
greater numbers who report to the States. We agree strongly with the
need to establish and use common data standards. Consolidated
reporting, a feature of the bill, is also a worthy objective. We
support the bill's aim of allowing participation in the new integrated
reporting scheme for those who choose to do so voluntarily. It is
imperative that any law affecting environmental data reporting fully
recognizes the tremendous investment many States have made in upgrading
their data systems, building electronic interfaces, and developing data
standards. Any new reporting process must be flexible enough to account
for different systems and applications at the State level.
We also feel the bill should more explicitly account for the
considerable role that States play in the collection and management of
environmental data and should emphasize State investment in the design
and development of a new national integrated reporting network. Here
are a few specifics to put this issue in perspective. Nationally,
States collect 94 percent of environmental data, conduct 97 percent of
facility inspections, operate about 70 percent of the Federal programs
delegable to them, conduct about 80 percent of the enforcement actions,
and contribute about twice as much funding to environmental programs as
EPA. Under these circumstances, the bill should promote a partnership
in which EPA, the States, Tribes and local agencies work together to
design and put in place a much-needed national integrated reporting
network.
EPA already recognizes the critical role of States on this issue
and, in 1997, EPA and ECOS formulated their collaborative efforts on
data management and established the State/EPA Information Management
Workgroup. This effort grew out of EPA's highly successful ``One Stop''
program that was designed to assist States in developing innovative
solutions to data management problems. We have developed a joint vision
and a set of operating principles to guide the work of our State/EPA
information management partnership, and we are already addressing many
of the proposals contained in the bill. For example, we have joined
with the Tribes and EPA to create an independent Environmental Data
Standards Council that will help establish standards as envisioned by
the legislation. Environmental and business groups will be an integral
part of that process.
The States and EPA are also collaborating on other crucial issues
that must be resolved to make the environmental information more
effective and efficient. Among these issues are: defining what
constitutes a ``facility;'' solving key data exchange problems;
ensuring public access to information; reducing information reporting
burdens; and sharing experiences among the States and EPA.
The State/EPA partnership is also tackling the issue of what S.
2800 refers to as a ``national environmental reporting system.''
Together, we are designing a national environmental information
exchange network (the Network) that taps into the private sector
Internet revolution, adapts it to government needs, and keeps it ``off-
the-shelf,'' open and non-proprietary. This Network will depend upon
technology-based partnership, with all levels of government leveraging
and benefiting from each other. We have been selective in the choice of
technology to ensure that the information system is transparent--and
thus more accountable--and scalable so that control and responsibility
for the information stays as close as possible to its origins, whether
at the local, county, State or Federal level. No matter where the
information resides, it would be easily accessible via the Internet for
everything from reports by EPA on national environmental performance to
local citizen inquiries about emissions from the industrial plant
around the corner. As part of the Network, States would continue to
collect the data and would--through uniform data standards, integration
and quality assurance--ensure that EPA, as well as the regulated
community, elected officials, environmental groups and the general
public have access to timely, accurate and useful information.
It is vital that S. 2800 recognize and support this joint effort to
develop a national environmental data exchange network.
We also believe that EPA and the States must be provided sufficient
resources as soon as possible to make the integrated reporting network
a reality. Creating a national information exchange network requires a
significant initial investment. Although States have helped lead this
effort, many States currently lack the capacity to undertake
comprehensive re-engineering of their information management processes.
They need financial and technical assistance, and more opportunities to
share their experiences. EPA needs additional resources to facilitate
development of its Central Data Exchange capacity, to develop the
Agency's connection to the exchange network, and to accelerate testing
and development of technical and management protocols to ensure data
quality, security, authenticity and confidentiality. Together, EPA and
the States must integrate data bases, create data standards, develop
consolidated reporting to ease industry and small business reporting
burdens, increase data quality, ensure appropriate information
interpretation, and ease accessibility for anyone who wishes to see and
use environmental data. The committee could provide useful direction to
appropriators via S. 2800 by authorizing sufficient funding to ensure
the success of this national network.
Finally, we hope that S. 2800, as adopted by Congress, would permit
and support the continuation of this healthy and productive effort. We
are concerned it may not. We are particularly worried that the
legislation would create a burdensome and unnecessary bias toward
feeding one or more national data bases. The States' experience with
existing EPA data systems has been unsatisfactory. That is one reason
the States are enthusiastically partnering with EPA to develop a new
Internet-based, integrated information exchange network that in large
measure builds on existing State data systems. We hope the language in
Sec. 3(b) can be clarified to demonstrate that there is no bias against
the Network approach favoring the traditional, huge, unwieldy national
data base or data systems.
Further, we want to ensure that enactment of S. 2800 will not
produce the unintended consequence of slowing progress toward better
information management while EPA creates rules and guidance to
implement it. We trust that the intent of Congress is not to force a
change from our current efforts, but rather to clearly authorize and
support the work that EPA and the States have underway.
Our last specific concern is the National Environmental Data Model
referred to in Sec. 3(b)(9). As written, this section may be more
expansive than simply a description of EPA's own data management
architecture. It should be made clear that this section refers only to
the way EPA would configure its systems, not a potential mandate for
States and others to follow.
The State environmental commissioners are encouraged by the spirit
and progress of the State/EPA information management partnership. It is
now time to invest in its success. We hope you will support our
progress by incorporating these principles into S. 2800 or any other
legislation you might consider to improve the reporting and quality of
environmental information.
s. 1915, the small community assistance act of 1999, introduced by
senator jeffords and others; s. 2296, the project search act of 2000,
introduced by senator crapo
With the indulgence of the committee, I will speak to S. 1915 and
S. 2296 together because of their common focus on improving the ability
of small communities to manage their environments.
Our small communities need this help. The Local Government Forum of
ECOS supports the fundamental principles embodied in these bills:
greater involvement by small communities in environmental regulatory
processes and more funding to meet regulatory demands.
Much of the work of the State environmental agencies involves
communities--whether related to wastewater treatment, cleaning up the
town dump, or figuring out where the asphalt plant should be located.
The ECOS Local Government Forum was among our earliest established
committees and remains a critical part of ECOS's outreach, not only to
our communities, but also to EPA, which has a profound influence over
the environmental and financial health of our towns.
While villages conjure powerful emotional, social and sometimes
political appeal, those strong feelings have not adequately translated
into power to affect Federal policy decisions or the flow of financial
and technical resources. Challenged by their environmental problems,
these communities are frequently overwhelmed by the Federal process
that aims to solve them.
Perhaps the best recent example of the need for greater small
community involvement in the EPA rulemaking process, and hence the need
for bills like S. 1915, is the proposed rule dealing with arsenic in
drinking water. The Small Community Advisory Subcommittee (SCAS)--an
EPA FACA--reviewed the arsenic drinking water standard and expressed
great concern for the impacts of the proposed rule on small systems.
SCAS has requested that EPA review the specific impacts on particular
communities rather than gauging impacts based on national income levels
and all drinking water systems. The extraordinary impact of EPA's
proposed arsenic rule clearly demonstrates the need for and fairness of
including small communities constructively in the regulatory
development process.
ECOS members can readily relate to the plight of small communities
who desire an effective partnership with EPA. We have been struggling
toward that goal ourselves. If you look in the right places, you can
see the appropriate guidance--the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 and
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as well as
relevant Executive Orders such as E.O. 13132 on federalism. EPA's own
guidelines mandate consultation and outreach. And more than ever, it is
working, as Ms. Thompson's testimony for EPA demonstrates. Fritz
Schwindt, Chief of the North Dakota Environmental Health Section, Co-
Chair of the ECOS Local Government Forum, and a member of the SCAS
agrees that EPA is making efforts to involve small communities. S. 1915
will help ensure that these good works continue and that EPA remains
accountable to Congress for its continued sensitivity to the needs of
these communities.
Small communities, close to the land and water and at home with the
concept of environmental stewardship, are particularly hard pressed to
meet the financial demands of that commitment. They simply cannot make
up for the lack of a tax base. Whether a community of 200,000 or 2,500,
the same suite of services must be provided--safe drinking water,
wastewater treatment, storm water control, landfills--all in addition
to the other amenities of community living. Few communities of 2,500 or
less have the financial or human resources necessary to adequately meet
health and environmental goals--even with the existence of State
Revolving Funds to help finance costly infrastructure--hence the need
for the targeted financial assistance envisioned by S. 2296. The grants
proposed in this legislation are even more important for the poorest
communities that are unable to provide the relatively small matching
funds required for expensive water treatment facilities and other
projects. It is critical, especially in light of the huge gap between
environmental expenditures and identified water, wastewater, air
quality and other needs, that the funding envisioned in S. 2296 not be
at the expense of resources for other environmental programs.
s. 1763, the ombudsman reauthorization act of 1999, introduced by
senator allard
I have little to say about S. 1763 except that ECOS members seldom
use Ombudsman services, relying on other lines of communication with
EPA. I guess that is a good sign. For that reason, ECOS does not have a
position on this legislation.
conclusion
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for
this opportunity to comment on these bills. Please feel free to call on
me or ECOS if you have any additional questions.
__________
Responses of George Dana Bisbee to Additional Questions from
Senator Smith
Question 1. In your written testimony, mention was made of the
interrelations between S. 1915 and S. 2296. Both bills work to benefit
small communities: S. 1915 by ensuring that a Small Community Advisory
Committee exists at EPA and within each Region, a Small Town Ombudsman
and S. 2296 by providing funds for environmental projects to be
distributed by an independent citizens' council. If enacted, what kind
of benefit would these bills bring to New Hampshire?
Response. S. 1915 and S. 2296 would have a direct benefit to the
small communities in the State of New Hampshire. S. 1915 would codify
certain steps that are being taken by EPA to ensure greater involvement
of small communities in the development and implementation of EPA's
regulatory programs. As defined in S. 1915, small community is one of
under 7500 in population, which covers all but 34 New Hampshire
communities.
S. 2296 also would provide effective assistance to New Hampshire's
small communities. In this bill, which defines ``small community'' as
one under 2500 in population, 123 of New Hampshire's 234 cities and
towns would be eligible for assistance, and there is no question that
many of these eligible communities are among the least affluent in the
State. While the State of New Hampshire provides State aid grants for
significant environmental infrastructure projects (wastewater and water
treatment facilities, landfill closure and source water protection land
acquisition) and while the State Revolving Fund Program under the Clean
Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act provide important financial
assistance to these communities, certain of our small communities are
in need of significant additional help. S. 2296 would allow those
communities to move forward sooner and more effectively to address
significant environmental infrastructure needs.
Question 2a. In an effort to provide as comprehensive a response as
possible to the committee's questions 2a-2g, I requested, through ECOS,
States' input. We received responses from the following 12 States:
Alabama, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.
Where there is broad agreement on a point, it is simply stated. Where
there are variations in State responses, they are referred to
individually--sometimes with attribution. Another general note: the
States believe, as I testified, that the SEARCH funding should be new
money, not taken from existing programs like the State Revolving Loan
Funds (SRF) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF).
Converting SRF or DWSRF funding would limit states' flexibility to
address small community needs, and limit the capacity to grow the
program in perpetuity.
S. 2296 would create a grant program in each State that is
different from current EPA programs. The funds would be targeted to
small communities for environmental projects as opposed to States for
defined purposes. What percent of grant funds currently are awarded to
the type of small communities that would be affected by S. 2296--that
is, communities of 2,500 or fewer individuals?
Response. Most of the respondent State agencies do not provide
grants to small communities, though they do provide loans through the
SRF and DWSRF. Certain Federal programs provide grants to small
communities, including Rural Development (formerly the FmHA), Community
Development Block Grants, and the Appalachian Regional Commission. We
do not have collective data on the percentages of available grant
funding that is targeted to small communities of 2,500 or fewer
individuals. Texas emphasized that the funding level of $1 million per
State is not sufficient for a State of its size and believes that
states with a large number of small communities need more support.
Following is a description of grant programs operating in some
States:
Washington.--The State provides Extended Grant Payments (set
asides) that go to large municipalities, which, in some years, account
for as much as 50 percent of funding off the top. Approximately 20-25
percent of the rest goes to communities with a population under 2,500.
Perhaps as much as 50 percent of the funding goes to communities of
under 10,000 residents. In the last biennium, Washington provided an
additional $10 million targeted to small communities with a population
less than 3,500.
Oklahoma.--There is a State funded Rural Economic Action Plan
(REAP) that provides water and sewer grants to small communities.
Annually, the Oklahoma Legislature provides $4.5 million and 90 percent
of this money goes to communities of 2,500 or fewer.
Wisconsin.--No data on the percent of grants to small communities
was available, but the best professional estimate puts the figure at
about 25 percent going to communities of 2,500 residents or less.
South Carolina.--Here are the percentages of funding (and the
actual amounts) that go to communities of less than 2,500 population
for programs operated by agencies in South Carolina:
Rural Development (Formerly Farmers Home Admin.): 30
percent ($7,041,000).
Community Development Block Grants: 20 percent
($5,900,000).
Local Governments Division of State Budget & Control
Board: 60 percent ($4,480,000).
Michigan.--The State has provided information on the use of SRF and
DWSRF loan funds and wellhead protection grants by small communities
that may be instructive--
SRF: 17 percent of the projects and 5 percent of the funds
go to communities under 2,500;
DWSRF: 23 percent of the projects and 10 percent of the
funds go to communities under 2,500;
Wellhead Protection Grants: 38 percent of the grants are
awarded to communities under 2,500.
Nebraska.--The State awarded $8,145,000 for water and wastewater in
1999 to communities with populations less than 2,500. These grants are
awarded through the Department of Economic Development, USDA and the
Department of Environmental Quality. No percentages were given.
Question 2b. S. 2296 is focused on providing help to small
communities. What is the principal need that small communities have? Is
it construction funds for environmental projects, such as a sewer
system or a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)? Legal assistance in
understanding Federal law and completing grant applications? Paying
experts? Hiring personnel?
Response. Small communities have needs for all of the above,
specifically in meeting their environmental mandates in the areas of
drinking water, landfill closure, brownfields remediation, and
responding to local problems such as open burning, noise, and odor
complaints. There is furthermore a general lack of adequate technical,
legal and process expertise (e.g., trouble understanding the
requirements of current and proposed regulations) that dogs small
communities at virtually every step, regardless of the type of
environmental challenge they face.
Specifically, many small communities face the need to upgrade their
WWTPs because of the more stringent limits of new NPDES permits.
Nutrient criteria and TMDLs will certainly add to that list.
Communities need help in all of these categories, however the most
costly projects are the construction of environmental projects such as
wastewater collection/treatment, storm water pollution control, and
drinking water facilities.
One of the major impediments to providing financial assistance to
these communities is that many existing loan and grant programs do not
cover the cost of planning and design until the project is ready to
bid. A small community may have water, wastewater or solid waste needs
but very few towns know how to handle a grant or loan application and
they often do not have the funds to hire a firm to begin developing a
feasibility study or engineering report that can be presented to
funding agencies. This gap in funding requires a community to borrow
money for planning or hire a consultant who will wait until the loan is
closed. Often, when an engineering firm is not paid up front for
planning and design, the quality of work is not always the best and the
community may not get the most viable or cost-
effective project possible. In addition, some things are excluded from
funding eligibility in almost every program. Therefore, funding for
planning and development of projects and for covering costs that other
programs do not are primary needs for small communities.
Smaller municipalities also need treatment alternatives that are
more affordable and the ability to get grants for innovative or
alternative technology projects.
The flexible program proposed by S. 2296 would help with all of
these challenges.
Question 2c. The criticism has been raised that S. 2296 would allow
grants to be awarded to neighborhoods within large cities, instead of
to small communities. Do you want that opportunity to exist? If not,
how can it be prevented?
Response. The general consensus among the State respondents was
that grants should be limited to small communities. In some instances,
a small town may be surrounded by a larger city and one of the States
would see no reason to exclude that town if it met the population
requirement. A couple of respondents also mentioned the need to address
unincorporated towns, perhaps by directing funds to the county within
which the unincorporated area resides.
Many State programs require that the loan or grant recipient be a
municipality or other form of government such as a rural water
district. Several of the States recommended that S. 2296 eligibility
for grants be limited to stand-alone government entities or other
entities that have the authority to provide the type of service for
which the grant is sought, such as Metropolitan Sewerage Districts,
Water and Sewer Districts and Water and Sewer Authorities, etc. A
couple of specific proposals offered include:
Eligibility criteria could read ``only incorporated
municipalities with current and verifiable populations of 2,500 or
less.''
To avoid funding neighborhoods, bill language could
describe a small municipality as ``any city, town, village, town
sanitary district, or public inland lake protection and rehabilitation
district with a population of 2,500 or less.''
There is some difference of opinion among the States about the
small community threshold. One of our State respondents suggested the
threshold be raised to 10,000.
Question 2d. The criticism has been raised that S. 2296 would allow
all of a State's funds to be granted for community welfare projects,
such as swimming pools. What safeguards do you have in place to ensure
that grants are awarded only for what ordinarily would be understood as
environmental projects, instead of other community welfare projects?
What safeguards are necessary to have in S. 2296?
Response. Many states currently have programs with environmental
priority scoring systems to rank projects in order of environmental
importance. In Oklahoma, eligible items are spelled out by statute or
by rule and are a part of the ranking system for the program. South
Carolina's enabling legislation limits projects to water and sewer
only. Idaho likewise limits its grants to drinking water and wastewater
projects.
Several States suggested that the language ``public welfare'' could
be removed from the legislative language and that the bill could
specify that only environmental projects would be eligible for grant
funding, and leave to the States the ability to set their own
priorities. In addition, grant applicants could be required on the
application to stipulate which environmental law or requirement the
project will address, e.g., solid waste reduction or the Clean Air Act.
The decisionmaking body would then ensure in their review only eligible
projects are funded.
Question 2e. Is there a means by which Congress can ensure that
grants are awarded to different communities over time, so that no one
community or set of communities will be able to monopolize grants?
States agree that all eligible communities should have access to
grants. A couple of States suggested that if S. 2296 required the award
of grants based on a priority system that considered environmental
benefit and ability to pay, this concern would not exist. In fact, this
is the way granting programs for small communities already operate in
most States. States with these mechanisms in place are wary of having
to create yet another ranking and distribution process when fairness
and access to funding issues are already addressed in their current
programs.
The other States recommend that Congress allow them the flexibility
to ensure fair access to grants. For example, States could:
limit funding to any one community over a fixed period of
time by----
Lchanging the eligibility ranking of a community that
has received a grant (thus reducing the chance they would be eligible
again in the short term);
Lspecifying that a community receiving a grant must wait
until all other eligible communities have the opportunity to apply for
available funds before applying again;
Llimiting the number of applications that a municipality
may submit during a certain period of time (say 1, 3 or 5 years), as is
done already in some State grant programs;
require that the administering agency consider geographic
distribution throughout the State when awarding grants, as in the Clean
Michigan Initiative and in Nebraska's waste reduction grant program; or
allow only loans for facility construction, then add
grants (e.g., the SEARCH grants) later if financial need is
demonstrated--as is being proposed in Washington State. The effect of
this would be that well-off communities can't get all the grant money,
even if their project rates higher from an environmental or public
health perspective. They would get loans instead.
Question 2f. Should this grant program be a preferred source of
money for small communities or should it be a source of funds to be
used as a last resort?
Response. Most of the responding States agreed that funding should
be made available to small communities that are eligible and rank at
the top of the priority system established by the State regardless of
the availability of other funding sources. This should not be a fund of
last resort.
One State pointed out that the preference would depend on the need
of the community. Grant/loan combos should be an option, but there are
small communities that are not good risks for loans due to financial
instability but that are in great need of moneys for systems. Also,
some loan programs are mired in bureaucracy making it difficult for
small communities to get in the hopper. The State could determine
priority for funds.
Another State suggested that this funding should be a preferred
source of funding because, in that State at least, there are already
several funds of last resort. It becomes difficult under those
circumstances to determine who should be the lead agency in providing
small community assistance.
Three of the respondents suggested that the SEARCH funds should be
used as a last resort.
Question 2g. Should the authority to make grant decisions be vested
in a council composed of private citizens, or should the authority be
given to a governmental official, such as the Governor or a group of
local officials?
Response. Most of the responding States suggest that the grant
decision process should be given to the environmental agency that
already has experience making these kinds of decisions. These States
agree that the decisions should be based on a clear set of criteria to
allow a prioritization of applicants. States are already involved in
helping to finance many small community environmental projects, for
example through the SRF process, and could avoid a lot of additional
bureaucratic hurdles and costs by adding the SEARCH funds to their
existing resources to make these projects more affordable.
Two States pointed out that for such relatively small amounts of
money, the creation of councils--in fact, the establishment of an
entirely new process--would be overly complicated, bureaucratic and
expensive.
A couple of respondents suggest that an impartial ranking system
that is particularly responsive to small communities is the key.
Perhaps a council composed of local government representatives could
recommend the ranking system that could then be administered by an
agency with experience in administering such programs.
If there is a council, one State suggested requiring at least one
elected and one non-elected local official serve on it.
Question 3. You are the Chairman of the ECOS Data Management
Workgroup. EPA and ECOS have been working together since 1997 on data
management such as a national environmental reporting system and data
management standards. According to your testimony, this State-EPA
partnership has been working well. Would enactment of S. 2800 tie the
hands of this workgroup or impact the collaborative effort?
Response. The States and EPA have been collaborating on data
management issues long before 1997, as the States have always been an
integral part of the national environmental data collection and
management scheme. What occurred in 1997 was the formalization of a
closer collaboration with the creation of the joint State-EPA
Information Management Workgroup. Most particularly since then the
State-EPA partnership on environmental data management has been an
effective one. We have jointly developed a common vision and set of
operating principles to guide our work, we have created the
Environmental Data Standards Council (which has already released
recommended standards), we have made improvements in how EPA and the
States release environmental information to the public, and we are now
deeply and collaboratively engaged in the development of the National
Environmental Information Exchange Network. The States on the Data
Management Workgroup have been concerned that enactment of S. 2800
would have the potential for affecting the collaborative effort that we
are engaged in with EPA in a non-
productive way. This potential would arise if an unintended consequence
of S. 2800 were to delay the ongoing data integration effort at EPA and
the development of the data exchange network, or if the bill
inadvertently diminished the flexibility needed to deal with ever-
evolving data management technologies and approaches.
We were pleased at the hearing with the sponsors' understanding of
our concerns and their willingness to adjust the bill to address them.
In subsequent suggested changes to the bill, the suggestion of a new
national ``system'' or large data base being mandated by this bill has
been removed, and particular concerns about the details of the process
that would need to be followed in developing data standards has been
made more flexible as well. And, finally, in a very positive way, the
draft bills inclusion now authorizing language to provide funding for
the significant initial investment needed to ``kick start'' the
National Environmental Exchange Network is a very positive development.
These changes that have been presented to us have removed our concerns
about the passage of S. 2800.
__________
Statement of Jeremiah D. Baumann, Environmental Health Advocate,
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
The U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) is the National
Association of State Public Interest Research Groups (the State PIRGs)
and serves as the national advocacy office for the State PIRGs. The
State PIRGs and U.S. PIRG are nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations that
conduct public interest research, advocacy, and education on a range of
issues including health care, environmental and public health
protection, consumer protection, and good-government reforms.
The PIRGs have a long history of work on several of the issues
raised by two of the bills being considered today. Increasing citizen
involvement in Federal Government decisionmaking, ensuring agency
accountability, protecting the public from toxic hazards, and ensuring
that the public has access to information about toxic hazards are all
long-standing aspects of the PIRGs' environmental work. The State PIRGs
have worked to pass right-to-know laws and toxic waste cleanup laws for
several decades, including Massachusetts' Toxics Use Reduction Act and
New Jersey's Pollution Prevention Act.
U.S. PIRG welcomes the opportunity to testify in support of Senator
Allard's bill, S. 1763, The Ombudsman Reauthorization Act, and Senator
Lautenberg's bill, S. 2800, The Streamlined Environmental Reporting and
Pollution Prevention Act of 2000. Both of these bills take important
steps toward making government, in this case the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), more responsive to the public whose health it
is the Agency's mission to protect. The Ombudsman Reauthorization Act
helps to ensure agency accountability to the public and the Streamlined
Environmental Reporting Act increases the efficiency of the Agency's
information management and resources.
the ombudsman reauthorization act of 1999, s. 1763
U.S. PIRG supports The Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 1999. The
bill re-
authorizes the office of the Ombudsman at EPA, requires a report to
Congress on the status of health and environmental concerns raised by
the Ombudsman's investigations, and directs the Administrator of the
EPA to re-structure the office to conform with the American Bar
Association's model Ombudsman statute.
The EPA National Ombudsman serves as an ``EPA watchdog,'' receiving
requests or complaints from Members of Congress or citizens concerning
EPA's actions in cases involving the Superfund or other hazardous
substances programs. The Ombudsman conducts investigations into these
complaints and then makes findings of fact and recommendations to the
Agency on how to resolve the dispute(s).
This office has provided valuable service assisting communities who
have felt EPA was unresponsive to their needs. In particular, the
Ombudsman has investigated and helped to resolve disputes at a number
of Superfund sites around the country. In the last 8 years, the
National Ombudsman's Office has assisted citizens in Montana, Ohio,
Missouri, Idaho, Texas, California, Florida, Colorado, Pennsylvania,
and Washington. A few of the Ombudsman's successful investigations
include:
Houston, TX.--Community residents near a toxic waste site at an
abandoned facility that had been used by Monsanto and other companies
for storing a reprocessing chemical waste had worked for years to have
the site cleaned up. In the early 1990's, the EPA's Region 6 office in
Dallas approved a plan to dispose of the contaminated soil from the
site by incineration. However, community activists who had worked for
years to have the site cleaned up, were concerned that digging up the
contaminated soil and burning it would only further disperse the
chemical pollutants. They took their case to the EPA Ombudsman who
conducted an investigation and recommended that EPA adopt an
alternative plan, an action EPA took.
Denver, CO.--At the Shattuck Chemical Superfund site, Denver
residents had been requesting that EPA ensure that the radioactive soil
from the site was removed to a licensed disposal facility. Instead, the
Agency decided to employ the too-often preferred solution of capping
the site rather than cleaning it up. In this case, the contaminated
soil was to be capped on the site in the middle of Denver. The
residents contacted Senator Allard, who took the case to the National
Ombudsman. The Ombudsman's investigation showed that a capped pile of
contaminated soil could leak into the community. EPA later agreed they
would have to remove the contaminated soil.
These cases and others show the importance of an independent,
empowered Ombudsman in making the EPA an agency that is accountable to
the public whose health the Agency's mission is to protect. Another
case shows the importance of ensuring and strengthening the Ombudsman's
independence and authority.
Lock Haven, PA.--Similar to the situation in Texas, residents near
the Drake Chemical Superfund Site were concerned that EPA planned to
incinerate contaminated material and that such action would worsen
rather than solve the contamination problem. The residents contacted
Senator Specter, who requested the Ombudsman's assistance. The
Ombudsman was critical of the studies and methods used to determine
that incineration was an appropriate means of remediation and
recommended that the incineration not go forward until further testing
was done. According to Vicki Smedley, one of the concerned residents,
the community could not gain access to the Ombudsman's interim report
and after the recommendations were issued, the Ombudsman was told not
to continue work on the case. The incineration started before the
Ombudsman's final report was issued.
To ensure that the Ombudsman's work can be effective in making the
Agency accountable, the Ombudsman position should be re-structured to
include several key elements:
(1) Independence of the Ombudsman from control by an officer of the
agency.
(2) Authority and freedom to investigate any action or failure to
act by any Agency official or entity. The Ombudsman must be able to
investigate the appropriateness of the action or failure to act, but
also the correctness of Agency findings, the procedural propriety, and
the Agency's motivations and reasons for acting or failing to act at
the national level.
(3) Access to all public records the Ombudsman finds relevant to
the investigation, as well as authority to compel testimony by the
Agency, its personnel, or its contractors.
(4) Accountability of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman should be
accountable to Congress and any Agency official, entity, or contractor
criticized by the Ombudsman should have opportunity to present their
answer to the criticism.
The Ombudsman Reauthorization Act directs the Administrator to re-
structure the office to conform to the American Bar Association's model
Ombudsman statute. This step could result adoption of the elements
needed to strengthen the Ombudsman's independence and authority.
However, U.S. PIRG recommends that the bill explicitly grant the
National Ombudsman necessary authority rather than relying on the
Administrator to do so ``to the maximum extent possible.''
Some have expressed concern that strengthening the Ombudsman's
independence and authority would grant too much power to the Ombudsman.
It is important to note, however, that with the strengthening measures
put forth by this legislation, the Ombudsman would not have the
authority to:
Compel any decision by the Agency;
Create, change, or set aside any law, policy, or Agency decision,
nor compel any entity or person to make such a change; or
Substitute for an administrative or judicial proceeding determining
anyone's rights.
One more critical means of strengthening the Office of the National
Ombudsman is adequate funding. The Ombudsman has to date carried out
his important work with limited staff and resources. Congress should
ensure that the Office of the National Ombudsman has the funding
necessary to carry out its important work.
The EPA National Ombudsman provides an invaluable service in
responding to and investigating problems faced by communities and
individuals whose health may be threatened by hazardous waste. The
Ombudsman increases EPA's accountability and provides recourse to
communities and citizens who have problems with EPA's procedures or
actions. Simply re-authorizing the Office of the Ombudsman is an
essential action for Congress to take in its final weeks, but essential
to that action are the elements of this bill that would ensure the
Ombudsman's independence and authority.
the streamlined environmental reporting and pollution prevention act of
2000, s. 2800
U.S. PIRG supports The Streamlined Environmental Reporting and
Pollution Prevention Act of 2000 as an essential reform at EPA that
improves EPA's management of important environmental information. The
reforms made in this bill, without in any way reducing or increasing
the types of information collected and disseminated by EPA, have the
potential to vastly streamline EPA's information systems. This would
make EPA's information systems more efficient and easier to use for
those reporting information to EPA, as well as for those using EPA's
information resources.
The Act requires EPA to establish an integrated electronic
reporting system. This integrated system would:
allow reporting to one point of contact within EPA, rather
than to multiple programs and offices; establish and improve electronic
reporting systems for reporting information to the Agency;
identify environmental or occupational safety and health
reporting requirements not administered by EPA and communicating those
to reporting parties;
consolidate reporting requirements that would otherwise
have to be reported more than once; and
provide important information on pollution prevention to
reporting parties at the point of reporting.
These actions address a long-standing problem at EPA, namely, EPA
collects a wealth of information, but various pieces and types of
information are reported to a number of different offices or programs
within EPA at various times during the year. This not only means that
information collection and storage is dispersed throughout the Agency,
but that in some cases, the same or similar pieces of information are
reported under more than one program and potentially more than once
during the year. In addition to some pieces of information being
collected multiple times, some types of information are not collected
at all.
Public interest groups have long held that EPA must improve its
data management in order to determine what information it does and does
not have. U.S. PIRG, along with a coalition of environmental and other
public interest organizations, have long advocated for increasing the
information on environmental hazards and conditions that is available
to the public. This bill, without adding any new information reporting
requirements, improves EPA's environmental information resources in
ways that will not only improve information, but could also improve
environmental protection by creating a significant opportunity for
industries to prevent pollution and reduce environmental hazards.
First, consolidating reporting requirements into one system gives
facilities the opportunity to view all of their environmental
information in one place. This would make it easier for companies to
assess their environmental impact and identify, on their own, ways of
reducing that impact. It would also help companies better translate
information generated by environmental management systems into EPA's
reporting requirements and formats. At the same time, the integrated
system would provide information on pollution prevention to reporting
facilities during the process of reporting. This means that industries
would be simultaneously given the opportunity to review their own
environmental impacts and at the same time the tools for reducing those
impacts through pollution prevention.
Second, the bill could increase pollution prevention simply by
making it easier to report accurately and consistently. Reporting all
environmental information to the same point of contact and through the
same system would make it easier for the facility to identify and
reduce reporting errors before even submitting the data to EPA. This
would lead to increased compliance with laws and regulations as it
would be easier for industries to reduce or address problems that may
come about from simple confusion created by the myriad reporting
requirements. This increased compliance and/or improved data quality
would in turn lead to better policymaking and enforcement by EPA.
This bill also addresses a concern raised primarily by industry
representatives--that EPA should reduce the ``burden'' of reporting
environmental information. The reporting of environmental information
should not be seen as a burden, but rather as one part of industry's
duty to protect human health and the environment. Nonetheless, U.S.
PIRG supports efforts to increase the efficiency and ease with which
information can be reported to EPA.
Unfortunately, most of the ``burden reduction'' measures proposed
by various EPA offices and by the White House Office of Management and
Budget would reduce the information available to the public or
compromise its quality. These are reactive responses to industry's
burden claims; they would weaken environmental information at EPA and
in most cases would not make reporting easier. U.S. PIRG and a
coalition of public interest organizations have strongly opposed these
initiatives as harmful to EPA's environmental information resources and
ultimately harmful to human health and the environment.
This bill, in contrast, seeks to proactively reform information
management at EPA, which public interest groups have long supported. It
would improve, not compromise, EPA's environmental information
resources, and ultimately aid the protection of human health and the
environment, while at the same time making it easier for industry to
comply with EPA's reporting requirements.
While this bill presents a great opportunity to improve the
management of environmental information and potentially improve
environmental protection, care must be taken to ensure that the
integrated reporting system does not allow small loopholes to
compromise the entire system. One potential flaw is that reporting
parties are not required to use the new integrated system. Having some
parties use the system while others choose not to could compromise
EPA's data holdings by resulting in data bases with inconsistent data
or data that are not internally comparable. Similarly, the bill allows
EPA to establish different methods of providing information to
facilitate use of the system by different sectors, sizes, and types of
reporting entities. Both of these provisions could result in an
information system in which internal comparisons cannot be made,
significantly undermining EPA's ability to effectively use the
information it gathers.
The bill should be amended to clarify that whatever flexibility is
allowed for small businesses that may not be technologically capable of
reporting electronically there is a guarantee that the data can be
integrated into the integrated system. One solution would be to ensure
that even if electronic reporting is not required, use of the
integrated reporting system is, so that even if information is not
submitted electronically, it can be integrated into the larger
information management system. A simple waiver could allow those few
facilities choosing not to report electronically to report on paper to
the integrated reporting system.
U.S. PIRG's final comment is that the bill does not address a
significant information management problem at EPA--the numerous data
gaps in EPA's systems. Important information, ranging from toxic
pollution released by some industries to data on ambient environmental
quality, is not collected by the Agency. This bill improves the
Agency's information management without adding any new information to
that already collected, but future efforts must address the need to
fill these gaps in information necessary to protecting the environment.
While there are several improvements that could be made in this
legislation, U.S. PIRG supports this bill as an important improvement
to EPA's information management and as an opportunity for industries to
prevent pollution. This bill embodies a common-sense information reform
that the Congress should immediately pass into law.
Responses by Jeremiah Baumann to Additional Questions from
Senator Smith
Question 1a. Your testimony indicated that you support S. 1763 as
written. In your opinion, who should appoint and remove the Ombudsman?
Response. It is my opinion that the Ombudsman should be appointed
by the Congress, in accordance with the American Bar Association's
model Ombudsman statute characteristics. This is one element of
ensuring that the Ombudsman has independence from the Agency that he or
she is charged with investigating. This procedure would also establish
accountability to a representative body.
Question 1b. Specifically, what powers should the Ombudsman have,
and why should the Ombudsman have those powers?
Response. In order to assure independence of the Ombudsman and his
or her investigations from Agency influence or control, the Ombudsman
should have the following powers:
authority to criticize all Agency officials;
freedom to employ his or her own assistants and to
delegate them;
freedom to investigate any act or failure to act by the
Agency or an Agency official;
access to all public records relevant to an investigation;
authority to inquire into fairness, correctness of
findings, motivation, adequacy of reasons, efficiency, and procedural
propriety of action or inaction by the Agency or an Agency official;
and
discretionary power to determine what complaints to
investigate and what criticisms to make or publicize.
These powers for the Ombudsman allow the independence, access and
authority necessary to fully empower his or her investigations and
activities to determine the fairness and appropriateness of Agency
activities. However, the Ombudsman cannot be unaccountable.
Accordingly, counterbalancing measures are also important. For example,
the Agency and Agency officials criticized by the Ombudsman must have
advance notice of the criticism and the opportunity to publish an
answering statement.
Question 1c. Should the Office of the Ombudsman have a separate
line item in the EPA budget?
Response. Yes. In order to grant the full authority and
independence necessary for an empowered Ombudsman, the Agency (whom he
or she is charged to investigate) should not have discretion over the
Ombudsman's budget. Congress, to whom the Ombudsman is accountable,
should determine the Ombudsman's budget.
Question 1d. Why is it necessary to have an Office of the
Ombudsman, instead of a Complaint Bureau or an Advisory Committee?
Response. An Ombudsman, particularly one with the powers defined by
the American Bar Association's model Ombudsman guidelines, has unique
independence and authority to investigate. It is these characteristics
(denoted in my response to question 1b) that are important to the
Office more than what the office is called. A complaint bureau refers
commonly to a bureaucratic unit that is charged with processing and
attempting to ameliorate complaints. An advisory committee typically
addresses issues or resolved disputes at the request or initiation of
the Agency itself, often in consultation with the agency. The Office of
the Ombudsman should be empowered with unique independence and
authority, and a mission expressly dedicated to investigating the
complaints brought by citizens and communities.
Question 1e. How should the Office of the Ombudsman be structured?
In that regard, should the Office of the Ombudsman be established at
EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, or should there be a separate
Ombudsman for each EPA Region?
Response. It is important that there be a national Ombudsman office
for two reasons. First, the EPA Regions' policies and activities, for
the most part, flow from the national office's policies. In order to
ensure the Ombudsman's ability to investigate root causes of problems
he or she discovers, the Ombudsman must be able to investigate the
agency or agency officials on a national scale. Second, because of
inconsistencies in responsiveness to community concerns, it is useful
to have an Ombudsman outside the region to approach with complaints
about the region's policies or activities.
Regional Ombudsmen might be, because of their more localized
attention, more responsive to local concerns in some cases (provided
they have independence from the Regional Office in order to investigate
the Region's activities) and we support the establishment of regional
Ombudsmen. However, regional Ombudsmen cannot be a substitution for a
national Ombudsman.
Question 2. Our written testimony highlighted the fact that EPA
needs to improve public access to information and increase their
usefulness to the public. You support both S. 2800, the Streamlined
Environmental Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act of 2000, and S.
1763, the Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 1999, because of the benefit
the public would derive from those EPA services. However, do either of
these bills increase environmental protection?
Response. Both of these bills ultimately increase environmental
protection indirectly, by making the EPA more efficient and more
responsive. However, the Streamlined Reporting Act would do so even
more directly for several reasons. First, integrating reporting
provides companies with a unique opportunity to assess, view, and
report the entirety of their environmental information, reflecting the
entirety of their environmental impacts, at once. This simple activity
(which is not currently unavailable to industries, but for which this
bill provides added encouragement) would give industries the
opportunity to reduce their environmental impacts. Second, the bill
would provide industries with information on pollution prevention.
Pollution prevention is the most protective and efficient way of
reducing environmental impacts. It means reducing impacts by
eliminating the generation and use of polluting material, rather than
trying to clean up waste streams at the ``end of the pipe'' (whether
that location be a pipe, outlet, or a product containing polluting
materials). This bill again creates a unique opportunity for industries
to prevent pollution by proving pollution prevention information at the
point of reporting, that is, at the point where the facility's managers
are seeing their total environmental impacts. Again, this information
is not necessarily unavailable to industries; in fact, facilities that
are looking to improve their environmental performance should already
be making these assessments, gathering pollution prevention
information, and taking action to prevent pollution already. This bill
makes this process easier and provides encouragement for those
facilities who would otherwise not take the initiative.
__________
Statement of Deborah Spaar Sanchez, Administrator, Overland
Neighborhood Environmental Watch
My name is Deborah Spaar Sanchez. I live at 500 West Jewell Avenue
in Denver, Colorado, approximately 300 yards from the Shattuck Chemical
Superfund site, a toxic radioactive waste dump. I am a founding member
and the Administrator of Overland Neighborhood Environmental Watch--a
community organization of concerned citizens operating under a
Technical Assistant Grant from the EPA.
I am honored that you have invited me to speak to you today. I am
honored to be representing my community and am deeply grateful to my
neighbors for funding my trip here. I also wish to honor this
committee, industry representatives, the EPA and citizens across our
Nation for doing what I believe to be the sacred work of protecting and
restoring to wholeness the lifegiving systems of this Nation and this
earth.
I have come to voice my strong support for S. 1763. I am convinced
that continued funding and independence of the EPA National Ombudsman
Office is the only way to ensure that citizens and communities across
our country have a voice in the Superfund process and in decisions
which directly affect them, their families and the environment. I have
also come to share my thoughts with you about my community's experience
with the EPA National Ombudsman, Robert Martin.
I will do my best to tell my and my community's story in the time I
have been given but if you have any questions later, please call me and
if I can't answer them, I'll be happy to put you in touch with one of
my neighbors who can.
By the time Senator Allard asked EPA Ombudsman Robert Martin to
help our community in the spring of 1999, I personally felt as if I had
been in a war with Region 8 EPA for 12 years.
I had been given misinformation (the EPA FOIA officer wrote me a
letter in response to a request I made in 1987 saying that there were
``no NPL sites in my zip code,'' when in fact, Shattuck had the same
zip code as me and had been placed on the National Priority List
sometime between 1983 and 1985.) Mistakes had been made and there was
no interest in correcting them (when I pointed out to EPA that a flood
plain map used to determine that the site was not in danger of flooding
actually showed water running uphill, they seemed unconcerned and did
not offer any further explanation even though the community wanted new
research done).
There were constant contradictions in the information being given
to the community (first the Project Manager announced in a community
meeting that we shouldn't eat the fruits and vegetables in our gardens
and then later, without doing any further research studies, said it was
safe to eat them.) Our State Health Department and the EPA sent us a
proposed plan saying that the ``preferred remedy'' was to ``excavate
and remove'' the waste. We were told that this was the only remedy
which would completely ensure health and safety of the community. Then,
after closed meetings with the EPA, State health and the PRP, a ROD was
signed ordering the company to treat, stabilize and bury the
radioactive soil in our neighborhood. They did this without coming back
to the community to tell us that they had changed their minds. When we
asked to see documents and records of meetings that would explain to us
why they changed their minds, we found that approximately 2,000
documents were now classified, marked ``privileged'' and kept from
public scrutiny.
I was suspicious, I was exhausted, my husband had died suddenly and
unexpectedly of a heart attack the year before and I was living with
unspeakable fears that the health problems my son was having were a
result of radium contamination. I felt assaulted by the Government I
had been raised to trust as supposedly working to ensure every
citizen's right to ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''
I had become like a citizen in one of ``those other countries''
where people can never relax. They go to bed at night fearing that, at
any moment, their government will make some decision which could put
them and their family in harms way. I did not once feel heard; I did
not feel seen. I felt completely disregarded as if I were invisible. I
wanted to take my son and move out of the beautiful passive solar home
my late husband had designed and built for us but even that thought
brought fear.
I could not think of trying to sell our home without disclosing to
a buyer that our Government had allowed a rich and powerful company to
bury radioactive toxic waste dump in the middle of our lovely
neighborhood. My next fear was that I might not be able to find a new
home that wasn't also potentially affected by some toxic waste. I could
ask, like I did last time, but after my experience of receiving false
information before, how could I ever be sure?
The first thing that Mr. Martin did was to listen to us. He and his
small staff came and they listened. They placed no restrictions, no
time limits, no agendas on their listening. Mr. Martin, listened and
listened. He listened to our pain, he listened to our anger, he
listened to our fears. He listened to our frustration and he listened
to our disillusionment with our Government and with the EPA. He also
listened to our good ideas and to the wisdom we shared about our
community and what we knew about our own environment--wisdom seldom
tapped into by the EPA because the system had been structured to
exclude community input. It places EPA technical scientists addressing
only the concerns of the money oriented businesses either responsible
for pollution and/or cleaning it up. He listened with respect and he
listened for as long as we wanted to talk. Then he promised to uncover
the facts for us.
He began to meet with EPA Region 8 staff and began working with
Senator Allard and this very Senate committee to release the documents
which had been hidden from us. He then began planning for and scheduled
public hearings.
EPA Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Tim Fields came to our community about the same time that Mr. Martin
came and he also began to listen. I believed he genuinely wanted to
find out what problems there were to be solved. He treated me with
respect and I believe honestly wanted to help solve the problems we
were facing. He set up a series of Dialogue Meetings with all
stakeholders concerned with the Shattuck site. I felt that these
Dialogue Meetings were productive and helped me to feel as if I was
finally getting a chance to work with my government but the difference
between this process and the Ombudsman process was that these meetings
were closed to the public and to the press. Even though, this time, the
community had a seat at the table, and we were discussing possible
solutions to the problems with each other, we could not take much of
that information out into our community.
It was when Mr. Martin's office, Senator Allard and other elected
officials convened public hearings in the community with the press
present, that our community seemed to sigh with relief. I felt true
democracy was finally taking place and I was able to regain at least a
little of the faith in my government that I had lost.
I believe that funding the Ombudsman Office is also the best use of
our taxpayer dollars. I have mentioned many times at all of the
meetings how outraged I have been at the waste of the taxpayer dollars
and how much these dollars have been used to make mistakes and then to
cover up mistakes. We pay the city attorney and the Mayor to fight with
the company and the EPA, the EPA is represented by the Department of
Justice attorneys, who we pay--and the lawsuits are brought before the
Federal judges, who we also pay. Many times I have advocated for us to
stay home and sue ourselves without all the middle men.
Increased funding would allow communities to ask for help from the
Ombudsman before taxpayer dollars were thrown away on lawsuits.
Involving the community from the beginning of the process--and
actually listening to our suggestions--would bring a wisdom to the
Government process from the governed which would not only be good for
all concerned from a spiritual and democratic perspective but also from
a monetary and practical one.
When problems arise and mistakes are made, and even when mistakes
are covered up, it is only by exposing them to the light of day that we
have any hope of correcting them. We crucially need an honest and
diligent EPA protecting the environment of our Nation and serving as an
example to other Nations. The Ombudsman process is crucial for helping
expose the truth to the light of day for citizens dealing with serious
threats to our environment and knowing the truth is the only way that
we can remain free and truly self governed.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of this committee. I will be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
__________
Statement of Kenneth Bruzelius, Executive Director, Midwest Assistance
Program, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, and distinguished members of the
committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill
1915, The Small Community Assistance Act.
My name is Kenneth Bruzelius, New Prague, Minnesota. I bring three
perspectives to the issue of small communities and their concerns.
First, I have lived over 50 of my 65 years in rural places or small
communities under 7,500 in population. In this capacity as citizen, I
have served on a city council for a town of 50 people and I have served
for 2 years as a township representative to a county planning board.
Second, as the Executive Director of the Midwest Assistance Program
(MAP), my staff and I have entered thousands of small communities
providing technical assistance to mayors, city councils and special
district boards of directors. The Midwest Assistance Program is a not-
for-profit agency that serves nine Midwest and western states with
technical assistance to small communities on drinking water,
wastewater, solid waste management and other environmental concerns.
MAP is part of the Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP) network.
As an aside, the RCAP network deeply appreciates the support that
we have received from members of this committee through the years as we
work with EPA, USDA, HHS and other government agencies. In particular,
we thank both Senator Baucus and the chairman for their support of a
provision in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which, if
enacted, will allow the Corps of Engineers to enter into cooperative
agreements with RCAPs or other rural technical assistance entities to
assist small rural communities during planning and implementation of
Corps projects.
Third, I was a member of the Small Town Task Force (STTF) created
by Public Law 102-386 dated October 6, 1992. Upon sunset of that task
force I was asked to be a member of the Small Community Advisory
Subcommittee (SCAS)--a subcommittee of the Local Government Advisory
Committee. In July of this year my term on this small community
advisory subcommittee expired.
I am pleased to be here today to support The Small Community
Assistance Act of 1999. I commend Senator Jeffords for initiating and
introducing this legislation, as well as those who are cosponsors. I
also express appreciation to the Environmental Protection Agency for
its interest, commitment and support of Small Community issues.
My testimony supporting this legislation is a combination of
individual expression as well as collaboration from local officials,
other grassroots organizations, and the Rural Community Assistance
Program network (RCAP).
Establishing a Small Community Advisory Committee as a permanent
committee--instead of a temporary subcommittee is extremely important.
Small communities represent an overwhelming percent of local
governments . . . over 26,000. Additionally, unincorporated communities
subject to EPA regulation would be heard and benefit from the Small
Community Advisory Committee. It is important that these stakeholders
have a direct voice to EPA decisionmakers without the filter of a
committee dominated by larger cities and metropolitan areas. This
message came out loud and clear in the Small Town Task Force Report and
has been reaffirmed in the current work of the Small Community Advisory
Subcommittee. Background information about and excerpts from the STTF
Report are included as part of this testimony starting on page 6.
The Small Community Assistance Act responds to the message conveyed
by small communities in the Small Town Task Force Report. Briefly
stated, that message is:
We need environmental protections;
We need to understand how new regulations will accomplish
that;
We need input so that when regulations are promulgated
they are appropriate to our situation;
We need advice and technical assistance in how to
implement;
We need access to resources so that we don't bankrupt our
communities and our future.
I commend EPA Staff for the seriousness and commitment that I have
seen in their pursuit of their responsibilities. It is because of that
commitment that I find it discouraging that they are not willing to
offer to small community officials an opportunity to express their
similar commitment to fully participating in the job of protecting the
environment and public health.
Creating a permanent Small Community Advisory Committee with the
objectives stated in S. 1915 is a small, but extremely important
mechanism toward offering small community officials this opportunity.
S. 1915 would establish an advisory committee composed of at least
one (1) small community representative from each of EPA's ten (10)
regions. It would:
Allow for representation from Federal, State and public
interest representatives.
Seek to improve the working relationship between the
agency and small communities.
Provide for early involvement in the development of
environmental regulations.
Report its activities to Congress.
Assist the EPA Administrator in other appropriate matters.
I ask--Who could reasonably deny small community officials this
opportunity to show their commitment to helping themselves and their
neighbors to meet essential environmental responsibilities?
S. 1915 offers EPA an opportunity to better understand small
communities. Section 8--The Survey of Small Communities identifies
relevant information needs that, if appropriately collected, compiled,
analyzed, and translated into strategy, can assist EPA and the Congress
in improving environmental services and quality of life in small town
America.
S. 1915 also offers small communities an opportunity to better
understand the Federal Government's regulatory requirements for small
communities. A Guide for Small Communities entitled ``Everything You
Wanted to Know About Environmental Regulations--But Are Afraid to Ask''
was originally published by my organization (the Midwest Assistance
Program) under a contract from Region VIII--EPA. It has been amended
and updated a number of times by EPA regions, headquarters and States.
This publication has fallen out of date and needs EPA to publish an on
going, up-to-date guide in a format useful to small communities.
I would like to speak in particular about the concept of a Small
Town Ombudsman at regional EPA offices. The STEP legislation of 1992
required EPA to initiate an Ombudsman function for small communities.
EPA has refused to do so! The final report of the Small Town Task Force
also recommended that EPA establish a Small Community Ombudsman office
at EPA regional and headquarters offices. This recommendation has not
been honored. (EPA has re-established a Small Community Advisory
Subcommittee, and small communities are thankful for this limited
voice.) Once again the Ombudsman issue was raised by the Small
Community Advisory Subcommittee. The advisory subcommittee has spent
the last 2 years asking EPA to implement an Ombudsman like function for
small communities. Even today they resist this request. A letter of
September 19, 2000, just 1 week ago today, was transmitted to the
Agency again requesting the establishment of an office of a small town
advocate. Such offices could serve a number of useful functions
benefiting small communities as they seek to enhance and preserve
environmental, quality of life services to their residents.
Regional Ombudsman Offices could:
Provide for a mechanism to identify and notify small
communities affected by new rules.
Consult with affected small communities about the
potential impacts of a contemplated rule.
Make provisions for compliance assistance to small
communities when the rule is adopted and implemented.
Identify ``unintended consequences'' of implementing a
rule in unique situations and assist in providing an appropriate
resolution.
Be a full-time advocate for small communities to the
universal goal of enabling them to improve their environment and
quality of life and meet regulatory compliance through implementation
or appropriate exemptions or waivers.
Be a participant in State/EPA partnerships and delegation
agreements to assure that small community concerns are considered: such
as, outreach, technical assistance, availability of resources, etc.
It is also important for each Regional Ombudsman Office to have an
advisory board of small community stakeholders. This approach
recognizes the likelihood of regional differences and enables local
officials to inform their Regional Ombudsman of their unique needs. The
regional advisory mechanism should enable EPA, States, and local small
community advisors an opportunity to understand issues that arise at
each level and work toward acceptable solutions.
An EPA Headquarters Ombudsman Office could:
Be an advocate within EPA at the start of, and during the
regulatory development process to assure that impacts to small
communities are clearly understood. In particular the cost implications
of new regulations should be projected on a real cost basis to the
smallest regulated community system that would be impacted. (i.e. if a
community of 25 would be impacted, what would the real cost to that
community be?)
Be an equal partner in the development of rules to
determine what, if any, federalism implications may be involved in
implementation.
Participate as an equal partner in EPA's evaluation of
delegated programs to help identify and ameliorate unworkable or
unintended negative regulatory impacts on small, rural communities.
The Superfund Ombudsman and the Small Business Ombudsman Offices
are clear examples that the availability of such assistance benefits
smaller entities, which often have few resources to secure other
professional or legal assistance.
The Regulatory Review Plan described in Section 6 of the Act would
seek to increase the involvement of small communities in the regulatory
review process. This is important because:
Small community systems represent the largest number of
regulated systems.
Small communities are the least able to survive a
regulatory mistake or debacle.
Solutions that are available to cities are often cost
prohibitive to small systems, and solutions appropriate to small
systems are often untested or otherwise not acceptable to State
regulatory agencies.
Small communities need to be represented by a larger
number of community officials, because as individuals they often lack
the time, experience and technical knowledge that paid staff and
consultants can provide to larger cities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995, and the Small Business Regulator Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 have each prompted EPA to show a little more
interest in how small communities are treated by the Agency. In effect,
EPA has responded to small community needs only after Congress has
mandated it.
The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act (SBREFA) requires EPA
to consult with small entities (including communities) when a proposed
rule is likely to impose a ``significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities''. Recently EPA utilized this stakeholder
consultation process to review the development of a proposed regualtion
(arsenic). In spite of strong stakeholder dissent to what EPA proposed,
it is yet to be shown that EPA's publishing of the proposed regulation
was informed or modified in any way by this stakeholder process.
background information
This background information is taken from the Small Town
Environmental Planning (STEP) legislation (Public Law 102-386) and from
the Small Town Task Force Report dated May 23, 1996.
Small communities across the United States face a wide range of
environmental challenges and responsibilities. Local leaders must
evaluate a multitude of competing priorities with limited resources and
are accountable to their citizenry for the decisions they make
regarding these issues. It is increasingly difficult for small towns to
manage and implement environmental requirements for a variety of
reasons.
The work of the Small Town Task Force (STTF) characterized small
communities as follows: People who live in small towns are proud of
their community. They want to comply with reasonable health and
environmental standards leaving a healthy legacy for their children.
However, local officials are concerned about standards written without
consideration for the special circumstances small towns in America
face. They take issue with unnecessary and cumbersome regulations
restricting their ability to respond intelligently to local priorities
and needs. It is not that small towns do not want to comply with
environmental regulations. They simply want some flexibility in order
to comply in a reasonable manner. Small towns do not want preferential
treatment; they want treatment that recognizes their unique political
and financial situations. Small towns have many unique characteristics.
It is realized that in order to maintain or improve the quality of life
for citizens, difficult choices will have to be made.
small town task force [sttf] history
The Small Town Task Force was established by Public Law 102-386
dated October 6, 1992, section 109, Small Town Environmental Planning.
This is also referred to as the STEP Legislation.
The STEP legislation authorized the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to establish the Small Town
Environmental Planning Task Force, commonly referred to as the Small
Town Task Force (STTF). The STTF was formed to improve the working
relationship between EPA and small towns and the ability of small towns
to comply with environmental regulations. The task force was to include
representatives of small towns from different areas of the United
States, Federal and State governmental agencies and public interest
groups. Fourteen individuals were appointed to the task force including
municipal, township, and State and Federal officials as well as others
who work with small towns on environmental issues. It was my privilege
and honor to be a part of this group.
The STTF provided recommendations to EPA on building the capacity
of small towns to comply with regulations, promoting regionalization of
environmental treatment systems, solving multi-jurisdictional
compliance and permitting problems, involving small communities in the
rulemaking process and improving the working relationship between EPA
and small towns. Those recommendations are explained in detail in this
testimony.
The STTF had five major responsibilities. They were to:
a. Identify regulations developed pursuant to Federal environmental
laws which pose significant compliance problems for small towns;
b. Identify means to improve the working relationship between the
Environmental Protection Agency and small towns;
c. Review proposed regulations for the protection of the
environment and public health and suggest revisions that could improve
the ability of small towns to comply with such regulations;
d. Identify means to promote regionalization of environmental
treatment systems and infrastructure serving small towns to improve the
economic condition of such systems and infrastructure; and
e. Provide such other assistance to the administrator, as the
administrator deems appropriate.
Several responsibilities are assigned to the administrator or to
the agency. Perhaps the most important is, ``The Administrator . . .
shall establish a program to assist small communities in planning and
financing environmental facilities.''
To begin the process of advising the administrator, the task force
stated one finding and four principles, which it believed, guided and
shaped all specific recommendations.
Finding: Small towns are different from large towns--not just smaller
There are several reasons why this is true. Most of the reasons can
be grouped into three broad areas: limitations on technical and
professional capacity, limitations of financial resources, and
demographic and socio-economic factors.
A. Limitations on technical and professional capacity
No. 1, small towns, as a general rule, have no full time
officials.--One State represented on the task force has 310
municipalities; 297 have fewer than 5,000 people. There are two full-
time mayors in the State (for one town of 50,000 population and another
with more than 100,000 population). There are four full-time city
council members. All the remaining mayors and council members are part-
time, and have other, full-time, life-supporting occupations.
On a national basis, 86 percent of the 35,000 total governments in
the United States contain fewer than 10,000 people. Ninety million
people in the United States live in jurisdictions under 10,000
population; 74 million live in jurisdictions under 2,500. One third of
all governments in the United States have no employees at all.
No. 2, small towns, as a general rule, have little or no
professional staff.--Such towns may have a clerk, who may or may not
have received specialized training. Routinely, small towns do not have
planning offices or engineering staffs. The wastewater operator may
have been trained by the State and may, in addition to operating the
wastewater system, perform other municipal functions including
maintenance and some law enforcement.
A key factor related to these two points is continuity, because
town officials change, as do the bureaucrats who regulate them. At just
about the time that agency officials are getting along with the current
group of town officials, an election can cause them all to be thrown
out of office. Then the whole education process has to start all over
again. The loss of continuity threatens the communication linkages that
have developed among local, State and Federal officials. When that
happens, regulatory compliance becomes a nightmare. Any good developed
by regulators may be lost in this situation.
Finally, there is often reluctance on the part of potential
candidates to run for office and to be associated with unpopular
environmental projects. In one State represented by a task force
member, there are often elections in which nobody declares his or her
candidacy. This means that the people who will address the challenges
of environmental protection are write-in candidates.
No. 3, small towns, as a general rule, cannot attract or support
private technical businesses; accordingly, there is no private
capability to supplement governmental capacity.--There will usually be
no registered engineer in a small town, for example, nor will there be
an engineering firm. There will be no laboratory to perform required
tests. One member of the task force has no certified laboratory in her
state.
No. 4, there will be few, if any, training opportunities.--Small
towns do not generally contain universities or significant technical
training capabilities. Some progress is being made in this area in two
respects: first, State governments have taken on some of the training
responsibilities. Where local budgets permit travel, states can train,
for example, water and wastewater operators. Second, in some areas
interactive television networks offer an alternative form of training.
But training opportunities will always be in short supply for small
towns because training capacity does not exist locally.
The result of these four facts is that technical and bureaucratic
capacity is severely limited in small towns. The part-time mayor is
limited in ability to understand what requirements must be met; the
council is limited in their ability to understand the significance of
what they are being asked to do; and there are limited or no staff or
private resources upon which to draw.
B. Limitations of financial resources
No. 5, almost by definition, small towns have severely limited tax
bases.--In one State represented on the task force, a small town which
needed a loan for water and wastewater projects found that the amount
of the loan would have exceeded the entire assessed value of the town.
No. 6, small towns, because of limited opportunities for young
people, tend to have disproportionately older populations.--The
implications of this fact will be explored in another way under socio-
economic factors. On average, older persons, retired and/or living on
fixed incomes--especially in rural areas--tend to be poorer than the
population as a whole. Their marginal capacity to support increased
spending, for any public purpose, is quite limited.
No. 7, small towns tend to have fragile, heavily concentrated
economic bases.--Thus, the small town gasoline station faced with the
cost of upgrading underground storage tanks may be the only station in
town. Should the owner not succeed in coming into compliance, the
result of the loss is not a reduced competitive base; it may be the
total loss of the services.
This can also have major impacts on individuals. Station owners
cannot, in some instances, sell their businesses because of the cost to
clean up the areas where previous owners have discarded petroleum
products on the property. In some instances, the cost would exceed the
sale price of the property. This burden causes loss of retirement
income.
No. 8, infrastructure costs fall disproportionately on small towns
because entry-level costs must be distributed over a smaller base.--
Thus, the cost of a waste water system for a population of 1,000 is not
1 percent of the cost of such a system for a population of 100,000; it
is substantially more. When those costs are distributed over a smaller
number of households, the per family costs escalate--perhaps as much as
10 times. EPA is currently considering combined sewer overflow rules.
The agency estimates that the per-household costs in towns under 1,000
population will be more than 10 times higher than similar costs in
towns with populations greater than 100,000. This is a well-recognized
principle in the development of rural drinking water systems.
Unfortunately, this does not appear to have been a consideration when
the Federal pollution abatement grant programs were being administered.
No. 9, limited tax bases mean limited budgets.--Small towns
routinely operate with budgets smaller than $100,000 per year. In many
instances, the amounts will not exceed $50,000. These budgets are so
small that the cost of additional drinking water testing, for example,
may be 10 percent, or higher, of the total annual budget.
Many small jurisdictions do not have access to capital at
reasonable rates. This may occur because of costs of obtaining bond
ratings, thereby causing the community to have a ``non-investment
grade'' rating with accompanying higher rates. Or the problem may arise
from limited resources, or from State constitutional limitations on
indebtedness.
While funding sources exist at the Federal, State and local levels,
small communities often find it difficult to access these sources, for
reasons discussed elsewhere, such as the absence of technical and
professional staff, absence of political strength, and a lack of
recognition of the particular problems of small communities.
Many small towns cannot get local approval to expend funds for
programs which go beyond what they believe is necessary.
C. Demographic and Socio-Economic Factors.
No. 10, small towns tend to have little, or no, medical care or
emergency services readily available.--In the current debate on
national health care, rural states have repeatedly tried to make clear
that their problem is, more than anything else, the absence of medical
care. Thus, ``managed competition'' may not be the answer where there
is no competition to manage. Additionally, medical infrastructure, such
as ambulance and 911 services are routinely not available. Finally,
small towns have limited fire-fighting capability. They often rely on
volunteer fire departments and limited equipment.
It is, therefore, somewhat facile to argue that small towns must
meet the same environmental standards as the rest of the Nation and
that such standards are required by ``environmental equity.'' Citizens
of small towns may already be subject to greater health risks than
their neighbors in large cities. If the basis for imposing the
environmental standard is health protection, greater health protection
could be accomplished through expanded medical and emergency services.
No. 11, a disproportionately older population may require different
forms of health protection.--Typically, environmental protection is
based on health risks that may or may not come to fruition for 10 or 20
years. The older population of the typical small town has many more
immediate health threats with which it must cope.
No. 12, small communities often lack political strength, both on
the State and national levels.--Small communities perceive that they
are required to meet higher environmental standards than large
communities are able to arrange for themselves through the exercise of
political power. This lack of political strength may affect the
distribution of resources as well as the granting of exemptions and
deviations.
For all these reasons, the STTF found that small towns are
fundamentally different from large communities.
The Small Town Task Force Committee identified three primary
priorities. These priorities are excerpts from the Small Town Task
Force Report.
I. Improving the Working Relationship Between EPA and Small Towns
The STTF should be re-established as an independent advisory group
by the Administrator, within existing statutory and funding guidelines,
to continue its work and provide ongoing guidance to EPA regarding
small towns.
A Small Town Ombudsperson Office should be established in each EPA
region and at headquarters with primary responsibility for serving as
an advocate for small towns and as a facilitator for addressing small
town concerns and programs.
EPA should formulate a method for allocating Federal resources and
funds for environmental issues targeted on the basis of need
recognizing that small towns often pay a disproportionate share of
expense.
EPA should take an activist role in shifting both environmental
responsibility and accountability to the states, giving them the
capacity to solve local problems in the most economically feasible and
timely manner. These efforts should support the broader concept of
encouraging localities to implement community-based environmental
planning.
EPA should recognize the ability of small towns to initiate,
prioritize and implement community-based environmental planning
efforts.
EPA must use the opportunity of Agency reorganization to
institutionalize special considerations for small towns.
A brief preface for each proposed and adopted regulation should be
provided in layperson terms providing a justification for the
regulation.
Information developed on environmental regulations and requirements
of regulations must be written in user-friendly language.
A waiver process that is easily understood and implemented should
be developed so that when small communities request a waiver, states
have a process in place.
Chemical monitoring requirements should be revised to provide
states with authority to design alternatives to national monitoring
requirements.
II. Policy and Procedure to Involve Small Towns in the Rule-Making
Process
EPA should establish a Small Community Advisory Committee to review
environmental regulations as part of an initiative for involving small
towns as early as possible in the process of developing environmental
rules, guidance's and policies.
Funding should be set aside to include conflict resolution experts
in the regulatory process. This will be especially crucial when those
with opposing views are not able to reach a compromise or mutually
agreed upon solution.
Outreach mechanisms are needed for small towns that extend beyond
those that have traditionally been used. Special efforts are needed for
reaching small jurisdictions.
EPA must insure that a small town official sits on the Regulatory
Negotiation Work Group when a rule or policy that has the potential to
impact small towns is being reviewed to assure the special nature of
small towns is considered. The STTF should have the opportunity to
identify a representative that is knowledgeable on the specific issue
being considered.
EPA needs to improve methodologies for assessing the environmental
impacts, costs, and practical and technical applications of proposed
regulations. Special consideration should be given to how regulations
will impact towns with populations less than 2,500.
EPA should expand its use of focus groups, Internet, public
meetings, newspaper articles and regional small community work groups
such as the one in Region VIII to inform small towns of pending rules
and issues of concern.
EPA should utilize the small community data bank for information
about small towns when writing regulations.
III. Technical Assistance
EPA should assure that technical assistance is available to small
town officials from Federal, State and third party providers to enable
timely and cost effective environmental compliance capacity at the
local level.
The Office of the Small Town Ombudsperson must be staffed to
provide technical assistance to small towns and to resolve problems
between State primacy agencies and small towns pertaining to
interpreting and implementing new regulatory requirements.
EPA and Congress should fund technical assistance as part of State
delegation grant programs and provide assurances that states have the
capacity to provide technical assistance to help small towns comply
with mandated regulations.
EPA and Congress should expand resources available, both directly
and through third party technical assistance providers, enabling small
towns to secure professional services for planning, developing and
implementing new or rehabilitated environmental facilities whether
immediate compliance problems are at stake or pollution prevention
efforts are the issue.
__________
Statement of B. Roy Prescott, Chairman, Jerome County, Idaho,
Board of Commissioners
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Roy Prescott
and I am the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners for Jerome
County, Idaho. I am here to give you a brief insight into the
implementation and benefits of S. 2296, a bill that would establish
Project SEARCH--the Special Environmental Assistance for Regulation of
Communities and Habitat program funded through the Environmental
Protection Agency for small communities under 2,500 people.
Rural Idaho communities are facing many of the same environmental
challenges seen throughout the United States, including the protection
of groundwater, the disposal of waste water, the protection of critical
habitat, and many others. Yet these small communities often find
themselves without the financial resources to undertake the size and
scope of project necessary to respond to environmental challenges.
In answer to their call for help in meeting environmental
regulations and providing for liveability, several communities in Idaho
prevailed on Congress to provide funding through a 1-year Project
SEARCH program. Our focus was to use these funds to help small rural
communities solve their environmental problems. We targeted these
communities because they generally have small operating budgets, only
part-time staff, and lack the financial reserves so critical to being
competitive in the normal public sector grant processes.
The 1999 initial grant of $1.3 million from EPA went to a local
non-profit. This regional planning association, the Region IV
Development Association, has considerable experience with grant
processes and helping small communities. The Association created a
simplified grant application that any part-time city officials or
mayors could complete. A notice of the grant program availability and
an application was sent to all of Idaho's counties and all cities with
a Census population of less than 2,500.
To review the applications and ensure a fair, locally-driven
process, a seven-member Citizens Advisory Committee was formed. The
Committee was comprised of one representative appointed by the local
board of each of Idaho's six economic development planning regions, and
one person who brought to the group his experience as a small town
mayor and with the EPA's Small Town Task Force. This individual served
as the Committee's Chair. These seven individuals, of which I was one,
reviewed the applications and made the funding decisions.
Of the 47 applications received, we were able to fund only 21. The
funded applications ranged from a low of $9,000 for a facility plan so
that a housing authority could solve its wastewater problems to a high
of $319,000 for part of the funding needed for construction of a
wastewater treatment facility in a very sensitive environmental area.
One project that we funded close to home involved a community of
150 attempting to install its first wastewater treatment system using
the community residents for the needed labor. This ``self-help''
project had been struggling along for a couple of years with pipe
stockpiled on the ground and no financial resources to finance a
section of dangerous trenching that no volunteer felt safe (or capable)
to complete. Project SEARCH funds enabled this community to complete
this aspect of the project and refocus on getting the remainder of
their sewer system completed. The people of this community will be
hooking up homes to the new system this fall. Without Project SEARCH
assistance, this project would still be years away from completion.
Implementation of Project SEARCH was not without its tense moments.
The project grant from EPA required a 45 percent match. As previously
mentioned, small communities generally cannot come up with the matching
requirements for most public infrastructure grant programs--effectively
eliminating their potential for receiving grant assistance. As
originally proposed, Project SEARCH was not much different in this
regard--many applicants could not meet the 45 percent match
requirement. To overcome this obstacle, our grant administrator worked
with EPA to structure the program so that each individual community
would not be required to come up with a 45 percent match--but rather
that the overall program would be responsible for meeting the match
requirement. As a result of this
common-sense approach, we will meet EPA's 45 percent match requirement
and the individual towns will be able to use Project SEARCH funds to
solve their problems while participating to the maximum of their
financial abilities. The small towns were able to match their Project
SEARCH Grants with local resources ranging from 14 percent up to about
87 percent.
The Project SEARCH concept provides a flexibility not readily
available with other public infrastructure grant programs. Yet this
project has still been able to maintain full accountability through the
EPA grant being awarded to an experienced local non-profit. Through
this combination of local direction and Federal partnering, Project
SEARCH has enabled more direct infrastructure building/environmental
problem solving dollars to get to the communities than if EPA had
awarded individual grants.
Throughout the process of implementing this program, the
Environmental Protection Agency, especially the Boise Field Office, was
exceptional to work with. Project SEARCH has enabled 21 Idaho
communities to solve or make major strides in solving their
environmental problems that could not have been done otherwise. As a
representative of small town America, I encourage you to fund this type
of project in the future.
Thank you for your time.
______
Responses by Roy Prescott to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1a. S. 2296 is focused on providing help to small
communities. What is the principal need that small communities have? Is
it construction funds for environmental projects, such as a sewer
system or a Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP)? Legal assistance in
understanding Federal law and completing grant applications? Paying
experts? Hiring personnel?
Response. Construction funds are among the needs of small
communities. Constrained by a limited tax base for general obligation
bonds and/or customer base for revenue bonds, these communities are
unable to raise sufficient funds to undertake major infrastructure
projects through these traditional means. The cost of an
environmentally sound solution to wastewater or domestic water problems
does not correspond proportionally to the size of a town. A town of
2,500 faces the same multi-million dollar improvement bill that a town
of many times that size. This lack of local share consequently limits
the ability of the community to leverage from traditional grant
sources.
Also needed are funds to support preliminary assessments and
project planning. Both regulatory and project funding agencies require
professionally prepared facilities studies, project planning documents,
and cost estimates prior to authorizing the start of a construction
project or committing Federal/State funds. Small communities do not
have this technical capacity in-house and must hire professional
consultants to accomplish these tasks. Again, limited revenue resources
restrict the towns' ability to contract for these services, and few
outside financial resources are currently available to finance the
cost.
Without the ability to qualify the problem and identify options for
a solution, the community cannot move to the next step--resolving their
environmental infrastructure issues.
Our existing network of Department of Environmental Quality staff
and planning districts assist small communities with understanding the
Federal regulations and the paperwork involved with developing
applications for funding--no financial assistance is needed for hiring
legal counsel or technical assistance. Hiring personnel is not an
eligible activity under the current program, as it requires an on-going
commitment for funding as an operating cost for the system. To
accommodate the need for trained technical operators, communities
throughout the State have been encouraged to share professional staff
for their wastewater and water systems. Cooperative agreements have
been developed creating a circuit-rider concept where nearby small
towns can share the expense of a professional operator. In addition,
those communities not granted are given help with future direction,
appropriate agencies or individuals that could help them, if they wish
to follow through.
Question 1b. In your prepared testimony, you mentioned two specific
uses to which grant funds were put--a facility plan to deal with a
housing authority's wastewater problems, and the construction of a
WWTP. Please supply the committee with additional examples of how Idaho
has used the funds already made available to your State.
Response. We were able to fund 21 projects because of limitations
place by the E.P.A. on eligible projects to include only infrastructure
projects. Seven projects were for the construction of wastewater
treatment system improvements including the one I previously testified
on where the community members are actually constructing the
community's first waste water treatment facility. Three projects were
for the construction of water system improvements. Eight Projects were
for engineering needed to solve wastewater problems. Three projects
were for engineering needed to solve water system problems.
Question 1c. How were grant decisions made in Idaho?
Response. A seven member Citizens Committee made the grant
decisions.
Six Economic Development Districts cover the entire State of Idaho.
A board of directors governs thee non-profit economic and community
development organizations. This board is comprised of local elected
officials and private sector representatives (sometimes referred to as
``Council of Governments''). Each of these boards appointed one
representative to our Project SEARCH Citizens Committee. To chair the
Committee, a former small town (population 800) mayor, that has led the
cause of small rural communities at the State and National level was
chosen. This individual has served on the Environmental Protection
Agency's Small Town Task Force. These seven individuals met by
conference call (to reduce administrative expense) and in person to
make funding decisions.
Each Committee member was supplied with a copy of the grant
application (there were 44 to review). A copy of the actual grant
application of the city of Dietrich is attached to this response.
Question 1d. The criticism has been raised that S. 2296 would allow
grants to be awarded to neighborhoods within large cities, instead of a
small communities? Do you want that opportunity to exist? If not, how
can it be prevented?
Response. Large communities would not qualify under the definition
to participate in the program. At the same time, large communities do
not need this type of assistance. Larger communities generally have
more financial options available to them due to their size, tax base,
and revenue resources. The small rural areas do not have the tax base
of large cities. In addition, cities of over 50,000 population get a
direct Community Development Block Grant from H.U.D. In Idaho and most
States, communities of less than 50,000 compete for the Small Cities
Program of HUD's Community Development Block Grant that goes directly
to the States. This competition among communities often center around
which communities can provide the most matching funds. Usually, the
larger the population of a city, the more matching funds it can
provide. This makes these cities more likely to be awarded the grant
from the State.
Small communities do not have the financial resources that larger
communities have, In Idaho, eligibility for Project SEARCH was limited
to cities and unincorporated communities with 2,500 people or less.
This criteria eliminated the possibility that a neighborhood within a
larger city could be awarded funds.
There are small communities encased in large communities. This
program allows these small communities the same or equal opportunity to
apply for these grants. The selection committee ultimately has the
final decision based on need and qualification.
Question 1e. The criticism has been raised that S. 2296 would allow
all of a State's funds to be granted for community welfare projects,
such as swimming pools. What safeguards do you have in place to ensure
that grants are awarded only for what ordinarily would be understood as
environmental projects, instead of other community welfare projects?
What safeguards are necessary to have in S. 2296?
Response. It is our intention that an application must identify the
specific environmental obligation the project will meet. Supporting
documentation regarding the problem must be provided including letters
from the regulatory agencies. The Department of Environmental Quality
provides consultation to the selection committee on which projects are
the most critical for resolving infrastructure issues.
The proposed project must resolve a clear environmental problem.
Without a critical infrastructure issue to resolve, requests from a
previously funded community will not be competitive against another
community's current problems. No Congressional language is required.
Question 1f. Is there a means by which Congress can ensure that
grants are awarded to different communities over time, so that no one
community or set of communities will be able to monopolize grants?
Response. The Citizens Committee makes decisions regarding
selecting the grantees. The Committee members are appointed from
regions throughout the State. Regional representation would determine
successful applicants and appropriate distribution of grants. This
would allow non-political decisionmaking to review needs, and direct
where resources go.
Question 1g. Should this grant program be preferred source of money
for small communities, or should it be a source of funds to be used as
a last resource.
Response. There currently exist many sources of infrastructure
funding from State and Federal agencies. These sources should remain
the preferred source of funding. However, because of various rules and
regulations, often small communities are not able to access these
funding sources. Applicants should demonstrate that they have attempted
to secure other funding and have either been unsuccessful or that the
other funding is not adequate to complete the project and other funding
is not available.
Project SEARCH funds are the dollars of last resort. The applicants
must identify all other efforts at raising funds to resolve their
environmental problems and provide written documentation on commitments
and rejections for funding. When all other traditional resources are
exhausted, Project SEARCH funds can be requested.
Question 1h. Should the authority to make grant decisions be vested
in a council composed of private citizens, or should the authority be
given to a governmental official, such as the Governor or a group of
local officials?
Response. A private citizen group such as we developed in Idaho is
the fairest process. This program should not be allowed to become part
of a bureaucracy or political process. Our Idaho example is the best
method that will ensure that projects with the most need will be
funded.
Maintaining a non-partisan process is critical to the success of
the program. Local elected officials and private sector business people
appointed the members of Idaho's selection committee. This local
control (including wide geographic participation) insures equal
consideration for projects from all areas of the State and provides a
level of confidence to the public that the projects awarded are vital
to the sustainability of the small towns and not political plumbs.
Keeping this program out of the hands of State government enabled
us to have a simple application process for the small communities. A
part-time city clerk or mayor could complete the application that could
be as short as two pages.
__________
Statement of Benjamin Y. Cooper, Printing Industries of America, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Environment and Public
Works, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you in support of
S. 2800, the Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution
Prevention Act of 2000. My name is Benjamin Y. Cooper. I am senior vice
president for Government Affairs for the Printing Industries of
America, the Nation's largest graphic arts association. I have included
a page of statistical information about PIA and the U.S. printing
industry.
S. 2800 is important legislation. It is important for today but it
may have greater value in the future as the impact of Federal
environmental regulations is extended to smaller and smaller companies.
EPA and the States continue to make improvements in the quality of the
information they provide to businesses. Nevertheless, the level of
information required from business increases each year. More
importantly, the size of the companies that must report is getting
smaller.
The Clean Air Act, the major environmental program affecting the
U.S. printing industry, now applies to companies as small as 15
employees in some areas of the country. In fact, most urban areas
consider all printers as major sources of air pollution because the
industry is a large area source. While it is true that the majority of
printing companies do not have ``site specific'' Federal air permits
now, unless we change the Clean Air Act, more and more of these
companies will have the same permit requirements as large printers. In
addition, virtually every printing company has some level of reporting
requirement for waste, chemical storage, or water discharge. Any steps
we can take now to make reporting easier for these companies will pay
significant dividends.
For smaller companies, reporting can be a complex and sometimes
error prone process. These companies often lack the tools and
experience to provide the information. Often small companies have to
rely on suppliers or Material Safety Data Sheets to determine the
volatility or toxicity of a chemical. The level of complexity is also a
factor in the rate of error. The more complex the reporting
requirement, the greater the chance of error.
S. 2800 could provide significant help in reducing the time
required to file. If the reporting is consolidated into fewer reports,
it is possible that the rate of error will be reduced simply by
minimizing the time required to fill out forms.
In the real world of business, particularly manufacturing, changes
in the last few years have been astonishing. Printing, one of the
Nation's largest manufacturing industries, is threatened by new media,
the cost of supplies, increased postal rates, a lack of skilled labor
and the imposition of Federal and State regulations. Reports of
streamlined regulations and reinvention have been grossly overstated.
Companies that have been reporting are still reporting, and new
companies are being added regularly. With each new threat, companies in
our industry meet the challenge by reducing costs in every facet of the
company. In many cases, this means reducing the expertise a company
might have to handle State and Federal regulatory reporting.
Nationally, a very small number of PIA members have environmental
specialists.
One Federal statute, the Clean Air Act, gives a good indication of
the expansion of reporting requirements. The Act categorizes businesses
as sources of emissions, not by how much they emit, but by their
potential emissions. Further, the Act imposes significant controls on
states to reduce pollution. Printing companies are capital intensive.
Commercial printers in a community want to be in a position to offer a
wide range of printing options which means they will likely have more
equipment than they need. While this may make good sense from a
customer service standpoint, EPA evaluates each of these presses by its
potential to emit. In simple terms, a printing company has the
potential to emit a great deal more than it could ever hope to emit. In
an industry such as printing where there are a significant number of
small companies, very small companies can become major sources as
defined by the Clean Air Act.
We have worked with EPA in an effort to improve the ``potential to
emit'' rules. If these rules are clarified favorably, some printing
companies may no longer have to report as major sources.
In terms of reporting burden, it is not unusual for a printing
company to file quarterly, semiannual, as well as annual emission
reports. A printer may also have to file an additional State annual
emission statement with a different format and data element
presentation requirement to a different branch of the same media
program. Some air programs such as Title V can also require additional
annual reports when mandatory annual training is completed. These
various annual reports have different deadlines.
These companies must also account for any significant changes.
Purchase of a new press or an expansion of the facility triggers other
series of reports including new permitting, new source review, and
more. Frankly, we do not believe Congress considered the purchase of
new equipment in a small business as an event triggering new source
review, but that is where we are today.
In light of these concerns, we think S. 2800 provides an opening to
some genuine reporting reform. Reporting on an issue by issue basis is
inefficient for many businesses. In the case of a smaller printing
company, the most accurate reporting is by inventory or use of input
materials, not outputs such as emissions, effluents, and waste
generation. Companies buy a certain quantity of inks, solvents and
other chemicals. The process of accounting for these chemicals provides
information about emissions and waste. Additionally, inventory
accounting may also indicate areas where changes can be made to reduce
or eliminate problems. Inventory accounting can be more accurate.
Another benefit of consolidated reporting is to improve the EPA's
``inventory'' of pollutant loadings. One of the ongoing disputes we
have with EPA is the emissions inventory. EPA determines the emissions
inventory and the emissions of particular industries through emissions
factors. These factors are not changed often enough to account for new
technology. Since printing has been through a technology revolution in
the past decade that some compare to the invention of movable type, old
data is worthless data. Regulatory decisions and targets of emission
reductions are based on emissions inventories and emission factors that
do not reflect current emissions. If the data making up the inventory
and the factors are incorrect, the regulatory action itself may be
incorrect. In the case of printing, we believe change in technology
alone has resulted in substantial reduction of air emissions, but it is
difficult to get credit for these changes in the current information
system.
It is my opinion that the challenge facing EPA is not a lack of
desire to make the changes. Instead, the lack of success may be due to
the statutory ``balkanization'' of EPA into media programs. Each of
these programs has developed data that is important to the individual
program. There is almost certainly a level of concern about a proposal
such as this that would consolidate such data into a single point. Data
is a form of power.
One question about this legislation is why is it necessary? The
Nation has embraced technology, and the internet will make electronic
information exchange easy. While these statements may be true, it is
not necessarily true that EPA or any other Federal agency will place a
high level of priority on such consolidated reporting. Part of our
concern is based on an experience we had with OSHA in attempting to get
them to embrace electronic Material Safety Data Sheets. While OSHA
would permit electronic systems, it required redundant paper systems as
a back up to the electronic system. Obviously, this defeated the
purpose of the electronic systems. OSHA has changed its attitude about
electronic MSDS's, but it was not a smooth transition.
This experience tells us that if we want consolidated reporting, it
will be necessary to legislate it. It is our hope that the legislation
goes where EPA would go anyway.
Would EPA accomplish the same goal absent legislation? For some of
the reasons stated above, we do not. EPA's priority is the environment.
From the environmental community side, that means enforcement. From the
business side that means communication and regulatory efficiency.
Enforcement tends to win this battle. However, at some point, every
constituent of EPA must realize that improvements in data gathering
also help improve the environment. Better communications help.
Regulatory flexibility can also help.
The primary benefit of consolidated reporting is that fewer man-
hours will be spent reporting data to the government and fewer hours
will be spent by the agency in processing the data once it is received.
However, there are other benefits that have environmental significance.
Consolidated reporting has the additional benefit of giving the
business the opportunity to look at a larger picture of chemical use.
Small companies are able to manage the entire company at once.
Likewise, if chemical data and use is managed as a whole, problems and
opportunities become more evident. If the report only addresses air
emissions, the use of a specific chemical may not be in sufficient
quantities to pass a reporting threshold. However, if that same
chemical causes TRI reporting, a waste restriction or a discharge
limit, the business may be able to see that through consolidated
reporting. In effect, consolidated reporting presents an opportunity
for pollution prevention by highlighting the emissions, effluents, and
waste as a whole and not in parts.
While we think EPA has done a good job at improving its
communication with the regulated community, it has not succeeded in
reducing the reporting burden. We cannot find a single example of a
company that has had its actual reporting burden reduced through EPA's
One Stop Reporting program. If this legislation will produce results,
it is worth the effort to pass it.
We urge your support and prompt action on S. 2800.
1999 U.S. Market Segment Breakout
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishments Employment Shipments ($M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Printing:
General Commercial Printing*.................................. 22,629 382,932 $49,328.7
Quick Printing*............................................... 7,853 57,837 5,291.7
Magazine Printing............................................. 269 38,274 5,970.8
Newspaper Printing............................................ 5,319 202,376 28,880.8
Book Printing................................................. 356 54,807 7,109.0
Financial, Legal Printing..................................... 179 14,811 2,242.1
Screen Printing............................................... 1,347 26,816 2,708.6
Thermography.................................................. 278 8,371 1,141.5
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 38,230 786,224 $102,673.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form, Label & Tag Printing:
Business Forms Printing....................................... 807 42,397 $8,154.3
Label, Wrapper Printing....................................... 834 37,160 5,229.5
Tag, Ticket, Tape Printing.................................... 150 6,482 911.7
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 1,791 86,039 $14,295.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greeting Card Printing:
Total....................................................... 55 4,023 $616.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specialty Printing:
Total....................................................... 992 42,954 $6,224.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Packaging Printing:
Total....................................................... 1,714 146,945 $22,088.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trade Services:
Prepress Services............................................. 5,092 70,133 $7,272.1
Trade Binding................................................. 721 20,121 1,390.1
Other Finishing Services...................................... 815 16,954 1,151.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 6,628 107,208 $9,813.2
-----------------------------------------------
Total U.S. Printing....................................... 49,410 1,173,393 $155,711.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note.--The small commercial printing (<10 employees) and quick printing market totals: Establishments: 23,068;
Employment: 119,602; and Shipments ($M): $10,746.0
__________
Response of Ben Cooper to an Additional Question from Senator Smith
Question. What technologies can EPA use to improve data-collection
and reporting compliance?
Response. It is our opinion that we should be in a position to take
advantage of any technology which helps centralize information.
Certainly, we would be supportive of flexibility in the adoption of
future technology. It is our opinion that S. 2800 does not freeze EPA
in technology. The advantage of consolidated reporting and, by
extension, data gathering, is that it reduces the challenges the
reporting community faces in providing redundant data. While we are
very supportive of the rights of States to collect and use data, the
alternative to a national database at this point is a series of
databases located in the States. One of the trends we see in our
industry is consolidation. Small companies are being purchased by
larger companies and small companies are aligning themselves for a
variety of purposes. It is becoming increasingly common to have
relatively small companies with multi-state operations. These trends
suggest that the challenges of reporting will increase in the future.
We face a fundamental choice of reporting to a State database from
which the Federal data can be gathered or to a Federal database from
which the State data can be gathered. While we will likely have a
combination of these approaches, it is essential that we work toward a
common reporting format, data needs, and time requirements. In the
current technical environment, these efforts would favor a national
database.
While we are not as familiar with other industries, it is likely
that small-business-dominated industries such as furniture
manufacturing, auto service, dry cleaning, and metal finishing would
face similar problems.
__________
Statement of Diane E. Thompson, Associate Administrator for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, Environmental Protection
Agency
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: Good morning, I am Diane
Thompson, Associate Administrator for Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
or the Agency). I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss several bills which bear upon Agency
activities. They are: S. 2800, a bill to streamline environmental
reporting; S. 1915 and S. 2296, two bills on small community
assistance; and S. 1763, a bill re-authorizing the EPA solid waste
Ombudsman.
I am accompanied this morning by Margaret Schneider, Principal
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information, and
Michael Shapiro, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response.
streamlined reporting
The first bill I would like to address is S. 2800, the
``Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act of
2000,'' which has been introduced by Senators Lautenberg and Crapo. By
its emphasis on facility reporting, reducing the burden on States and
regulated facilities, ensuring more accurate environmental data, and
increasing the efficiency of EPA's data collection efforts, the goals
of S. 2800 are consistent with our own on-going efforts in the
environmental information field.
Last fall, EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner created the Office of
Environmental Information (OEI). This Office has primary responsibility
for information management, policy, and technology. Challenged by the
Administrator to meet the demand for high-quality environmental
information, OEI has begun to implement a number of initiatives to
improve the way EPA collects, manages, analyzes, and provides access to
environmental information for the American public.
information integration
During the collaborative process that was used in creating OEI, the
Agency reached out to a wide range of interested parties both inside
and outside EPA. We wanted input as to what was needed to ensure that
EPA collected and made available to the public high quality information
that would enhance environmental decisionmaking.
We heard from many sources, but the message from each was the same:
the key to streamlining environmental reporting is improving the
integration of environmental information. In response, Administrator
Browner directed OEI to design and implement a comprehensive new effort
that would enable our data partners, including the States, Tribes,
localities, and the regulated community, to more efficiently share and
exchange environmental information. This effort--the creation of a
national environmental information exchange network--is foremost a
partnership with the States and others to improve data quality and
accuracy, ensure the security of sensitive data, reduce data
redundancy, and minimize the burden on those who provide and access
information.
There are many components to achieving a successful information
integration effort. Among these are:
making information compatible through common data
standards and definitions;
ensuring that our partners and EPA have the technology to
facilitate this integration; and
positioning EPA to participate in this network through the
creation of a centralized data exchange, an electronic reporting
capability, an error-correction system, a facility registry system, and
other information integration initiatives.
central data exchange
One of the most aggressive efforts we are undertaking to streamline
environmental reporting and to promote information integration is the
development of a central data exchange (CDX) function. This data
exchange will serve as a central point of receipt for most non-
confidential environmental reports being sent to EPA. Our CDX is being
developed to accommodate a variety of data formats, including
electronic, diskette, and the more traditional paper reports. This
summer, EPA together with our State partners, began to test some of
these electronic formats and functions, including electronic signature
protocols. Testing will continue throughout 2001 in anticipation of
having our CDX capability fully functional by the end of fiscal year
2002. A major benefit of CDX will be to help eliminate duplication of
data entry efforts, a major source of introduced errors in data bases.
electronic reporting and error correction
We have found that a principal source of data error is the manual
entry of data. Electronic reporting will reduce the amount of manual
entry and enhance quality control procedures. By encouraging electronic
reporting, EPA and its community of data users are more likely to have
access to more accurate data in the future.
Data quality also is enhanced through the implementation of
consistent error detection practices. We have worked closely with our
State and Tribal partners and other stakeholders from industry and non-
governmental organizations to build and implement an Agency-wide error
correction tracking system, creating a single place within EPA where
errors found in national data systems can be reported, tracked, and
corrected. The error correction process was implemented this past July
and now is active in all of the major systems in our Envirofacts
electronic data warehouse. The error correction process will be
incorporated into additional systems in 2001.
data standards and the facility registry system (frs)
We and our data partners have agreed that developing and
implementing data standards, common information nomenclature, is a
backbone for integrating environmental information. Together we are
developing a common approach to specific identifiers for regulated
facilities across media-specific environmental information systems.
This year we are building and operating a Facility Registry System
(FRS) with a single master record of verified facility identification
information for each of 50,000 facilities. We are continuing to add
authenticated records to the FRS. This registry is a key component of
the new integrated system, providing for more accurate integration of
data across EPA systems.
As we work to create a national environmental information exchange
network we are committed to building a secure network that will ensure
the integrity of the data holdings. We believe this network also must
serve the public, providing access to high quality environmental
information. Information security and enhancing the public's right to
know are both obtainable and necessary components of our information
integration effort.
Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act
of 2000
S. 2800 would explicitly authorize much of the work EPA already has
begun. The bill would establish one EPA point of contact for reporting,
provide for uniform data standards, allow a single annual data
submission, establish a national environmental data model for use as a
framework for collecting the reported information and an electronic
commerce service center for technical assistance. S. 2800 also would
provide for protection of confidential business information, authorize
the provision of free software to reporting persons and entities, and
provide access to information on pollution prevention technologies and
practices.
EPA generally supports S. 2800. Our work on creating a national
information exchange network is intended to maximize public access to
environmental information in the most cost-effective manner possible,
improve data flows between EPA and our State and Tribal partners, and
is intended to improve environmental decisionmaking at all levels. Our
experience this past year on our information integration and
streamlining initiatives has shown us that these tasks are complicated
and require time to achieve. We have tried to be flexible in our
approach and are continually evolving in the ways that we work with our
State partners. These efforts also cost a lot of money. We believe
strongly, however, that adequate up-front investment ultimately will
save the Agency, the States, and the reporting community time, money,
and effort.
S. 2800 provides a framework for continued progress toward data
integration. As the bill moves forward, we hope to work with Senators
Lautenberg and Crapo to resolve some remaining concerns with this
legislation. Of particular note, it is critical that any legislation in
this area afford the Agency flexibility to respond to very rapidly
changing technology. In addition, such legislation also should
recognize and affirm that the primary Federal role in streamlining the
reporting process should be that of standards setting in partnership
with our various data partners, and not software development or
licensing. It is also important that any integrated reporting system be
as reliable and enforceable as current reporting systems. Finally, it
is important to recognize the very significant role that the States
play in all of this work and the partnership that already has been
established.
With the support of this committee and the Congress, we believe we
can continue to enhance the Agency's data collection efforts, while at
the same time, continue to maintain environmental protection and
improve the health and safety of the public.
Small Community Environmental Protection
Let me turn now to S. 1915, the proposed ``Small Community
Assistance Act of 1999'' and S. 2296, the proposed ``Project SEARCH Act
of 2000.'' These two bills deal with assistance to small communities.
First, I would like briefly to describe the Agency's approach to
small town environmental protection. One of Administrator Browner's key
goals has been to strengthen EPA's relationships with its State and
local government partners. We have long understood that small town
governments face special challenges when it comes to environmental
protection.
Small town governments are responsible for managing the same range
of environmental services as other size governments. They manage
drinking water systems, incinerators, storm water systems, and
landfills. They own underground storage tanks, chemical and pesticide
storage sites, and gravel pits. Some small communities own and operate
electric utility plants. Not all small governments lack the resources
to provide the environmental protections included in our national
environmental laws, such as the Clean Water and Clear Air Acts. It is
probably fair to say, however, that all small communities face
significant challenges in doing so. In particular, lack of adequate
financial, managerial, and technical expertise is a recurring problem.
What constitutes a small town? In 1992, EPA's first advisory group
for small towns asked that EPA focus on small communities with fewer
than 2,500 residents. S. 1915 defines a small community as a county,
parish, borough, or municipality with fewer than 7,500 residents. A
number of our environmental statutes define small communities
differently. For example, the Safe Drinking Water Act uses two
different population thresholds to address the needs of small towns.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act defines small communities as having
fewer than 50,000 inhabitants.
what epa has done to address the needs of small towns
The Small Town Environmental Planning Program (STEP), authorized by
section 109 of the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-
386), initiated a comprehensive small town environmental planning
program at EPA. The key element of STEP was the creation of the Small
Town Task Force (STTF). The STTF analyzed our existing small community
environmental planning effort and produced a comprehensive set of
recommendations for improving it. Based on those recommendations, EPA
is pursuing a strategy for assisting small communities with their
environmental protection responsibilities in three ways. These are:
small town policy consultation, compliance assistance, and regulatory
consultation. These three elements reflect the demand we heard from the
STTF for a comprehensive and effective approach.
a standing small community advisory panel
Perhaps the most important of the STTF recommendations called for
the establishment of a standing advisory panel focused on small
community issues. The Administrator responded by creating the Small
Community Advisory Subcommittee (SCAS) of the Local Government Advisory
Committee (LGAC). The LGAC had been created by Administrator Browner in
December 1993 to advise the Administrator on the implementation of
Federal environmental requirements by local governments. SCAS was
charged with monitoring the implementation of the STTF recommendations.
Today, SCAS continues to advise the Agency on its development and
implementation of efforts to obtain and enhance small town
participation and involvement in Federal environmental planning and
decisionmaking.
After completing an inventory of EPA's small town outreach
activities, the first review undertaken by SCAS addressed EPA's
implementation of the relevant small community sections of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
subcommittee also reviewed EPA's proposed implementation of the recent
Executive Order 13132 on federalism. We are considering those comments
as we prepare to issue the internal guidance on implementing the order.
In a similar fashion, SCAS reviewed implementation of the small town
Ombudsman provisions of the Small Town Environmental Planning Program.
SCAS also commented on EPA's proposed national primary drinking water
standard for arsenic. Finally, SCAS also is working with the Agency to
produce an inventory of EPA funding sources for small communities. We
expect SCAS will take up a review of EPA's technical and compliance
assistance efforts to small communities. As you can see, SCAS is
actively engaged in representing the ``small town point of view''
across a wide array of environmental decisionmaking within EPA.
compliance assistance
Ensuring that the Agency fully understands the environmental
concerns of small communities is but one element of EPA's small town
environmental planning program. Equally important is ensuring that
small towns accurately understand environmental requirements. As an
important element of EPA's small town initiative, the Agency's program
offices provide continuing compliance assistance to small communities.
At program offices in Washington and in the regional offices, we have
dedicated staff working to assist small communities. We also have:
established and supported the Local Government
Environmental Assistance Network (LGEAN), a ``first-stop shop'' to
handle Internet and toll-free telephone requests for compliance
assistance from small communities;
established a Small Community Enforcement Flexibility
Policy that encourages States to offer small towns compliance
assistance as an alternative to traditional enforcement actions;
published the Profile of Local Government Operations,
which identifies environmental requirements applicable to local
government on an operation-by-operation basis;
established a unique self-help program the Drinking Water
Peer Review Program that helps small towns assess the State of each
town's environmental compliance. The Drinking Water Peer Review Program
will expand to help small towns with other environmental problems;
established a Small Community Coordinator in Headquarters
and small community contacts in each Regional Office.
convened the ECOS (Environmental Council of the States)
Local Government Forum to encourage State environmental commissioners
to become more knowledgeable about local governments and small
communities.
early involvement in regulatory process
The third element of our small community environmental planning
effort involves finding ways to ensure the early involvement of small
towns in the regulatory development process. The goal of early
involvement in the regulatory process is to ensure that environmental
regulations are developed with an accurate understanding of the unique
circumstances and implementation challenges facing small towns. One
part of this effort is the rigorous implementation of the small
community provisions under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). Our efforts here include such
practical things as the development of internal guidance documents and
training for regulation development managers.
Meaningful consultation depends upon several things: potential
stakeholders' awareness and interest in specific regulatory actions,
their commitment to fair and effective representation of their
perspectives, and their ability to participate in the process. As you
are well aware, resource constraints facing small governments, both in
terms of personnel time/availability and fiscal resources, challenge
small government officials' ability to participate fully in Federal
regulatory processes. Fully
appreciating these and other concerns facing small entities, EPA has
developed, piloted and implemented several outreach activities in an
effort to improve its approach to consultation with small governments.
One way EPA continues to improve its approach to small government
consultation is by ensuring that regulatory program offices are able to
engage small entity representatives in meaningful dialog during rule
development. For example, a centrally managed process for outreach to
small governments, currently under development, will help provide EPA
program offices access qualified, knowledgeable small government
officials. These officials, in turn, will have the ability to
effectively inform the process for developing the entire range of
regulations affecting small governments. EPA also makes regulatory
information, proposed regulations, and regulatory calendars available
to local governments directly through LGEAN.
concerns about proposed legislation
S. 1915 would require the Environmental Protection Agency to take a
number of specific actions intended to assist small communities that
are attempting to comply with national, State, and local environmental
regulations. These actions include establishment of an independent
advisory committee and regional small town Ombudsman offices to serve
as advocates and facilitators for small communities.
Much of the emphasis of S. 1915 appears to be aimed at improving
the access of small communities to regulation development. We agree
that such involvement is important. However, we believe this is being
addressed by SCAS, EPA's policies on consultation, our full and
complete implementation of statutory and executive order requirements
for small community involvement in the regulatory process, and ongoing
efforts to expand and improve our consultation process. Specifically
with respect to a small community advisory committee, we are committed
to maintaining an advisory committee as a way of ensuring small town
involvement in Federal environmental decisionmaking. We see the special
circumstances of smaller local governments within the context of local
government environmental protection generally. Thus, we think the
current arrangement, a LGAC subcommittee focused on small town issues,
is exactly right. Of note, the Agency's existing Small Community
Advisory Subcommittee will meet three times in 2000. Thus, we do not
believe that S. 1915 is necessary nor will it significantly improve
environmental planning or quality in the Nation's small towns.
Turning now to S. 2296, introduced by Senator Crapo, this measure
would establish a grant program for communities of no more than 2,500
inhabitants for special environmental assistance for the regulation of
communities and habitat (SEARCH). The proposed grant program would
direct the EPA Administrator to transfer $1 million annually to the
Governor of each State for use by an independent citizens council
appointed by each Governor. These funds would be for use in those small
communities which (1) are unable to secure funding or are underfunded
for environmental projects, (2) have incurred unexpected expenses
during construction of environmental projects, or (3) need funds for
initial feasibility or environmental studies before applying to
tradition funding sources.
We have several concerns with S. 2296 and we do not support this
legislation in its current form. First, we are concerned that the bill
could divert scarce resources from EPA's budget for State revolving
funds and from other grants supporting critical State programs. These
funds are specifically targeted to the highest priority public health
and environmental needs in each State. Since 1988, the Clean Water Act
revolving fund has made available $2.7 billion to small communities for
sewage treatment. Since Congress passed the 1996 amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act, EPA has provided $772 million through the new
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to help small communities provide
safe drinking water to their residents.
Likewise, S. 2296 could divert scarce resources from high priority
State grant programs. The sums envisioned under this bill are
significant in the context of EPA's budget. For example, $50 million
represents nearly half the national annual funding EPA provides to
States to implement core State water quality programs required under
the Clean Water Act. $50 million is three times the national funding
EPA provides to States for wetlands protection.
We also are concerned that the formula for distribution of $50
million annually under S. 2296 fails to recognize variation in the
environmental and public health protection needs across the States. The
needs for large, rural States could be several times the need in
smaller States.
Finally, we are concerned that project eligibilities under S. 2296
may be overly broad, resulting in the use of scarce Federal dollars for
projects that may not appreciably improve local public health and
environmental protection. In addition, after the Federal funds are
provided to each Governor, there is no mechanism to ensure that
projects meet environmental priorities and no means for the Congress,
EPA, or the State environmental agency to identify the use of the funds
or to ensure accountability. For these reasons, we believe the bill
would establish a funding mechanism that may be at odds with the
Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-224).
We appreciate the committee's interest in assisting small
communities and we are committed to using existing mechanisms to meet
their needs. We would ask to continue a dialog with you and Senator
Crapo about how to best achieve our common goals in this area.
Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 1999
Now I would like to address S. 1763, introduced by Senator Allard,
which would amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to reauthorize the
Office of Ombudsman of the Environmental Protection Agency.
historical background of ombudsman
The hazardous and solid waste management laws passed by Congress
created some of the most complex programs administered by EPA and the
States. Recognizing this, Congress established a National Ombudsman
function in 1984 as part of amendments to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Establishing an Ombudsman provided the public with
someone to contact with questions and concerns about the RCRA program.
When the statutory authority for the National Ombudsman program expired
in 1989, EPA's Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response (OSWER)
retained the function as a matter of policy. In 1991, OSWER broadened
the National Ombudsman's scope of activity to include other programs
administered by OSWER, particularly the Superfund program. The National
Ombudsman is located at EPA Headquarters and reports directly to the
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
The Ombudsman is authorized to provide information and investigate
complaints and grievances related to OSWER's administration of the
hazardous substance and hazardous and solid waste programs implemented
under the following authorities:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) or Superfund;
RCRA, including UST;
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA)
or Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Title III;
Oil Pollution Act;
Clean Air Act, Section 112(r).
In 1995, a Regional Ombudsman position was created in each EPA
Regional Office as part of the Superfund Administrative Reforms effort.
On June 4, 1996, Administrator Browner formally announced the
appointments of the Regional Ombudsmen. The Regional Ombudsman Program,
at a minimum, operates in support of the Superfund program. Depending
on the region, however, it also may provide support to other OSWER
programs, including RCRA, Underground Storage Tanks (UST), and chemical
emergency prevention and preparedness.
the role of the ombudsman
The Ombudsman is the Agency official designated to receive
inquiries and complaints about the administration of an OSWER program
and may be called upon to serve in a number of capacities: (1)
providing information and facilitating informal contact with EPA staff,
(2) conducting informal fact finding inquiries and developing options
to deal with difficult problems, (3) helping to mediate disputes, and
(4) making recommendations to Agency senior management regarding
procedural and policy changes that will improve the program. The goal
of the Ombudsman is to respond to requests in an appropriate and
objective manner as promptly, informally, and privately as possible.
It is important to note, however, that the role the Ombudsman is
not that of decisionmaker nor of a substantive expert for the Agency.
The Ombudsman's role is primarily to focus on the Agency's procedures
and how citizens and other interested parties have been treated under
those procedures.
concerns about ombudsman as authorized in proposed legislation
We fully support the National Ombudsman program under the
jurisdiction of the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. We believe that the Ombudsman function is a very
important one for the Agency and the public. That is why when the
statutory authorization for the Hazardous Waste Ombudsman function
expired, EPA chose administratively to maintain the function as a
matter of policy.
S. 1763, however, goes beyond the provisions of the original
authorization. Section 2(c) requires that the structure of the Office
of the Ombudsman conform, to the maximum extent practicable, to the
structure of the Model Ombudsman Statute developed by the American Bar
Association (ABA). Models or guidelines for ombudsmen have been
developed by a variety of organizations, including the ABA, the U.S.
Ombudsman Association, and others. Some aspects of these models, and
particularly of the Model Ombudsman Statute for State Governments,
conflict with requirements for Federal employees and the Freedom of
Information Act requirements for Federal agencies. Specifically, the
ABA State Government Model envisions complete independence,
confidentially, and impartiality for ombudsmen. These are laudable
goals. As Federal employees reporting to Agency managers, however, the
ombudsmen are unlikely to fully meet these goals. The Ombudsman cannot
be completely independent in the normal course of relations between
supervisors and their employees, for example.
The basic problem with using the ABA Model Statute in this context
is that it was designed for States that wish to establish a separate
and independent office within the State government, where the Ombudsman
would be elected by the State legislature or appointed by the Governor
and would operate independently of other executive branch agencies. The
Model Statute therefore recommends vesting the Ombudsman with certain
missions and authorities that would be inappropriate for an Ombudsman
Office that is established within a single Federal Government agency.
For example, the Model Statute contemplates that the Ombudsman would
have independent litigating authority, as well as independent authority
to promulgate regulations, both of which would go beyond the
authorities of individual EPA employees.
It is also worth noting that the ABA Model Statute is inconsistent
in important respects with the ABA's recently proposed (July 2000)
Standards for the Establishment and Operation of Ombudsman Offices.
These new standards are specifically contemplated to apply among other
things, to Ombudsman Offices established within Federal agencies.
Further, the ABA Model Statute is also inconsistent with the
Recommendations of the Administrative Conference of the United States,
which provide that ``the Ombudsman should refrain from involvement in
the merits of individual matters that are the subject of ongoing
adjudication or litigation or investigations incidents thereto.''
In addition, the Freedom of Information Act obligations for Federal
agencies and the confidentiality guidelines of the Model Ombudsman
Statute are inconsistent, and the proposed legislation does not provide
authority necessary to reconcile this inconsistency. We are concerned
that the establishment of the ABA model as the appropriate Ombudsman
structure may create both unreasonable expectations and inappropriate
opportunities for litigation.
In order to provide for effective and fair implementation of
OSWER's Ombudsman policy, the Agency developed the ``Hazardous Waste
Ombudsman Handbook.'' We are now in the process of developing guidance
for the program, taking the best aspects of various external models and
combining them into a model that works within the Federal structure.
The draft guidance will be made available through the Federal Register
publication for comment prior to being finalized.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. My
colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may
have.
______
Responses by Diane E. Thompson to Additional Questions from
Senator Smith
Question 1a. The Office of the Ombudsman was created within the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response in amendments to the Solid
Waste Disposal Act in 1984. Why did the original legislation have only
a 4-year lifespan?
Response. The amendments to the Solid Waste Disposal Act passed by
Congress in 1984 included a provision which stated, ``The Office of
Ombudsman shall cease to exist 4 years after the date of enactment of
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.'' In 1989, when the
statutory authorization for the Hazardous Waste Ombudsman function
expired, Congress did not re-authorize the Ombudsman function. The
Agency does not know why. The Congressional Record does not address
this question. EPA chose administratively to maintain the function as a
matter of policy after the authorization expired. EPA continues to
support the Ombudsman function.
Question 1b. What would be the EPA's position on a bill that merely
sought to re-enact the provision in the original legislation for an
additional 10 years?
Response. EPA would not oppose a bill that re-authorizes, for an
additional 10 years, the 1984 amendments to the Solid Waste Disposal
Act which directed the Administrator to establish an Office of the
Ombudsman. EPA believes that the Ombudsman function can be of
assistance to the Agency and the public. That is why when the statutory
authorization for the Hazardous Waste Ombudsman function expired, EPA
chose administratively to maintain the function as a matter of policy.
Question 1c. The EPA presently has an Office of the Ombudsman that
it has supported since the original legislation expired. What injury to
the environment and to the work of the EPA would be caused by
legislation reauthorizing the Office of the Ombudsman or a separate
line item in the budget for this Office?
Response. The Agency does not believe that re-authorizing ,the
Office of the Ombudsman would result in injury to the environment and
to the work of the EPA. To the contrary, when the statutory
authorization for the Hazardous Waste Ombudsman function expired in
1989, EPA chose administratively to maintain the function as a matter
of policy. As further evidence of the Agency's commitment to the
Ombudsman function, in 1991 EPA broadened the National Ombudsman's
scope of activity to include other programs administered by the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, particularly the Superfund
program. In addition, in 1995 the Agency created a Regional Ombudsman
function in each EPA Regional office as part of the Agency's Superfund
Administrative Reforms effort. EPA believes that the Ombudsman function
is useful for the Agency and the public.
Since its establishment in 1984, EPA has provided adequate
resources (funding, person-years, etc.) for the Ombudsman function.
Over the last 16 years, supplemental needs of the Ombudsman have been
met through the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's
(OSWER's) routine allocation of funds. OSWER has assigned staff to
support this function and assisted the ten Regional Ombudsman as
needed. Over the years, funding for the National Ombudsman function has
steadily increased despite the fact that OSWER program budgets have
been reduced. In fact, funding to support the National Ombudsman
function has increased from $117,000 in fiscal year 1993 to more than
$519,000 in fiscal year 2000.
When the need has arisen, additional funds have been provided to
the Ombudsman function. The fiscal year 2000 direct funding for OSWER
National Ombudsman function, in Headquarters, was $500,000 (primarily
staff salary, travel and hearing expenses). Historically, this more
than adequately met its needs. In addition, the Ombudsman, depending on
the site and issues under review, has relied upon the technical
expertise of EPA's professional staff resources, such as the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, to supplement investigative efforts.
Because these needs vary from year to year, it would be difficult to
predict the nature and amount of these supplemental needs. In addition
to the OSWER National Ombudsman, there is a strong Regional Ombudsman
network, with a counterpart in each of the 10 EPA Regional Offices.
This network is available and fully funded at roughly $1 million a
year, to support the National Ombudsman.
EPA does not believe a separate line item in the budget for the
Ombudsman's Office is necessary. It would represent an unnecessary
precedent to establish such a line item appropriation.
Question 2a. Your testimony indicates that the Agency is
implementing the suggestions made by the Small Town Task Force,
however, there is no mention of a Small Community Ombudsman Office at
EPA Regional Offices. Is the Agency implementing that recommendation?
Response. In 1996, the Small Town Environmental Planning Task Force
(STTF) recommended that ``a Small Town Ombudsperson Office should be
established in each EPA region and at headquarters with a primary
responsibility for serving as an advocate for small towns and as a
facilitator for addressing small town concerns and programs.'' The
Agency's implementation of that recommendation has proceeded along
three tracks.
The first track is a multi-media approach which began the same year
that the STTF made its recommendation. The then-EPA Associate
Administrator for Regional Operations and State and Local Relations
asked each Regional Administrator to designate a small community
coordinator to work with the headquarters small community coordinator.
Since then, these small community contacts have evolved into focal
points for the receipt and transmittal of information to local
communities and facilitators of the communication process between EPA
Regional Offices and small towns.
A second track involves working closely with State environmental
agencies which have established strong small community outreach
efforts. Nebraska, Oregon, and Oklahoma, for example, are three State
environmental programs with a strong small town emphasis. EPA supports
innovative State efforts in three ways: (1) encouraging States to adopt
flexible enforcement approaches to small town compliance; (2) providing
technical assistance to States which are developing small community
programs; and (3) working with the Environmental Council of the States
(ECOS) to provide a forum to share solutions to common small town
issues among the States.
EPA media or program offices are the primary component of the third
track in EPA's implementation of the Small Town Ombudsperson Office
recommendation. Individual program offices have established dedicated
teams to work with small towns in the following areas: (1) wastewater;
(2) drinking water; (3) compliance assistance; and, (4) early
involvement in the regulatory development process. These teams have
been established based on EPA's understanding of the environmental
challenges facing small communities and on the on-going advice we have
received from the small town advisory panels we have established.
Question 2b. If so, approximately how many full time employees
(FTEs) per Region are assigned to a Small Community Ombudsman Office?
Response. While each EPA Regional Office has established a small
community coordinator function, resource levels supporting that
function vary widely depending on (1) the number of small communities
in the region with identified environmental assistance needs; (2) the
extent of State small community programs; and, (3) the extent of the
small community effort within regional programs or media divisions. We
have no formal accounting of the total FTE assigned to coordinator/
outreach functions.
Question 3. Your written testimony indicates that the agency has
implemented, or has undertaken efforts to achieve the various goals of
these bills. For example: the Agency administratively supports the
current Office of the Ombudsman, although the authorization for the
Office has expired; a Small Community Advisory Subcommittee already
exists within the Local Government Advisory Committee; and there are
current plans to update environmental reporting to a Central Data
Exchange. All that being said, none of these initiatives have been
specifically authorized by Congress. In addition to authorization for
the Programs, some of the bills include an authorization for
appropriations to carry out the mandates of the bills. Seeing as the
Agency has so many initiatives, is it helpful to have a Congressional
mandate to set priorities and ensure funding for the Program?
Response. As outlined in the testimony, although EPA supports the
goals of S. 1915 and S. 2296, the Agency has significant concerns with
many of the specific provisions included in that legislation. Moreover,
although those two bills would provide specific authority for many
activities conducted presently under more general authorizations, such
specific authorization does not guarantee the availability of funds
beyond those already being expended on those activities. To the
contrary, EPA's experience with the SEARCH pilot project was that
funding was diverted from other priorities. Too often, new authorities
simply establish conflicting priorities for the same appropriations,
and reduce the flexibility necessary to address the highest priority
public health and environmental protection issues. Moreover, such
authorizations often have the unintended consequence of creating
opportunities for litigation which further diverts resources from
existing, well established priorities.
______
Responses by Diane E. Thompson to Additional Questions from
Senator Baucus
Question 1a. Please identify which, if any, portions of the models
and guidelines for ombudsmen identified below would be consistent with
the structure currently in place at EPA (with the Ombudsman's Office
within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response), the U.S.
Ombudsman Association's Model Ombudsman Act for State Governments,
dated February 1997.
Response. Many of the provisions in the U.S. Ombudsman
Association's Model Ombudsman Act for State Governments, dated February
1997 are consistent with the structure currently in place within the
OSWER Ombudsman's Office including the Ombudsman's powers and duties,
and discretion over the investigation complaints. Some areas that are
not consistent include the power to subpoena, the power to bring suit
to enforce the provisions of the Act and the requirement for issuing
annual reports. Other aspects of this model conflict with requirements
for Federal employees and the Freedom of Information Act requirements
for Federal agencies. As Federal employees reporting to Agency managers
the Ombudsmen cannot be completely independent in the normal course of
relations between supervisors and their employees.
Question 1b. Please identify which, if any, portions of the models
and guidelines for ombudsmen identified below would be consistent with
the structure currently in place at EPA (with the Ombudsman's Office
within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response), the American
Bar Association's proposed Standards for the Establishment and
Operation of Ombudsman Offices, dated July 2000.
Response. Many of the provisions in the American Bar Association's
proposed Standards for the Establishment and Operation of Ombudsman
Offices, dated July 2000, are consistent with the structure currently
in place within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Responses's
(OSWER) Ombudsman's Office. Some aspects of this proposed Standard
conflict with requirements for Federal employees and the Freedom of
Information Act requirements for Federal agencies. For example, as
Federal employees reporting to Agency managers the ombudsmen cannot be
completely independent in the normal course of relations between
supervisors and their employees.
Question 2. Are you aware of any other model or framework that you
believe would be more suitable for the Ombudsman's Office? If so,
please describe.
Response. In addition to the ABA proposed Standards, EPA believes
that Conference Recommendation 90-2: ``The Ombudsman in Federal
Agencies,'' adopted June 7, 1990 by the Administrative Conference of
the United States, provides a reasonable framework for establishing and
maintaining an Ombudsman function in a Federal agency. See Attachment
A.
Question 3. Are you aware of any other Federal agency, or division
within an agency, with an Ombudsman's Office? If so, please identify
how Ombudsman's Offices are structured and function in other Federal
agencies, relative to their structure and function at EPA.
Response. We are aware of several other Ombudsman functions within
the Federal Government. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry has recently established an Ombudsman function (see Attachment
B). We understand that the Internal Revenue Service and the Department
of Health and Human Services have Ombudsmen as well.
Question 4. What issues do you expect will be addressed by the
guidance that EPA is developing for the Ombudsman's Office? Do you
anticipate that the guidance will address any of the significant
criticisms of the current structure of the office, such as claims that
the office does not have sufficient autonomy from OSWER, authority to
obtain documents or other information, or resources? Does EPA expect to
make any changes that would affect the structure or functioning of the
Ombudsman's Office? When does EPA expect to issue the guidance?
Response. Shortly after Congress established the Ombudsman program,
the Agency issued the Hazardous Waste Ombudsman Handbook to help the
newly created National and Regional Ombudsmen administer, within a
public framework, the Ombudsman program. During the initial years of
the Ombudsman program, most of the assistance sought by the public was
for information on the RCRA program. The Ombudsmen spent most of their
time responding to general questions and directing requests to the
appropriate sources. The handbook reflected this role.
Over the years, the public gained a better understanding of EPA's
hazardous waste programs. Requests for answers to basic questions
became requests for resolution of complaints. The Ombudsman function
has evolved to reflect the changing needs of its clients. Since earlier
guidance no longer reflected the current Ombudsman activities and
function, this guidance has been updated to explain the role of the
Ombudsmen, their scope of activity, and the guidelines under which they
coordinate and carry out their responsibilities. The main objective in
issuing new guidance is to improve the effectiveness of this program by
giving the Ombudsmen and those who may contact them a clear and
consistent set of operating expectations and policies.
In preparing the updated guidance, a workgroup met with
representatives of the U.S. Ombudsman Association and evaluated and
considered guidance documents from this organization as well as from
other organizations with Ombudsman programs and the American Bar
Association's draft Standards for the Establishment and Operation of
Ombudsman Offices. The workgroup has attempted to draft guidance which
reflects key aspects of various external models in a manner that
supports the Ombudsman's independent operations within the context of a
civil service position within the Federal structure. EPA believes the
draft guidance will provide for effective and fair implementation of
OSWER's Ombudsman program.
The draft guidance was made available for public comment by Federal
Register notice on January 3, 2001, copy attached. Public comment is
requested by March 5, 2001. The Agency has also made the draft guidance
available on EPA's internet website.
Question 5. Does the Hazardous Waste Ombudsman Handbook bear on any
matters referenced in the previous question? Please provide a copy of
the handbook.
Response. In 1987, the Agency issued the Hazardous Waste Ombudsman
Handbook to help the newly created National and Regional Ombudsmen to
administer, and the public to understand what to expect from the
Ombudsman program. During the initial years of the Ombudsman program,
most of the assistance sought by the public was for information on the
RCRA program. The Ombudsmen spent most of their time responding to
general questions and directing requests to the appropriate sources.
The handbook reflected this role. See Attachment C.
Question 6. Please provide copies of any correspondence or
memoranda between the Ombudsman's Office and the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response from the past year that bear on the
responsibilities? or functioning of the Ombudsman's Office.
Response. Attachment D contains relevant correspondence or
memoranda between the Ombudsman's Office and the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
Question 7. Has the Ombudsman's Office prepared any recommendations
to improve the functioning of OSWER and the Ombudsman's Office? If so,
please provide copies, and identify any measures taken in response to
the recommendations.
Response. The OSWER National Ombudsman has made recommendations to
improve the OSWER Ombudsman function. See Attachment E.
Question 8. Please provide copies of each of the Ombudsman's
reports on site investigations and recommendations (including both
preliminary and final recommendations).
Response. Attachment C contains the reports requested. They
include: (1) Final Report on the Review of the Brio Superfund Site; (2)
Interim Report on the Review of the Times Beach Site; (3) Final Report
on the Review of the Times Beach Site; (4) Final Report--National
Ombudsman's Review of the Drake Chemical Site; (5) Shattuck Chemical
Superfund Site--Preliminary National Ombudsman Recommendations.
Question 9. In coordination with the Department of Justice, please
respond to assertions that: DOJ attempted to ``muzzle'' the Ombudsman's
Office; and limits on the Ombudsman's authority to become involved in
cases in litigation would preclude his involvement at a significant
number of sites, and would be inappropriate (in what, if any,
circumstances, could it be appropriate for an Ombudsman's investigation
to proceed in connection with a site that is, has been or may in the
future be the subject of litigation?)
Response. EPA and Department of Justice support the existence of an
Ombudsman Office within EPA. We recognize that Ombudsman offices within
Federal agencies play an important role in responding to and
investigating complaints and questions from members of the public or
employees regarding agency processes and the manner in which
individuals or other entities have been treated in those processes. We
also agree, consistent with the American Bar Association's (``ABA's'')
draft Standards for the Establishment and Operation of Ombudsman
Offices (July 2000), that to function effectively with respect to
matters within their areas of responsibility, ombudsmen must be able to
operate with a considerable degree of independence, impartiality, and
confidentiality.
This does not mean, however, that the National Hazardous Waste
Ombudsman should have unlimited discretion to investigate any issue
that comes to his or her attention. For example, if the Ombudsman
discovers evidence of potentially criminal conduct, he or she should
immediately refer the matter to the appropriate criminal investigative
office and should refrain from further investigation of the matter.
Similarly, the Ombudsman's jurisdiction should be limited with respect
to civil matters that are before a court or administrative tribunal. To
the extent that there is already a neutral forum for resolving certain
issues, a parallel Ombudsman investigation is likely to add confusion
rather than clarity to the situation. Moreover, where the Ombudsman
seeks to address an issue already before a court in pending litigation,
this duplicative process tends to undermine the court's authority and
risks harming the interests of the United States in the litigation. For
example, testimony by government officials at an Ombudsman's hearing
while litigation is pending can raise serious concerns regarding
potential waiver of privileges.
There are at least two sets of national standards concerning
Federal agency ombudsmen, issued by two highly respected legal bodies,
the ABA and the Administrative Conference of the United States, that
would caution the EPA Ombudsman to avoid duplicating or undermining the
civil judicial proceedings related to the instant case. The draft ABA
Standards issued in July 2000 State that ``[a]n entity should not
authorize an Ombudsman to: (1) make, change or set aside a law, policy,
or administrative decision'' or ``(4) conduct an investigation that
substitutes for administrative or judicial proceedings.'' Similarly,
the U.S. Administrative Conference's Recommendations for the Ombudsman
in Federal Agencies (Aug. 1990) State that ``legislation or guidelines
[for a Federal agency Ombudsman] should * * * provide that the
Ombudsman should refrain from involvement in the merits of individual
matters that are the subject of ongoing adjudication or litigation or
investigations incident thereto.'' (Emphasis added.)
Question 10. Please identify the responsibilities of the regional
ombudsmen and the nature of the matters they work on, and discuss
whether and how they differ from those of the Ombudsman's Office at EPA
headquarters. What is your response to testimony that the very
structure of the regional Ombudsman's Offices creates a conflict of
interest, since staff serving this function spend the majority of their
time working in the program office that is scrutinized by the
Ombudsman's Office.
Response. The Superfund Administrative Reforms established a
Superfund Ombudsman in each EPA Region. The Regional Ombudsman is a
high-level employee who serves as a point of contact for members of the
public who have concerns about Superfund activities. The Regional
Ombudsman has the ability to look independently into problems and
facilitate the communication that can lead to a solution. Each Regional
Ombudsman has direct access to top management and can recommend actions
to resolve legitimate complaints. Each year, as a group, they receive
and respond to hundreds of inquiries. Most of these are routine and the
Regional Ombudsman provides information or connects the request or to
the person who can help with his/her issue. In a few cases, the
Regional Ombudsman has undertaken fact-finding assessments or engaged
in facilitation between the person with the concern and Agency
officials. Members of the public may contact the National Ombudsman for
assistance at any time if they are not comfortable working with a
Regional Ombudsman.
As a general matter, the National Ombudsman focuses his/her efforts
on cases of national significance or precedent, while the Regional
Ombudsmen have focused on issues that are more operational or that can
be resolved informally. In some cases, the National and Regional
Ombudsmen may participate together in the inquiry. The Regional
Ombudsmen have been established primarily to focus on matters related
to implementation of the Superfund program while the National Ombudsman
functions across all programs managed by OSWER.
The organizational location and operation of the Regional Superfund
Ombudsmen is a matter of regional discretion, thus no single
description exactly fits all 10
regional approaches. For the most part, the Regional Ombudsmen report
to the Superfund division director, directly or through an intermediate
supervisor. With this arrangement, the Regional Ombudsman frequently
also has direct access to the Regional Administrator or Deputy Regional
Administrator when he/she believes that specific issues warrant direct
involvement by top regional managers. EPA understands that this type of
organizational structure (reporting to the Regional Superfund division
director) has created the perception, in some cases, that there is a
conflict of interest. This is an issue we will be asking the Regions to
consider after the Agency has issued the OSWER Ombudsman guidance. In
general, however, we have found that Regional Ombudsmen can be very
effective in improving the operation of the regional program when they
have appropriate resources and support.
Question 11. What is your reaction to the suggestion at the hearing
that S. 1763 should be amended in subsection (c) to incorporate by
reference the ABA model Ombudsman's statute, rather than relying on a
determination by the Administrator as to whether it is practicable to
follow particular aspects of the model?
Response. Models or guidelines for ombudsmen have been developed by
a variety of organizations, including the ABA, the U.S. Ombudsman
Association, and others. The Agency is concerned that the establishment
of the ABA model as the appropriate Ombudsman structure may create both
unreasonable expectations and inappropriate opportunities for
litigation. Some aspects of these models, and particularly of the Model
Ombudsman Statute for State Governments, conflict with requirements for
Federal employees and the Freedom of Information Act requirements for
Federal agencies. Specifically, the ABA State Government Model
envisions complete independence, confidentiality, and impartiality for
ombudsmen. These are laudable goals. As Federal employees reporting to
Agency managers, however, the ombudsmen are unlikely to fully meet
these goals. The Ombudsman cannot be completely independent in the
normal course of relations between supervisors and their employees, for
example. In addition, the Freedom of Information Act obligations for
Federal agencies and the confidentiality guidelines of the Model
Ombudsman Statute are inconsistent.
The basic problem with using the ABA Model Statute in this context
is that it was designed for States that wish to establish a separate
and independent office within the State government, where the Ombudsman
would be elected by the State legislature or appointed by the Governor
and would operate independently of other Executive branch agencies. The
Model Statute therefore recommends vesting the Ombudsman with certain
missions and authorities that would be inappropriate for an Ombudsman
Office that is established within a single Federal Government agency.
For example, the Model Statute contemplates that the Ombudsman would
have independent litigating authority, as well as independent authority
to promulgate regulations, both of which would go beyond the
authorities of individual EPA employees.
It is also worth noting that the ABA Model Statute is inconsistent
in important respects with the ABA's recently proposed (July 2000)
Standards for the Establishment and Operation of Ombudsman Offices.
These new standards are specifically contemplated to apply among other
things, to Ombudsman Offices established within Federal agencies.
Further, the ABA Model Statute is also inconsistent with the
Recommendations of the Administrative Conference of the United States,
which provide that ``the Ombudsman should refrain from involvement in
the merits of individual matters that are the subject of ongoing
adjudication or litigation or investigations incidents thereto.''
Question 12. Would EPA oppose a bill that ensured the continued
existence of the Ombudsman's Office by reauthorizing the office, and
which required an annual report to Congress on the Ombudsman's
investigations and recommendations?
Response. The Agency would not oppose a bill that re-authorizes the
provision which directed the Administrator to establish an Office of
the Ombudsman. EPA believes that the Ombudsman function can be of
assistance to the Agency and the public. That is why when the statutory
authorization for the Hazardous Waste Ombudsman function expired, EPA
chose administratively to maintain the function as a matter of policy.
In addition, the Agency would not oppose a requirement that the
Ombudsman's Office submit an annual report to Congress on the
Ombudsman's investigations and recommendations.
______
Environmental Protection Agency
[FRL-6928-8]
Draft Guidance for National Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and Regional
Superfund Ombudsmen Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of available draft guidance with request for comment.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed and is
requesting comment on the ``Draft Guidance for National Hazardous Waste
Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program.'' The Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) National Hazardous Waste and
Superfund Ombudsman (National Ombudsman) and the Regional Superfund
Ombudsmen (Regional Ombudsmen) were established to provide help to the
public in resolving issues and concerns raised about the solid and
hazardous waste programs administered by OSWER.
The purpose of this draft guidance is to explain the role of the
Ombudsmen, their scope of activity, and the guidelines under which they
coordinate and carry out their responsibilities. EPA believes this
draft guidance will improve the effectiveness of this program by giving
the Ombudsmen and those who may contact them a clear and consistent set
of operating policies and expectations.
DATES: To make sure we consider your comments we must receive them by
March 5, 2001. Comments received after that date will be considered to
the extent feasible; however, EPA will not delay finalizing the
guidance to accommodate late comments.
ADDRESSES: You may request copies of the ``Draft Guidance for National
Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program'' by
any of the following ways:
Mail or write to: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA,
CERCLA Docket Office, (Mail Code 5201G), Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Phone: call (703) 603-9232, or (800) 424-9346.
Internet: http://www.epa.gov//swerrims/whatsnew.htm
If you wish to send us comments on the guidance, you must send them
in any one of the following ways:
Mail: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA, CERCLA Docket
Office, (Mail Code 5201G), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Express Mail or courier (such as Federal Express, other overnight
delivery, or courier): Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA,
CERCLA Docket Office, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Gateway #1,
First floor, Arlington, Virginia, 22202.
E-mail: in ASCII format only to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroline Previ, phone number (202)
260-2593, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Mail Code
5101), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, or the Superfund
Hotline, phone number (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the
Washington, DC metropolitan area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The program managers and staff in the Regions and at Headquarters
are committed to implementing the Federal solid waste and hazardous
waste statutes managed by EPA, being responsive to the public, and
resolving issues and concerns brought to their attention. In some
cases, the individual or group raising a given concern does not believe
the official problem solving channels dealt fairly or fully with their
situation. In such cases, the individual or group may request
assistance from the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) Ombudsman, an Agency official designated to receive inquiries
and complaints about the administration of OSWER programs. The National
and Regional Ombudsmen receive many calls for assistance each year--
ranging from routine questions about hazardous waste laws to specific
complaints about allegedly improper activities conducted at a site or
facility.
Today's Federal Register notice introduces a policy entitled
``Draft Guidance for National Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and Regional
Superfund Ombudsmen Program'' which explains the role and conduct of
the OSWER National Ombudsman and the Regional Superfund Ombudsmen,
scope of their activity, and the guidelines under which they coordinate
and carry out their responsibilities. The main objective in issuing
this guidance is to improve the effectiveness of this program by giving
the Ombudsmen and those who may contact them a clear and consistent set
of operating policies and expectations. This draft guidance would cover
only the Ombudsmen who work on OSWER related issues, and staff who
supply primary support or assistance to the Ombudsmen.
This guidance, when finalized, is not intended to be, and should
not be construed as a rule. Use of the guidance would not be legally
binding on EPA managers or staff or on other parties. EPA is seeking
public comment at this time to ensure hearing the widest range of views
and obtaining all information relevant to the development of the
guidance.
II. Background
The hazardous and solid waste management laws passed by Congress
created some of the most complex programs administered by EPA and the
States. Recognizing this, Congress established a National Ombudsman
function in 1984 as part of amendments to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) so that the public would have someone to come to
with questions and concerns about the RCRA program. Soon after, we
issued the ``Hazardous Waste Ombudsman Handbook'' to help the newly
created National Ombudsman administer, and the public understand what
to expect from, the Ombudsman program. During the initial years of the
National Ombudsman program, most of the assistance sought by the public
was for help understanding the complex RCRA program. The Ombudsman
spent most of his time responding to general questions and directing
requests to the appropriate sources. The handbook reflected this role.
When the statutory authority for the National Ombudsman program
expired in 1989, OSWER retained the function as a matter of policy. In
1991, OSWER broadened the National Ombudsman's scope of activity to
include other programs administered by OSWER, particularly the
Superfund program. The National Ombudsman is located in the EPA
Headquarters office in Washington, DC.
In 1995, EPA created a Regional Superfund Ombudsman position in
each EPA Regional office as part of the Superfund Administrative
Reforms. The Regional Ombudsmen program, at a minimum, operates in
support of the Superfund program, but--depending on the Region--may
also provide support to other programs, including RCRA, Underground
Storage Tanks (UST), and chemical emergency prevention and
preparedness.
Over the years, the public gained a better understanding of EPA's
hazardous waste programs. Requests for answers to basic questions more
frequently became requests for resolution of complaints. The Ombudsman
function evolved to reflect these changes. The existing guidance no
longer reflects the Ombudsman function as it has evolved.
In the fall of 1999, the EPA established an internal workgroup to
update the ``Hazardous Waste Ombudsman Handbook.'' In preparing the
updated guidance, the workgroup met with representatives of the U.S.
Ombudsman Association, and evaluated and considered guidance documents
from this organization, as well as other organizations with Ombudsman
programs and the American Bar Association's draft Standards for the
Establishment and Operation of Ombudsman Offices. To the extent
possible, EPA has drafted guidelines which reflect key aspects of
various external models in a manner that supports the Ombudsman's
independent operation within the context of a civil service position
within the Federal Government structure. EPA developed these procedures
to meet the specific needs of the OSWER Ombudsman program and they may
not be completely consistent with Ombudsmen principles established by
other organizations.
The draft guidance explains to the public the role of the National
Hazardous Waste and Superfund Ombudsman and Regional Superfund
Ombudsmen today, their scope of activity, and the guidelines under
which they coordinate and carry out their responsibilities. We believe
the draft guidance will provide for effective and fair implementation
of OSWER's Ombudsman program.
III. Summary of Draft Guidance
The draft ``Guidance for the National Hazardous Waste and Superfund
Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program'' puts forth our
philosophy concerning the basic operating principles and procedures for
the OSWER Ombudsman program. Ombudsmen functioning under this guidance
are authorized to provide information and look into complaints and
grievances related to OSWER's administration of the programs
implemented under the following authorities:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) or Superfund
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), including
Underground Storage Tanks (UST)
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA)
or Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Title III
Oil Pollution Act
Clean Air Act, Section 112r
The Ombudsman may be called to serve in a number of capacities: (1)
providing information and facilitating informal contact with EPA staff,
(2) conducting informal inquiries and developing recommendations to
address difficult problems, (3) helping to mediate disputes, and (4)
making recommendations to Agency senior management regarding procedural
and policy changes aimed at improving the program. The goal of the
Ombudsman program is to respond to requests in an appropriate,
transparent and objective manner as promptly, informally and discretely
as possible. The guidance briefly discusses each of these functions,
but we anticipate that a significant amount of the Ombudsman's time
will be dedicated to looking into issues raised by the public
concerning decisions that EPA has made. Because of this, most of the
draft guidance is devoted to outlining the Ombudsman's responsibilities
in carrying out this activity. Overall, the Ombudsman's role is to
listen to all sides in an impartial, objective manner, to provide
assistance in trying to understand and resolve the problem, and, if
necessary, to recommend possible solutions to senior Agency managers.
It is important to note that the Ombudsman does not have authority to
change decisions made by program managers or staff.
Generally, the National Ombudsman handles cases of national
significance. The Regional Ombudsmen handle the more routine requests
for assistance and conducts more informal inquiries to investigate
complaints. The guidance explains how the Ombudsman will evaluate
requests for assistance, and how inquiries will be conducted.
Whatever capacity the Ombudsman is serving in, he is expected to
act with independence, impartiality and confidentiality--the basic
operating principles of all Ombudsmen. The guidance provides a brief
description of how the Ombudsman will demonstrate these
responsibilities effectively and discusses limitations with respect to
confidentiality imposed by existing laws and regulations that the OSWER
Ombudsman must abide by as Federal civil servant.
Our goal is to receive feedback on the draft guidance from the
widest range of interested parties possible. We welcome comments on any
or all aspects of the guidance. Your comments will help us improve this
document. We invite you to provide your comments on our approach and
your ideas on alternative approaches we have not considered. Explain
your views as clearly as possible and provide a summary of the
reasoning you used to arrive at your conclusions. Tell us which parts
of the guidance you support, as well as the parts with which you
disagree. Your comments must be submitted by March 5, 2001. EPA will
review the public comments received on the guidance and where
appropriate, incorporate changes responsive to those comments.
We specifically request your comments on the following three topics
related to the independence of the Ombudsman. These issues emerged as
key issues during the development of this guidance.
1. Does the Organizational Structure of the Ombudsman Program
Impact the Independence of the Ombudsman?--One of the main principles
an Ombudsman operates under is the ability to work independently in
determining which complaints to investigate, how an inquiry should
proceed and what are the findings of an inquiry. EPA recognizes the
importance of an Ombudsman being and appearing to be independent from
the organization he/she is investigating. EPA believes both the
National Ombudsman and the Regional Ombudsmen are able to look
independently into problems and facilitate the communication that can
lead to a solution. We do not select which cases the Ombudsman will
take, nor direct how the Ombudsman will investigate a complaint. We do
not interfere with or attempt to influence the Ombudsman as he
formulates his findings and recommendations.
From the time Congress established the National Ombudsman, this
function has been a Federal Government employee reporting to a senior
Agency official. Because the Ombudsman is a Federal employee, he/she
cannot be completely independent in the normal course of relations
between a supervisor and his/her employee. Currently, the National
Ombudsman reports directly to the Assistant Administrator for OSWER. We
believe this is the appropriate reporting structure for the National
Ombudsman. The Assistant Administrator for OSWER is the senior
Presidential appointee responsible for the programs the Ombudsman is
looking into and he/she is in the best position to use the advice of
the National Ombudsman. For the most part, each Regional Ombudsman
reports to the appropriate Regional Superfund division director,
directly or through an intermediate supervisor. No matter what capacity
an Ombudsman is serving in at any given time, we have worked to ensure
the Ombudsman's ability to operate with maximum independence.
The organizational location and operation of the National Ombudsman
and the Regional Ombudsmen is a matter of EPA discretion. We agree that
it is very important that the Ombudsman be and appear to be independent
from the organization he is investigating.
Does this structure ensure the appropriate level of interaction
between the OSWER Ombudsman and senior EPA officials while maintaining
enough independence for the Ombudsman to operate effectively?
2. Should the Ombudsman Have Sole Discretion To Decide How Cases
Are To Be Handled?--The guidance states that the National and Regional
Ombudsmen have the discretion either to accept a request for assistance
or decline to act. While the National Ombudsman and the Regional
Ombudsmen work fairly autonomously, coordination in this area is
crucial. Requests for assistance may come directly to either the
National or a Regional Ombudsman. To avoid duplication of effort, the
guidance lays out general procedures for evaluating incoming requests.
The guidance requires that before conducting an inquiry that is
primarily related to one Region, the National Ombudsman will consult
with the relevant Regional Ombudsman. We believe this consultation will
help the National Ombudsman make a fully informed decision about
whether it is more appropriate for him/her to handle the matter, to
refer it to the Regional Ombudsman, or to decline to investigate.
Similarly, a Regional Ombudsman is expected to notify the National
Ombudsman if he/she has been requested to conduct an inquiry that may
be nationally significant. The Regional Ombudsman should discuss with
the National Ombudsman how he/she plans to proceed with the inquiry,
including the level of involvement that the National Ombudsman wishes
to have in the inquiry.
We expect that a Regional Ombudsman and the National Ombudsman
almost always will agree on who should handle an inquiry. In those rare
situations when there is not agreement the Assistant Administrator or
Deputy Assistant Administrator for OSWER will resolve the dispute. The
guidance requires the Regional Ombudsman (in consultation with the
appropriate Regional Administrator or Deputy Regional Administrator)
and the National Ombudsman will each forward a memorandum to the
Assistant Administrator for OSWER, or jointly hold a conference call
explaining his/her perspective on the disagreement. The Assistant
Administrator or Deputy Assistant Administrator for OSWER will then
make the decision about who should handle the inquiry.
Is this the appropriate way to resolve such disputes?
3. Should an Ombudsman's Scope of Inquiry Be Restricted To Protect
EPA's Litigation position?--We considered three alternative approaches
to this question. The approach we selected and which is reflected in
the draft guidance generally precludes the Ombudsmen from investigating
an issue or dispute which is in litigation, i.e., pending before a
court. The presumption is that Ombudsmen should not take action on an
issue or dispute which is in litigation since that issue is in the
hands of an independent tribunal for decision, as provided for by the
relevant statute. In addition, the public has access to that tribunal
to raise serious concerns. For example, in the case of a consent decree
presented to a court, public comment will be solicited on the decree,
and the court will consider those comments and then determine if it is
in the public interest to enter the decree. In the case of a challenge
to agency action, affected members of the public can intervene and
present argument to the court, and the court will decide whether we
demonstrated an adequate basis for its action and whether we acted in a
non-arbitrary manner and in accordance with law. This approach also
avoids creating the false impression that the Ombudsman's Office is an
alternative forum for arguing controversial issues, which would result
in confusion, inefficiency, and potentially conflicting statements
about the Agency's position. The OSWER Ombudsman program is not
intended or authorized to circumvent existing channels of management
authority or established formal administrative avenues of appeal.
However, we believe that there may be situations where it is
appropriate for the Ombudsman to investigate actions EPA has taken,
even where those actions are before a court for review. For instance,
the Ombudsman may have information to suggest that our action at issue
in the legal proceedings is infirm or erroneous. Or the Ombudsman may
bring to Agency management information of significant public concern
about an Agency action at issue in the courts. In either case, if the
Ombudsman believes an inquiry is necessary, he/she should communicate
that information to the appropriate Agency official before proceeding
with his/her inquiry. Such an investigation would proceed only after
concurrence by the Assistant Administrator or Deputy Assistant
Administrator for OSWER or the appropriate Regional Administrator or
Deputy Regional Administrator, in consultation with EPA's lead
litigation office, taking into account its potential impact on pending
litigation.
It should be noted that this presumption against investigations
applies to an ``issue or dispute'' that is before a court for
consideration. Thus, the fact that a site or facility is in litigation
does not necessarily mean that the Ombudsman should refrain from
conducting an investigation of all issues arising at that site or
facility. For instance, if the issue before a court is the authority of
the Agency to get access to a piece of property, that would not create
a presumption against an investigation of alleged deficiencies
regarding remedy selection.
For your information, we are providing details of the two
alternative approaches to this matter we considered but did not select.
The first alternative approach removed any restrictions on the
Ombudsman's ability to conduct an inquiry concerning an issue or
dispute which is in litigation. The Ombudsman would be free to conduct
an inquiry regardless of whether an issue or dispute was in litigation.
The second alternative approach would restrain the Ombudsman from
conducting new fact gathering concerning decisions made based on the
administrative record. The Ombudsman would remain able to audit the
existing information and data that were part of the Agency's factual
record. Under this model, if the Ombudsman concluded that additional
fact finding and data gathering were necessary, that would become part
of his recommendation. If the Agency agreed with this recommendation,
it would conduct additional information gathering by utilizing the
appropriate program staff and established procedures. The Ombudsman
would be precluded from undertaking separate fact finding activities
such as public meetings and formal on-the-record interviews. This
approach would address concerns that an Ombudsman's activities may
create a second record outside of the official administrative record,
which could confuse and potentially mislead the public and could damage
the Agency's position during litigation.
Is the chosen approach the most appropriate?
Dated: December 27, 2000.
Michael Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 01-112 Filed 1-2-01; 8:45 am]
__________
Statement of Danielle Brian, Executive Director, Project on
Government Oversight
The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is a non-partisan non-
profit organization that, since 1981, has worked to investigate,
expose, and remedy abuses of power, mismanagement, and subservience to
special interests by the Federal Government. POGO's goal is to improve
the way the government works by revealing examples of systemic
problems, offering possible solutions, and initiating change.
POGO has come across several attempts to stifle the independence of
the National Ombudsman's Office. POGO first became aware of a problem
when citizens from Lake Township, Ohio brought the Industrial Excess
Landfill (IEL) Superfund site to our attention. From the beginning,
concerns about the handling of the site have been voiced by citizens,
public officials, and scientists. With each step, there have been
questions raised about conflicts of interest, inappropriate testing
methods, quality of site characterization, and adequacy of the methods
of remediation selected for the site clean-up. Because of these issues,
we worked to get the EPA National Ombudsman's Office to review the
site. It took repeated requests by POGO and U.S. Representative Tom
Sawyer to get EPA Administrator Carol Browner and top EPA management to
overturn their earlier decision to prevent the National Ombudsman,
Robert Martin, from reviewing the site. This documented interference by
top EPA management, requiring the National Ombudsman to receive
permission before considering an investigation, strikes at the heart of
the independence of the office and the entire Ombudsman process.
We decided to look at other EPA regions around the country to see
if these problems with the EPA were unique. Unfortunately, we found
that they were not. We learned about the Shattuck site in Denver,
Colorado; the Brio site in Harris County, Texas; about McFarland,
California; Tarpon Springs, Florida and on and on. The communities
affected by these sites had all come to view the EPA not only as
unresponsive to their concerns, but as active partners with the
polluters. In fact, it appears that all too often the EPA has even
broken the law in its rush to appease the polluting companies:
withholding documents, holding secret meetings, lying to Members of
Congress and to the community. And the only thing that stands between
the EPA and the polluters is the National Ombudsman's Office.
Despite the obstacles, the National Ombudsman's Office has been
remarkably effective at getting the EPA to review its decisions and
correct its mistakes. Not only did the Ombudsman offer the communities
successful resolutions to their particular troubles, he gave them
reason to believe that sometimes the government can do the right thing.
Unfortunately, the success of the Ombudsman's work has resulted in an
effort by the EPA to undermine that Office. Not only is the Office
ridiculously underfunded, but one of the more insidious efforts to
drain power from the National Ombudsman is the emergence of the EPA's
Regional Ombudsman program. This is an utterly flawed concept where a
person wears two hats--part of their day they are expected to be an
independent arbiter, and the other part of their day they return to
being an employee for the very people whose work they are evaluating
and investigating.
The attempts to undermine the independence of the Headquarters
Ombudsman do not stop here. Our concern over this lack of independence
led us to suggest to EPA top management in 1998 that a public process
and working group be initiated to develop recommendations for improving
the independence of the National Ombudsman's Office. We recommended
that representatives from the United States Ombudsman Association,
environmental community, labor, industry, good government public
interest groups, the EPA, the National Ombudsman's Office, members of
affected communities and others be included in this working group. In a
response to our letter, however, EPA management stated ``I do not find
that such a review as depicted in your letter is necessary.''
Apparently, while no public review was necessary, the EPA found
that a covert one was. Responding to complaints from within, the EPA
convened a behind-closed-doors committee on the National Ombudsman
``problem.'' Why was an internal EPA management committee created to
change a process that is lauded by the public and their elected
officials?
It is clear that the office of the National Ombudsman has come
under constant attack by EPA top management because he has been
effective in doing exactly what an Ombudsman is supposed to do--to
investigate complaints of inadequacies in the EPA's handling of
Superfund sites and to suggest remedies to the problems it finds.
Rather than allowing him to continue this work, however, the agency is
trying to revise the procedures governing the Ombudsman program.
It is definitely time for a change, but not in the National
Ombudsman's Office. There is already established guidance regarding the
functioning of an Ombudsman's Office, and that guidance comes from the
American Bar Association and the U.S. Ombudsman Association. According
to the Ombudsman Association, an Ombudsman's Office should have:
``independence of the Ombudsman from control by any other officer,
except for responsibility to the legislative body; freedom of the
Ombudsman to investigate any act or failure to act by any agency,
official, or public employee, and; discretionary power to determine
what complaints to investigate and to determine what criticisms to make
or to publicize.''
The very essence of an Ombudsman is to stand apart from the agency
and to perform independent investigations. Discretion over which cases
an Ombudsman looks into, without having to ask permission from anyone
within the organization, is essential for the effectiveness of that
office. Should the Ombudsman become subservient to the agency whose
work he is meant to investigate, his decisions would become suspect,
compromising the legitimacy and integrity of the office.
In 1998, POGO was proud to give Mr. Martin our ``Beyond the
Headlines'' award. This is an award designed to recognize a politician,
Federal employee, journalist or activist who has made significant
contributions toward public policy improvements without regards for
personal gain. I have seen over the past 2 years how hard the EPA has
made it for Mr. Martin to do his job. Not only must he enter into
highly contentious situations and work to identify the appropriate
resolution for a site, but he must do this while constantly keeping an
eye on his back. It seems that Mr. Martin's ability to cut through
bureaucratic stonewalling has earned him a fair number of enemies at
his own agency--which is unfortunately what you would expect for an
Ombudsman who is doing his job well. Senator Allard's legislation will
help to preserve the National Ombudsman's ability to call it as he sees
it.
The people of Denver, Colorado are remarkably lucky in that they
have a Senator who was willing to attend not just one, but three public
hearings held by the Ombudsman's Office. I can't think of another
instance that I'm aware of where a Senator has devoted so much of his
personal time to helping on an issue like this. Senator Allard and his
fellow elected officials have demonstrated their support of the vital
role that the National Ombudsman has played in working toward a safe
resolution of various Superfund sites. But not every Superfund
community has such a supportive Senator. These other communities need
to know that the Ombudsman's Office will be there for them. S. 1763
will help to protect the credibility and independence of the critically
important National Ombudsman Office so that this office can function in
the future with no further interference.
__________
Robert Giles,
P.O. Box 354,
Eureka, MT, September 25, 2000.
Hon. Robert Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
Re: S. 1763/H B. 3656
Dear Senator Smith: This letter is my written request for you and
your committee to approve and vote affirmatively in support of S. 1763/
H.B. 3656--EPA National Ombudsman Re-authorization Act of 2000.
I have been appalled as I have become aware of arrogant and
possibly illegal actions by EPA personnel toward citizens and victims
who have and are continuing to be exposed to harmful, and in many
cases, deadly toxins. When these victims have requested EPA review and
access to documents available through the Freedom of Information Act,
they have met with refusals and denials by the EPA. At this point the
only recourse these victims and citizens have is the EPA National
Ombudsman, Robert Martin. I have met personally with Mr. Martin and
have followed with great interest his actions in several cases. I am
amazed that Mr. Martin has been able to accomplish as much as he has
with his limited powers.
However, I fear he will not be capable of continuing these
accomplishments because he has obviously made some enemies simply by
performing his duties so admirably. I believe for him to be able to
continue to do his job it is imperative that he be given subpoena
power, and that he be independent of the EPA physically, financially,
and authoritatively.
For these reasons I believe it is crucial that this legislation be
approved. Please vote affirmatively for the above mentioned
legislation, and give victims and citizens someone they can turn to
that will be able to do something for them now and in the future.
Without this legislation I fear Mr. Martin will be hamstrung and unable
to help those whom all government should answer to, the citizens.
Please include this letter in the Congressional record.
Thank you,
Robert Giles.
__________
Glenda Giles,
P.O. Box 354,
Eureka, MT, September 25, 2000.
Hon. Robert Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
Re: S. 1763/H B. 3656
Dear Senator Smith: This letter is my written request for support
and passage of S. 1763/H.B. 3856--EPA National Ombudsman Re-
authorization Act of 2000.
I am personally aware of four different situations that involved
seriously injured victims, when EPA employees violated their own laws
and were involved in concealing facts of what had actually occurred
that injured the victims. EPA's actions have caused victims additional
injury and damage. In my opinion, their behavior is a national scandal,
and poses a very real threat to the safety and health of U.S. citizens
now and in the future.
The EPA National Ombudsman, Robert Martin, is the only individual
associated with the EPA that I have found to be honest. He also has
integrity, which seems to be missing from EPA employees in general.
I believe it is crucial that the above referenced legislation be
approved so that current and future victims have someone they can turn
to for help. I have found Robert Martin to be committed to the truth.
He has genuine concern, as well as compassion, for victims. At the
present time, Mr. Martin is the only source of help and hope for
victims of EPA wrong-doing. Please vote affirmatively for the above
mentioned legislation, and give victims the protection and support they
need and deserve.
Please include this letter in the Congressional record.
Thank you,
Glenda Giles.
__________
September 22, 2000.
Hon. Robert Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
Re: Ombudsman Reauthorization Act--S. 1763/H B. 3656
Dear Honorable Sir: I have personally been involved with the EPA
National Ombudsman's Office (Mr. Robert Martin) concerning a toxic
train derailment (MRL) April 1996, Alberton, MT. I find this office to
be of the finest integrity one would hope to find in a government that
can be trusted. I believe without the Ombudsman the quality and
trustworthiness of the EPA would be at stake Nationwide.
In my opinion the EPA has to work with (the polluters) on a
repeated basis and consequently relationships develop between the EPA
staff and the polluters staff to the point of compromising environments
and communities.
The Ombudsman is the committees' only tool for these type of
situations.
I highly recommend that the Omnbudsman's Office be granted the same
powers and authority as a hazmat material investigator has currently
and is listed in Code of Federal Regulations CFR-49, 107.305
investigations (see attachments).
As I see the National Ombudsman's Office as the highest level of
Hazmat Material investigator's, that office should have the same power
or greater in order to report and make recommendations to the committee
accurately and comprehensively.
The Ombudsman's Office cannot do the job without the proper power
and authority--in my opinion the Ombudsman's Office should be totally
independent of the EPA and be funded solely by Congress with each case
being a line item.
This would assure an objective third party review and quality
reporting for the committee.
The fact is that the United States will be moving high levels of
Nuclear Waste across this Country to temporary/permanent storage
locations in the near future, therefore I believe it is in the best
interest of the United States to keep an over sight position like the
Ombudsman over the National EPA and is imperative to the Security and
well being of the United States.
Bluntly Senators, the committee needs to sharpen its tools in this
area of concern.
Please include this letter in the Congressional Record.
Sincerely,
Roger A. Chalmet.
__________
ATTACHMENT
Code of Federal Regulations.--CFR-49
section 107.305.--investigations
(a) General. In accordance with its delegated authority under part
I of this title, the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials
Safety may initiate investigations relating to compliance by any person
with any provisions of this subchapter or subchapter C of this chapter,
or any exemption, approval, or order issued thereunder, or any court
decree relating thereto. The Associate Administrator or Hazardous
Materials Safety encourages voluntary production of documents in
accordance with and subject to Sec. 107.13, and hearings may be
conducted, and depositions taken pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 21(a). The
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety may conduct
investigative conferences and hearings in the course of any
investigation.
(b) Investigations and Inspections. Investigations under 49 U.S.C.
5121(a) are conducted by personnel duly authorized for that purpose by
the Associate Administrator. Inspections under 49 U.S.C. 5121(c) are
conducted by Hazardous Materials Enforcement Specialists, also known as
``hazmat inspectors'' or ``inspectors,'' whom the Associate
Administrator has designated for that purpose.
(1) An inspector will, on request, present his or her credentials
for examination, but the credentials may not be reproduced.
(2) An inspector may administer oaths and receive affirmations in
any matter under investigation by the Associate Administrator.
(3) An inspector may gather information by reasonable means
including but not limited to, interviews, statements, photocopying,
photography, and video- and audio-recording.
(4) With concurrence of the Director, Office of Hazardous Materials
Enforcement, Research and Special Programs Administration, an inspector
may issue a subpoena for the production of documentary or other
tangible evidence if, on the basis of information available to the
inspector, the documents and evidence materially will advance a
determination of compliance with this subchapter or subchapter C.
Service of a subpoena shall be in accordance with Sec. 107.13(c) and
(d). A person to whom a subpoena is directed may seek review of the
subpoena by applying to the Office of Chief Counsel in accordance with
Sec. 107.13(h). A subpoena issued under this paragraph may be enforced
in accordance with Sec. 107.13(i).
(c) Notification. Any person who is the subject of an Associate
Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety investigation and who is
requested to furnish information or documentary evidence is notified as
to the general purpose for which the information or evidence is sought.
(d) Termination. When the facts disclosed by an investigation
indicate that further action is unnecessary or unwarranted at that
time, the person being investigated is notified and the investigative
file is closed without prejudice to further investigation by the
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
(e) Confidentiality. Information received in an investigation under
this section, including the identity of the person investigated and any
other persons who provides information during the investigation, shall
remain confidential under the investigatory file exception, or other
appropriate exception, to the public disclosure requirements of 5
U.S.C. 552.
[Amdt. 107-11, 48 FR 2651, Jan. 20, 1983, as amended by Amdt. 107-
24, 56 FR 8621, Feb. 28, 1991; Amdt. 107-32, 59 FR 49131, Sept. 26,
1994; Amdt. 107-38, 61 FR 21099, May 9, 1996]
______
Statement of Frances Dunham, Citizens Against Toxic Exposure
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, Margaret
Williams, President, and the other members of Citizens Against Toxic
Exposure (CATE) join me in thanking you for the opportunity to submit
written testimony on S. 1763, the Ombudsman Reauthorization Act. Our
experiences with the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region 4 illustrate the great need for the National Ombudsman's
Office to be vested with the powers and independence described in the
American Bar Association Ombudsman guidelines and sufficiently funded
to resolve problems in the application of the EPA Superfund program.
CATE was formed in the spring of 1992 because of urgent concerns
about the health of residents near Escambia Treating Company (ETC) in
north central Pensacola, Florida, where EPA Region 4 was conducting an
emergency removal of contaminated soil. Eventually that soil became
``Mt. Dioxin,'' 255,000 cubic yards saturated with toxic woodtreating
wastes now stockpiled onsite under a temporary plastic cover. An equal
volume remains uncovered on the 26-acre site and in nearby residential
yards. The site was added to the National Priorities List in December
1994. Just across the railroad tracks to the southeast is the Agrico
Chemical Superfund site, where soil and groundwater testing has found
ETC contaminants in addition to Agrico's own wastes from a century of
agricultural chemicals production. Between and around the two sites
were three African American residential neighborhoods and a subsidized
housing facility. Currently 358 families are being moved away from the
site, the third largest permanent relocation in Superfund history.
Escambia Treating Company operated from 1943 to 1982, leaving
onsite and offsite areas saturated with an extraordinarily toxic
mixture of woodtreating chemicals, including dioxins, furans,
benzo(a)pyrene, pentachlorophenol, arsenic, creosote, dieldrin,
napthalene, toluene, xylene, benzene, copper, chromium, and more,
including asbestos and PCB's. EPA documents indicate that the
contamination has spread out from the site in all directions, carried
by wind and rain. Over the years the toxic chemicals also leached down
into the groundwater just 48 feet of sandy soil below the surface,
forming a plume of contamination which reaches 1.5 miles east and south
toward Bayou Texar and the Pensacola Bay System. This extremely
vulnerable surficial aquifer supplies drinking water to Pensacola,
southern Escambia County, and parts of Santa Rosa County.
Much of the area surrounding the ETC site is zoned commercial and
industrial, but there are many homes, schools, and churches nearby.
This historically mixed industrial/residential zone in north central
Pensacola has important environmental and economic consequences for the
greater area. An ambitious redevelopment plan aims to return the
Palafox Corridor to vibrant commercial viability. The ETC cleanup will
set the tone for the future of the area. Yet EPA Region 4 managers
appear determined to follow the precedent they set at the Agrico site,
leaving all the surface contaminants in an onsite ``containment''
(which, like all landfills, will eventually leak) and leaving the
untreated groundwater contaminants to threaten Bayou Texar, Pensacola
Bay, and Pensacola's drinking water aquifer. Despite the serious threat
to groundwater, EPA has conducted no serious analysis of the site's
geology and hydrogeology and their suitability for a landfill.
Region 4 has set out its assessment of the kinds, levels, and
extent of toxic contamination at the ETC site and its evaluation of
cleanup technologies in the June 1998 Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the Surface Soils at the ETC site.
According to Superfund rules, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), this document should serve as a guide
to site remediation, leading to a Proposed Plan and a Record of
Decision (ROD).
Unfortunately, data gaps and other flaws in the RI/FS are likely to
distort ETC cleanup decisions so that highly toxic woodtreating wastes
are left in soil and groundwater. The following points summarize some
of the ways in which this RI/FS deviates from the NCP, customary
Superfund program practice, and common sense, and why Congressman Joe
Scarborough, the Board of County Commissioners of Escambia County,
CATE, and local citizens' groups have requested that the National
Ombudsman's Office oversee the ETC remediation process:
Dioxin TEQ soil cleanup levels in the RI/FS are inadequate
to protect local human populations from exposures associated with
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects.--EPA has previously
stated its intention to use a cleanup level within the range of 2 parts
per trillion (for residential) to 200 ppt (for industrial) for the ETC
site. The State of Florida uses a 7 ppt level for a residential cleanup
and is requesting the use of that standard at another Florida
woodtreating Superfund site. But this RI/FS states that the dioxin TEQ
cleanup standard EPA now plans to use at ETC is 5 to 20 ppb (5,000 to
20,000 parts per trillion). This very low standard for the ETC cleanup
will leave substantial amounts of dioxin, a potent toxicant associated
with a wide variety of serious carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
effects.
Background sampling, intended to ascertain the natural or
typical levels of contaminants existing in area soils, was conducted on
the ETC site itself.--In a striking departure from Superfund guidance,
``background'' samples were obtained onsite. Over the years, especially
during 40 years of woodtreating activities and EPA's own massive soil
excavation, both strong winds and stormwater runoff have carried ETC
contaminants in all directions. EPA's own Action Memoranda from 1992
and 1993 noted work interruptions and contaminant migration due to
severe weather. These onsite locations have no credibility as
``background.''
Dieldrin, a now banned pesticide found at very high levels
on and around the site, is being ignored by EPA in cleanup plans.--EPA
fails to consider this dangerous pesticide in determining cleanup
procedures, even though dieldrin was found at ETC at hundreds of times
the ``safe'' level.
According to an Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Public Health Statement, ``Aldrin and dieldrin were widely used from
the 1950's to the early 1970's. . . . Dieldrin . . . has been used in
treatment of wood . . .'' (in addition to agricultural uses) It is
described as persistent in soil and a potential health threat to
cleanup workers at waste sites through inhalation and absorption
through the skin. Since historical uses of dieldrin connect it with
wood treatment, EPA should be including the presence of high levels of
dieldrin in ETC cleanup plans.
EPA is allowing contaminated groundwater to spread in a
complex plume toward Bayou Texar and toward drinking water wells.--In
the 9 years since beginning the original excavation, when ETC's threat
to groundwater was stated as the justification for the dig, EPA has
done nothing to treat or contain ETC's contaminated groundwater. EPA
intends to finalize a decision on the surface soils at ETC very soon
but only now is beginning consideration of a plan to clean the
groundwater. This failure follows the precedent EPA set at the nearby
Agrico Superfund site: letting ``natural attenuation'' disperse the
toxic contaminants into the environment. But ETC's contaminants are an
even greater threat to public health and the environment than those of
the Agrico site. Soil cleanup and groundwater cleanup should be
considered and decided together.
The risk assessment ignores the potential for human
exposure to groundwater through drinking water and food.--Even a soil
cleanup separate from groundwater cleanup should include the
groundwater exposure potential in its risk assessment. A person who
might come in contact with ETC, soils, dust, or fumes might also be
exposed to the site's contaminants through drinking water from affected
wells and/or from eating local seafood and produce from gardens
contaminated by wastes from ETC. No decision on soil cleanup should be
made without considering these pathways of exposure, especially since
soil cleanup levels to protect groundwater are more stringent than
those to protect against direct human exposure.
The risk assessment ignores the need for protection of the
groundwater from leaching of benzo(a)pyrene and dioxin TEQ from ETC
soils.--EPA has found both dioxin and benzo(a)pyrene in groundwater,
but the RI/FS cleanup standards fail to consider the protection of
groundwater from these chemicals. [note: Although dioxin is usually
thought to cling to soils and not to be soluble in water, it can be
dissolved in water in the presence of solvents, as is the case at ETC.]
The risk assessment ignores cumulative risks.--The RI/FS
fails to evaluate the human health threat posed by exposure to several
contaminants even though each may be below its respective risk level.
The NCP requires the consideration of additive effects of multiple
contaminants.
There is insufficient data on the contaminated soil
stockpiled onsite.--EPA has not yet carried out enough testing of this
255,000 cubic yards (344,250 tons) of contaminated soil to make an
informed decision. Excavated during 1991-93 and known as ``Mt. Dioxin''
for the extraordinary (as high as 1.09 parts per million) of dioxin
TEQ, the stockpile also contains high levels of pentachlorophenol,
creosote, arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene, dieldrin, napthalene, toluene,
xylene, benzene, copper, chromium, and more. During the excavation, 41
55-gallon drums of unknown chemical wastes were added to these
materials, further compounding the lack of reliable data on what is
assumed to be the largest portion of site contaminants to be
remediated. It is not rational to proceed toward a cleanup decision
without this information.
There is insufficient data on toxic wastes below the
stockpile and under the two pits from which contaminated soil was
removed.--EPA has not obtained adequate information about the levels
and total amounts of contamination under Mt. Dioxin and under the
excavation pits onsite. Even though during 1991-93 EPA noted that the
contamination extended below the 48, pits and appeared to include non-
aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs), no further testing was performed on
these contaminants for the RI/FS.
The RI/FS is hampered by the large numbers and large
amounts of unidentified and tentatively identified compounds.--These
substances must be identified and quantified before decisions
concerning cleanup criteria are made.
The RI/FS sets out a plan to select a cleanup method first
and then characterize the full kind and extent of the contamination.--
The data gaps described above may lead to errors in assessing the total
amounts and types of contamination to be remediated and the efficacy of
various cleanup methods. In effect, EPA is making important decisions
without necessary information.
EPA further compounds the lack of information about the
contamination by selecting a cleanup method before adequate
treatability testing establishes the viability of a chosen cleanup
technology.--If information on the kinds, levels, and amounts of
contamination is incomplete and there is inadequate testing of a
technology to demonstrate that it will work on the actual ETC soils,
then the logical basis for the cleanup choice is absent.
Since 1991 when the ETC soil excavation began, Region 4 has shown
little interest in protection of public health. If the ``emergency
removal'' at ETC had been confined to the relatively routine cleanup of
drums, lab, transformer, and boiler, nearby residents would have
welcomed it. Instead, Region 4 bulldozed the asbestos boiler building
and then began excavation of the very contaminated soil and sludge
without determining the magnitude of the problem. Years of accumulated
woodtreating wastes blew in the wind, and nearby residents suffered
serious effects from acute exposures. No protective measures were
taken. Separated from residential yards by nothing more than a broken
chain-link fence, the excavation created a straight 40-foot drop from
the yards bordering the site. Several properties had to be shored up to
keep them from falling in the huge pits; the foundation of one home was
cracked. From October 1991 through November 1992, workers in
``moonsuits'' dredged up toxic soil less than 15 feet from children
playing in their own yards.
In 1995, Region 4 took two actions with respect to the Agrico
Chemicals site, both strongly protested by CATE and other local
interests and both favoring the potentially responsible party (the
polluter) over public health and the environment:
1. The surface soils were excavated and gathered into an onsite
``containment'' (landfill) which is in fact open underneath and on two
sides. Like the ETC dig, this procedure went ahead during hurricane
season (indeed, during two hurricanes), without protection for the
residents, who at that time were awaiting a decision on the possible
ETC relocation.
2. Region 4 approved ``natural attenuation'' for the Agrico
groundwater plume, in effect 70 years of monitoring but no remediation.
In 1998, Region 4 issued the flawed ETC RI/FS, which sets the stage
for similar errors at ``Mt. Dioxin.''
Our community has nowhere to turn but to the National Ombudsman's
Office. As presently structured, the regional ombudsmen lack the
independence and impartiality to resolve such problems, which seem to
exist in many of the regions. Only the National Superfund Ombudsman has
the objectivity and the credibility to resolve disparities, conflicts,
and inconsistencies so that the program will conform to Superfund law
and rules. A strong, independent, adequately staffed and funded
National Ombudsman's Office, authorized in accordance with the American
Bar Association standards, is essential to keep Superfund operating as
Congress has directed. The Superfund program is far too important to
operate without accountability to citizens.
Thank you for this opportunity to present CATE's concerns as a
written statement for the record.
______
South Central Idaho Tourism and
Recreation Development Association,
Ride The Great Rift,
September 27, 2000.
Hon. Bob Smith, Chairman,
Environment and Public Works Committee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: SB 1915, Small Community Assistance Act; SB 2296, Project SEARCH
Dear Chairman Smith: The following language is submitted as
testimony in support of, and urging expedited passage of the above
referenced legislation. We respectfully request that these comments be
made a part of the official record of the formal hearing held by the
committee on Monday, September 26, 2000. As chairman of this
association, I attended those hearings for the expressed purpose of
demonstrating the importance of this legislation to the future of small
communities.
The South Central Idaho Tourism and Recreation Development
Association is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation that operates in 13
counties in South Central Idaho and is governed by a board of directors
of 24 members. Our mission statement is to promote and support public
and private partnerships in order to provide tourism and recreation
visitor services, to ensure appropriate use of regional, cultural
aboard natural resources, stimulation of economic development and job
creation. We have had considerable experience with proposals and
purposes outlined both of these bills and can demonstrate positive, on
the grounds, community-based results, that have resulted from our
participation in these type of activities.
sb 1915
We have had specific success working with the SCAS in the past and
have developed genuine respect for the importance of their role in
assisting small communities. As dictated by our mission statement, we
are focused on working on behalf of rural and small communities. The
following language, which I believe describes the mutual benefit of
cooperation rather than confrontation, was developed during our early
dialog with SCAS. I believe our experience demonstrates the importance
and power of SCAS having it own clear, unfiltered voice directly to
EPA.
Traditional command control relationships dearly do not work in
this relationship, so what will? Helping small communities protect
natural resources through the application of sustainable, livable and
smart growth community development and planning strategies requires
Federal agencies to participate in multi-level partnerships that are
initiated and lead by locally-elected officials and grassroots
community leadership. These partnerships, public/private and local/
State/Federal, are the only practicable way to truly integrate the
diverse components that are necessary to actually execute and follow
through with specific actions and strategies to ensure long term
success and positive outcomes. These kinds of local projects build on
the foundation of national environmental goals and standards expressed
in law and regulation. The link between national policies, locally-
driven environmental protection strategies, and sustainable
development, may be best defined by the commitment of technical and
financial resources from Federal agencies fully cooperating with
locally-elected leaders. Relying entirely on the regulatory-enforcement
process without a partnership relationship, limits the chances that the
61 million people living in rural and small community areas will reap
the benefits of national environmental standards and policies. Only by
approaching small community environmental protection in a way that is
energized and guided by local goals will we achieve locally important
environmental protection standards and sustain the local cultural,
natural and historical resources that are so vital to our national
well-being. Without these Federal/local partnerships, locally important
natural resources such as the Snake River Plain Regional Aquifer and
the wetlands and threatened migration routes in Northampton County, VA
will continue to suffer indifference and significant degradation.
From the intent of this language, draft recommendations were
developed by SCAS and subsequently used by our association to seek
planning grant assistance from EPA for a significant regional eco-
toursism and recreation park. This project is designed to protect the
point source aquifer and drinking water source of a city of 35,000
inhabitants, as well as, protect the pristine rim of the Snake River
Canyon from development in perpetuity. The SCAS recommendations we
followed were as follows:
Develop a rural environmental policy and program to
promote innovative and local-driven compliance strategies, sustainable
development, smart growth and livable community efforts for small towns
and rural areas.
Work with other Federal agencies in a coordinated manner
to support locally-driven small town sustainable development, smart
growth, and livable community initiatives.
To the extent that any existing and proposed grant
programs (including Sustainable Development Challenge Grants and
Brownfields Redevelopment Grants, etc.) deal with sustainable
development projects, smart growth and livable communities, EPA should
emphasize small town and rural community projects.
Provide technical assistance either directly or through
third party providers to small communities to plan, apply for and
implement planning incentives for sustainable development, smart
growth, and livable community projects and resources.
Recognize, support and promote the Snake River Plain
Aquifer eco-tourism project and the Northampton County Virginia
Sustainable Community Development Action Plan as outstanding examples
of small town sustainability, livability and smart growth community
development efforts.
Support the Conference of Southern County Association's
effort to develop a sustainable community development ``How To'' manual
to assist elected small town officials using the Snake River Plain
Aquifer eco-tourism project and the Northampton County Virginia
Sustainable Community Development Action Plan as models.
Export to the Small Community Advisory Subcommittee,
within 2 years of the adoption of these recommendations, on the
progress made, both within and outside of the Agency, toward
implementing small town sustainable development, smart growth and
livable community programs, projects and initiatives across the Nation.
Based on the draft recommendations developed with SCAS, we invoked
a similar philosophy and presented EPA with a specific proposal for
developing a regional eco-tourism park. We requested planning and
financial assistance from EPA based the following work plan:
Background
The tracts of land described in this issue paper are located in
Jerome County (County), north of the Snake River Canyon, south of I-84,
west of the Hansen Bridge (Exit 182), east Highway 93, and west of
Auger Falls. (See attached map). Approximately 7,300 acres are
currently owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1,646 acres
owned by the Idaho Department of Lands (State) and 400 acres are held
in three privately-owned parcels. The project objective is to develop
the consolidated parcels into a regional multi-use tourism and
recreation area. The intent is to set aside these lands in perpetuity
for public access and use, while at the same time, focusing on
protection and preservation of the natural beauty, cultural resources,
open spaces and environmental sensitivity of these parcels. The project
would include protecting 9 miles of the Snake River Canyon in
perpetuity. Programs would be developed to feature the cultural,
historical, and natural resources of the area.
The Draft of the Bennett Hills RMP identified the BLM portion of
these public lands for disposal. Of the 800 public comment letters
received, 500 were in favor of retaining the lands east of Highway 93
primarily for public recreational use. For BLM to follow through with
the wishes expressed in public comment letters for a multi use
recreational use facility, it would be require a tax payers investment
of $3-$4 million and $300,000 per year to administer the area. BLM
currently expends $15,000-$20,000 per year on limited recreational,
mineral and law enforcement activities on the site. In 1996, Jerome
completed and adopted a revised Jerome Joint Agency Comprehensive Plan
(Comp Plan). The Comp Plan designated lands around the I-84/Hwy 93
interchange (Exit 173) as a commercial zone designed to expand Jerome
County's tax base. Lands west of Highway 93 and south of 1-84 were
designated primarily for residential development. (BLM commented on the
Comp Plan but disposition of their public lands was not specifically
addressed pending completion of the final RMP.) The Comp Plan also
includes provisions for a preservation zone to protect the integrity of
the Snake River Canyon Rim from development.
Seventy percent of the potable water supply of the city of Twin
Falls (Twin Falls) is derived from the aquifer under these lands. Twin
Falls has a vested interest in future disposition of these lands in
order to provide for wellhead protection to this resource. Twin Falls
has presented a proposed Wellhead Protection Ordinance and map to
Jerome County that would prohibit future commercial development in this
area.
The College of Southern Idaho (CSI) is the principal post secondary
educational institution in the area and is funded as a taxing district
in Jerome and Twin Falls Counties. CSI has a strong interest in
establishing a world class aquifer research center in partnership with
Idaho State University (ISU), the University of Idaho (UofI) and Boise
State University (BSU) at a pristine location, within the boundaries of
the proposed set aside area. A component of these plans includes a
living laboratory at Devil's Corral, one of the last pristine
ecosystems along the Snake River Canyon. The research center would
develop science and data to support litigation claims pending in the
Basin 36 Adjudication Court and issues surrounding potential impact on
aquifer contamination from nuclear waste at INEEL. In addition to its
scientific value, the center would serve as an educational complex and
a regional tourism interpretation and redistribution center.
The South Central Idaho Tourism and Recreation Development
Association, Inc. (SCITRDA) is a 501(c)3 non-profit public/private
partnership that represents 13 counties and has an elected board of
directors of 20 members. SCITRDA's mission is to develop and manage
regional tourism and recreation opportunities and contribute to
enhancement of sustainable economic development and creation of quality
employment opportunities. SCITRDA currently has a written contract with
the county to design, develop and finance this project from grants and
other private sector resources. A primary objective of SCITRDA is to
use the site as a focal point of their strategic plan to establish
Southern Idaho as a recognizable tourism destination that will
contribute to economic diversification and job creation in the region.
Decisions to be Made
BLM will exchange mutually agreed upon parcels with the State for
parcels that will generate revenue for the educational endowment fund.
BLM will also trade parcels of equal value with the owners of the
privately held parcels. One of the privately held parcels (128 acres)
is being be gifted to CSI for exchange purposes to generate endowment
funds similar to the State exchange. Once the parcels are consolidated
into a single parcel, BLM will lease the area within the boundary of
the proposed park to Jerome County on a long term R&PP Lease. A 1,300
acre portion of the BLM land west of Highway 93 will be acquired by
Jerome County at non-competitive fair market value (approximately 1,300
acres @ $300=$390,000). Funding for this interim transaction will be
provided by a private sector foundation and have no impact on Jerome
County taxpayers. These lands will eventually be resold for residential
development that is consistent with the intent of the Comp Plan.
Proceeds from the sale of residential land will be used exclusively as
matching funds for grants to develop the park complex. All future
funding responsibilities under the proposed scenario would become the
responsibility of the ``Public/Private Partnership'' and be managed by
SCITRDA. None of these transactions will require the support of local
taxpayers.
Expected Results: This project has the potential to be a win-win-
win-win proposal. The integrity of the Snake River Canyon rim is
protected from future development. The public will receive a wonderful
recreation area that has world class geological, historical, and
cultural resources. It will alleviate the aquifer contamination
concerns of the city of Twin Falls. Idaho's educational institutions
receive a research center for expanded scientific and educational
endeavors. BLM alleviates the funding drain required to police the area
in its current condition. The tourism industry gets a new resource that
will provide a destination identity and interpretation of the area's
recreational resources. This expanded tourism opportunity will provide
sustainable economic diversification and employment opportunities. And
finally, control of Federal lands is being transferred to local control
and private sector operation at no cost to the local taxpayer.
Because of our affiliation with and the role we played as a model
project supported by SCAS, and the collaborative manner in which we
approached the process, I am pleased to report that our project
planning request was funded by EPA in the following manner:
EPA Office of Water: $45,000
EPA Region X: $22,500
EPA Office of Planning, Economy and Innovation: $22,500
Idaho Power Company Match: $25,000
Today, some 2 years after we initiated the process, our project is
fully operational. We hired nationally recognized consultants who are
in the process of preparing a community-based communications plan,
natural, cultural and environmental-based resource plan, and initiating
appropriate levels of NEPA compliance. We expect to have a community-
based communications model and natural resource based land use plan
completed by December 2000.
Our project strongly subscribes to the principles of
sustainability, livability, and smart growth, because they are not only
good for the environment, but are good economic development strategies
as well. The reality for rural communities is that we must work
together collaboratively with all sectors if we are to succeed--we must
learn to farm our own local driven initiatives rather than depending on
Government mandated and funded projects The public/private partnership
we have created provides a win-win equation for success for all its
stakeholders. We honor and thank the SCAS and EPA for their active
participation in this creative initiative. We pledge in return, to
provide a transferability message to other rural and small communities
that can benefit from implementation of similar strategies. I believe
this success demonstrates why it is necessary to maintain SCAS for the
benefit of small communities and demonstrates the value and advantage
of having a clear, un-filtered voice to work directly with EPA. Passage
of SB 1915 will ensure that SCAS can maintain that level of
effectiveness in representing the needs of small communities.
sb 2296
The Project SEARCH legislation equally important to the survival of
rural communities. Many small communities are faced with the trauma of
complying with Federal mandates with not enough resources available to
even understand the problem. In most cases small communities do not
even have paid staff or funding available to even assess the smallest
part of these mandates.
The pilot version of Project SEARCH in Idaho, demonstrated how a
minimal amount of money, administered by a community-based organization
at the local level, can make a huge impact on the lives of citizens in
small communities. Rural Idaho communities were facing many of the
environmental challenges seen throughout the United States, including
the protection of groundwater, the disposal of waste water, the
protection of critical habitat, and many others. Yet these small
communities found themselves without the financial resources to
undertake the size and scope of project necessary to respond to
environmental challenges.
The 1999 initial grant of $1.3 million from EPA was issued to a
local non-profit. This regional planning association, the Region IV
Development Association, has considerable experience with grant
processes and helping small communities. The association created a
simple grant application that any part-time city official or mayor
could complete. A notice of the grant program availability and an
application was sent to all of Idaho's counties and all cities with a
Census population of less than 2,500. Application review was a locally
driven process by a seven member Citizens Advisory Committee. The
Committee was comprised of one representative appointed by the local
board of each of Idaho's six economic development planning regions, and
one person who brought to the group his experience as a small town
mayor and with the SCAS. This experienced individual served as the
committee's chair. These seven individuals reviewed the applications
and made the funding decisions. Of the 47 applications received, were
able to fund only 21. The funded applications ranged from a low of
$9,000 for a facility plan so that a housing authority could solve its
wastewater problems to a high of $319,000 for part of the funding
needed for construction of a wastewater treatment facility in a very
sensitive environmental area. Examples of a few of the projects and
attributes is as follows:
A community 150 installed its first wastewater treatment
system using the community residents for the needed labor. The people
of this community will be hooking up homes to the new system this fall.
Without Project SEARCH assistance, this project would still be years
away from completion.
The demonstration project grant from EPA required a 45-
percent match. This program was structured so that each individual
community would not be required to come up with a 45-percent match--but
rather that the overall program would be responsible for meeting the
match requirement. The small towns were able to match their Project
SEARCH Grants with local resources ranging from 14 percent up to about
87 percent.
The project maintained full accountability the EPA grant
being awarded to an experienced local non-profit. Through this
combination of local direction and Federal partnering enabled more
direct infrastructure building/environmental problem solving dollars to
get to the communities that if EPA had awarded individual grants.
The pilot Project SEARCH enables 21 Idaho communities to
solve or make major strides in solving their environmental problems
that could not have been done otherwise.
SCITRDA's neighbor to the part project, the Jerome Water and Sewer
District, was awarded a $20,000 SEARCH Grant for planning study to
determine the feasibility of installing a state-of-the-art wastewater
treatment facility. Implementation of wastewater treatment
infrastructure will allow the development of a significant residential
development that is consistent with the tenants of the Jerome County
Comprehensive Plan. Proceeds from the sale of these lands will be
diverted to an endowment fund to support on-going operation of the
above referenced park project. We believe that this demonstrates that
SB 1915 and SB 2296 are not only complimentary, but collaborative in
nature. We urge passage of both bills in order to assist and sustain
the integrity and health of our small communities.
Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter. We
would urge you to report these bills out of committee for further
consideration at your earliest opportunity.
Sincerely yours,
Steven L. Thorson,
Chairman.
______
USPIRG,
June 14, 2000.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Hon. Richard Gephardt,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: Our organizations submit this letter in
support of H.R. 3656, the Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 2000, or
amendments to the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act
for fiscal year 2001 that are made on the House floor that would
implement H.R. 3656. This legislation will greatly aid citizens'
efforts to ensure that their need and views are fully considered in the
EPA's decisionmaking process regarding Superfund and other toxic waste
sites. Many Members of Congress have worked with the Ombudsman's Office
and there is bipartisan support for the vital role this office plays.
The EPA National Ombudsman, or ``EPA watchdog,'' receives requests
and complaints from Members of Congress and citizens concerning
Superfund and other hazardous materials programs and conducts
investigations into those complaints. The EPA National Ombudsman then
makes findings of facts and non-binding recommendations to the EPA on
how to resolve the dispute(s).
The numerous communities who have felt the EPA was unresponsive to
community needs, the National Ombudsman has assisted in resolving
problems. The EPA National Ombudsman's Office has investigated and
brought to resolution conflicts at Superfund sites around the Nation.
For example, over the last 8 years, the National Ombudsman's Office has
helped citizens from the States of California, Colorado, Florida,
Idaho, Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. In
some instances, assistance was in response to a request from Members of
Congress. Likewise, citizens and Members of Congress have praised the
work of the Ombudsman's Office. Enclosed is a recent Tampa Tribune
editorial entitled ``Eroding Credibility of the EPA,'' that highlights
the type of conflicts the Ombudsman often works hard to resolve and a
Washington Post article that illustrates some of his accomplishments.
Essential to our support for the Ombudsman's reauthorization is the
American Bar Association's (ABA) Model Ombudsman Statute as referenced
in this legislation. The ABA Standards embodied in this Model Statute
will provide the Ombudsman with the ability to convene public hearings
and meetings on the record; interview witnesses or the record; subpoena
witnesses and documents relevant to Ombudsman investigations; and
select and conduct cases with critical independence from the EPA. It is
also essential that the EPA National Ombudsman's Office have adequate
resources to operate effectively.
For over 20 years the ABA's ``twelve essential characteristics''
have provided guidance to mainstream public-sector Ombudsman positions
across the country (see attachments). The States of Alaska, Nebraska,
Hawaii, Iowa, and Arizona have empowered their Ombudsmen with some of
these essential characteristics. A number of Federal agencies also have
Ombudsman positions with some aspects of the ``twelve essential
characteristics'' including the IFS, FDA, and Commerce Department.
Some Members of Congress have expressed concerns that this
legislation would give too much power to the Ombudsman. However, the
legislation imposes important limitations on the role the Office plays.
For example, under the amendment, the Ombudsman does not have the
direct power to: (1) compel and decision; (2) make, change, or set
aside a law, policy or administrative/managerial decision, nor to
compel an entity or any person to make those changes; or (3) substitute
for an administrative or judicial proceeding for determining anyone's
rights.
The EPA National Ombudsman serves the invaluable function of being
the last recourse available to Superfund communities. The Ombudsman is
also, in some cases, the first office to adequately investigate and
resolve the problems faced by communities and individuals affected by
hazardous waste. We respectfully submit that reauthorization, as
described above, would allow the EPA National Ombudsman's Office to
continue providing a vital service to the American public.
Sincerely,
20/20 Vision, Washington, DC; Alaska Forum for
Environmental Responsibility, Valdez, AK;
Alberton Community Coalition for
Environmental Health, Alberton, MT;
American Friends Service Committee,
Northeast Ohio Office, Akron, OH; American
Lands Alliance, Washington, DC; Arrest the
Incinerator Remediation, Lockhaven, PA;
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability,
Washington, DC; Alliance to End Childhood
Lead Poisoning, Washington, DC; Brio
Community Group, Houston, TX; Campaign to
Safeguard America's Waters, Earth Island
Institute, Haines, AK; Cetacean Society
International, Georgetown, CT; Chemical
Weapons Working Group, Berea, KY; Citizens
Advocating Responsible Treatment, Coeur
d'Alene, ID; Citizens Against Toxic
Exposure, Pensacola, FL; Citizens
Progressive Alliance, Denver, CO; Clean Air
Hotline, Port Angeles, WA; Clean Water
Action, Washington, DC; Cold Mountain-Cold
Rivers, Missoula, MT; Committee for Clean
Air and Water, Tarpon Springs, FL. ;
Committee to Bridge the Gap, Los Angeles,
Sacramento, and Santa Cruz, CA; Common
Ground, Berea, KY; Concerned Citizens of
Lake Township, Uniontown, OH; Cook Inlet
Keeper, Homer, AK; Don't Waste Arizona,
Phoenix, AZ; Environmental Association for
Great Lakes Education, Duluth, MN; Friends
of Miller Peninsula State Park, Port
Angeles, WA; Friends of the Earth,
Washington, DC; Galveston-Houston,
Association for Smog Prevention, Houston,
TX; Government Accountability Project,
Washington, DC; Global Response, Boulder,
CO; Glynn Environmental Coalition,
Brunswick, GA; Grand Canyon Trust,
Flagstaff, AZ; Greenpeace, Washington, DC;
Greenwatch, Jersey Shore, PA; Idaho
Conservation League, Boise, ID;
International Marine Mammal, Project of
Earth Island Institute, San Francisco, CA;
Kentucky Environmental Foundation, Berea,
KY; Kootenai Environmental Alliance, Coeur
d'Alene, ID; Lead Safe Idaho, Buhl, ID;
Mangrove Action Project, Port Angeles, WA;
Mineral Policy Center, Washington, DC;
Mission Society of St. Gregorius, Salt Lake
City, UT; Montana-CHEER, Missoula, MT; Non-
Stockpile Chemical Weapons Coalition,
Berea, KY; North-Missoula Community
Development Corporation, Missoula, MT;
Olympic Environmental Council, Sequim, WA;
Overland Neighborhood Environmental Watch,
Overland Park, CO; Peace and Justice Action
League of Spokane, Spokane, WA; People for
a Liveable Community, Port Townsend, WA;
PEER New England, Lexington, MA;
Pennsylvania Environmental Network, Fumble,
PA; PiPa-Tag, Tarpon Spring, FL; Protect
the Peninsula's Future, North Olympic
Peninsula, WA; Public Citizen, Washington,
DC; Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility, Washington, DC; Project On
Government Oversight, Washington, DC;
Quincy Concern, Quincy, WA; Rocky Mountain
Peace and Justice Center, Boulder, CO;
Salmon and Wildlife Advocates, Sequim, WA;
Service Employees International Union
(SEIU), Washington, DC; Site Specific
Advisory Board, Rocky Mountain Arsenal,
Commerce City, CO; Silicon Valley Toxics
Coalition, San Jose, CA; Silver Valley
People's Action Coalition, Kellogg, ID;
Spirit Tree, Indianapolis, IN; Squirt
Irrigation, Kellogg, ID; SUMAC Association,
Philadelphia, PA; Summitville TAG/
Summitville Superfund Site, Del Norte, CO;
Tongass Conservation Society, Ketchikan,
AK; Trans Alaska Gas System Environmental
Review Committee, Anchorage, AK; Tri-State
Environmental Council, Chester, WV; U.S.
Public Interest Research Group, Washington,
DC.
______
Olympic Environmental Council,
Port Angeles, WA, September 25, 2000.
Hon. Robert Smith, Chair,
Hon. Max Baucus, Chair,
Environment and Public Works Committee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Attn: Alistair Hubbell
RE: S1763 Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 2000
Dear Senators Smith and Baucus: The Olympic Environmental Council
(OEC) is a coalition of citizens in Jefferson and Clallam Counties in
the State of Washington. We work to protect human health and the
environment for present and future generations. OEC has formed a
coalition with western WA educational, health and environmental
organizations working to protect our community and State and Federal
aquatic lands that have been contaminated by a pulp mill.
OEC is writing in support of Senate bill 1763, the Ombudsman
Reauthorization Act of 2000, that will be under consideration in your
September 26 Environment and Public Works Committee hearing. This
legislation would ensure the future functioning of the EPA National
Ombudsman Office, with adequate funding, powers, and independence to
function appropriately under the nationally and internationally
recognized American Bar Association (ABA) guidelines.
The Ombudsman Office is an important part of a democratic system of
government. It serves Superfund communities and others most directly
affected by toxic exposure, serving as a ``watchdog'' and final
recourse when citizens feel they have not received justice elsewhere in
their cases. In many cases, the National Ombudsman has been the first
agency person to actually listen to the complaints of citizens and
elected officials' and to work toward resolution. In our case, it was
only through the auspices of this Office, and after 8 years of trying
to get government help, that citizens succeeded in getting us
government help.
A well known pulp mill polluter for over 60 years, Rayonier, Inc.,
Washington State's primary polluter for a number of years they were in
operation, smothered our air, waters, and soils with highly toxic
materials. Only with Ombudsman help were citizens able to get site
assessments under the Superfund laws when Rayonier closed their mill
and tried to leave the citizens to clean it up at public expense. The
pollution has also greatly impacted Federal and State aquatic lands.
Still, today, governments come to the rescue of the corporation to
save it dollars, rather than the sick and dying citizens who have
impaired health and property investments due to the operation of this
mill, leaving use needing the Ombudsman's help to insure governments
overseeing assessments and cleanup do it right.
EPA has ignored citizens most directly affected by toxics in their
community across the country. EPA employees hazardous waste site
assessments are often flawed, allowing the agency to both under
estimate the seriousness of the contamination, and limit the options
for cleanup and remediation.
National Ombudsman help across the country in Washington,
Pennsylvania, Idaho, Montana, Florida, Colorado, and elsewhere, proves
that the role of the National EPA Ombudsman must be adequately secured
with reauthorization, funding, independence according to American Bar
Association standards, and from the agency it must watchdog and,
finally, subpoena power. The Ombudsman should also be in charge of the
workings of the countries ten (10) regional EPA Ombudsmen.
I am highly in favor of strong environmental regulation in our
country and necessary appropriations for ongoing programs and
enforcement capabilities. An important part of this work is the
independent position and funding for a National Ombudsman that brings
us accountability of the EPA itself and how this agency meets its
mandate to protect this Nation's health and environment.
I urge your to support the functioning of this Office at the
National level as S. 1763 is written. Thank you for your consideration
and please include my testimony in the subcommittee hearing record. I
would also appreciate being updated by your office on the progress of
this bill.
Sincerely,
Darlene Schanfald,
Project Director.
______
Pi-Pa-TAG, Inc.,
Tarpon Springs, FL, September 23, 2000.
Hon. Robert Smith, Chair,
Environment and Public Works Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: This letter is presented by the Board of
PiPaTAG, Inc., in full support of Senate bill 1763, the Ombudsman
Reauthorization Act of 1999, which will be under consideration in your
September 26, Environment and Public Works Committee hearing. Pi-Pa-
Tag, Inc., holds a Technical Assistance Grant to provide community
information concerning cleanup of the Stauffer Chemical Superfund Site
in Pinellas County, FL, under EPA Assistance Agreement No. 1994931-01-
0. Our newsletter reaches over 700 concerned citizens at the
intersection of Florida's Pinellas and Pasco counties.
We request that this letter be included as testimony in the
subcommittee hearing record.
PiPaTAG, Inc., believes that this legislation will ensure the
future functioning of the EPA National Ombudsman Office, with adequate
funding, subpoena powers, and independence to function appropriately
under the nationally and internationally recognized American Bar
Association (ABA) guidelines. Without this legislation, it is probable
that many other communities will suffer the same poor treatment from
EPA that has been manifest in our own locality.
The community affected by the Stauffer Chemical Superfund Site near
Tarpon Springs, FL, is shocked at the treatment it has received at the
hands of EPA Region 4. Though EPA has attempted to portray itself as
being in a partnership with the community, observed behaviors point to
the partnership actually being between EPA Region 4 and Stauffer
Management Co. (SMC), the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP).
For years, members of the community have asked reasonable,
legitimate questions about the Stauffer Chemical Superfund Site and the
surrounding area, and for years they have received very few
satisfactory answers. At a number of public meetings, EPA told citizens
that their questions would be answered at a later date, after further
study. Most questions were never answered. Thus, the community was
patronized and denied meaningful participation in the Superfund
process. Though an EPA Technical Assistance Grant was awarded, reports
and comments from the public and from the environmental scientists
under contract as Technical Advisors were, for the most part, ignored.
In some instances, those comments were used as excuses to weaken parts
of the proposed containment project. EPA Region 4 staff has turned
citizens' comments about contamination from the site that has spread
into the surrounding community into excuses to reduce the level of the
remediation on the site itself.
EPA Region 4 promised to clean the site (located within a
residential community) to residential standards, yet they released a
Record of Decision (ROD) with no soil cleanup level for arsenic, the
main chemical contaminant, then resorted to intellectual obfuscation
while they adopted a less-stringent cleanup standard.
Without performing the studies needed to determine potential short-
or long-range safety issues, EPA Region 4 agreed to the remedy chosen
by Stauffer Management Co.'s (SMC) contractor. While EPA Region 4 staff
have staunchly defended the acres of monstrous concretized mounds of
heavy metal and radioactive contaminants included in the proposed
remedy, they evaded questions about the need for hydrogeological
studies to determine the flow of groundwater and the potential for
sinkhole formation beneath those mounds. In spite of obvious lack of
scientific, fiscal, or common sense and ignoring the fact that the site
is over an extremely vulnerable part of the Floridan Aquifer (the major
source of the area's drinking water), they attempted to convince the
community that a second operational unit, begun only after the huge
mounds were completed, would determine the safety of the remedy.
EPA Region 4 professed a strong commitment to working with
community members, yet they sent the Consent Decree to the Department
of Justice over the community's strenuous objections.
Actual proof of the irresponsibility of the actions of EPA Region 4
was not available until the EPA National Ombudsman responded to the
appeals of local citizens and agreed to investigate the situation.
Suddenly, unanswered questions began to be raised in a more public
arena. New questions emerged: through the efforts of the Ombudsman's
Office, the community learned that EPA Region 4 has shielded the PRP by
not taking into account or publicly revealing its knowledge of certain
financial maneuverings of the ownership of the Stauffer Chemical
Superfund Site, maneuverings which place the long-range (and, indeed,
possibly the short-range) fiscal accountability for the site in serious
jeopardy.
Only because of the investigation by the Ombudsman's Office, EPA
Region 4 agreed to withdraw both the original Consent Decree and the
Amended Consent Decree; perform the hydrogeological tests required to
determine the suitability of the proposed remedy for the geological
characteristics of the site prior to implementing the remedy; bring in
special hydrogeological consultants, including the U.S. Geological
Survey; compromise with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection to use Florida's Commercial standards for arsenic cleanup.
They have delayed, but have not abandoned the original proposed remedy,
nor have they reopened the Record of Decision (ROD). Without continued
oversight of this project by the Ombudsman's Office, we citizens know
that EPA will eventually resort to ``business as usual,'' ignoring the
evidence of scientific tests and shielding the true reasons for
decisions in the project.
Documentation for these and other problems associated with Region 4
EPA's handling of this Superfund site can be found posted on Pi-Pa-
TAG's website, www.nucleicassays.com/eco/TAGindex.htm or can be
obtained by request to Pi-Pa-TAG at the address on this letterhead.
We respectfully urge action on Senate bill 1763 to protect the
public from EPA's deliberate or accidental behavior that benefits the
polluter at the expense of the affected citizens.
Sincerely,
John ``Chuck'' Lehr,
President, Pi-Pa-TAG.
Rose Mary Ammons, Ed.D.,
Vice President, Pi-Pa-TAG.
Heather A. Malinowski, D.N.,
Secretary, Pi-Pa-TAG.
______
[From the St. Petersburg Times, August 30, 2000]
Vigilance Wins in Superfund
(Times Editorial)
No one will ever accuse the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of
learning a lesson the easy way. While seeking judicial approval of a
controversial cleanup plan for the Stauffer Chemical Superfund site,
EPA officials offended U.S. Representative Mike Bilirakis, fought with
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, ignored Pinellas
County health officials and angered Tarpon Springs residents.
Now, the EPA has withdrawn the proposed plan from Federal court,
ordered more testing and said it wants to work with all interested
parties. Regaining trust is not going to be that easy.
The cleanup plan was incomplete, if not outright flawed. The EPA
and Stauffer's corporate owner both favored piling 300,000 cubic yards
of contaminated soil into mounds and sealing them below and above
ground to prevent leaks. But the EPA Ombudsman shattered confidence in
that plan by exposing weaknesses in the ``pile and cap'' method at a
comparable site in Denver, saying pollutants could leak into the ground
without being detected.
Stauffer is Pinellas County's only Superfund site and an obvious
threat to human health. It sits on a bank of the Anclote River,
surrounded by houses, businesses and an elementary school. Yet the EPA
ignored county health officials and residents who feared the piled
pollutants would leak into the aquifer or be undermined by a sinkhole.
The Federal agency fought State environmental officials who wanted to
reduce the amount of arsenic left in the soil. And two EPA officials
walked out of a public hearing held by Bilirakis rather than answer
residents' questions.
Given such behavior, EPA officials shouldn't be surprised that much
of the public has lost confidence in the agency. The EPA did the right
thing by stopping the legal process, requiring Stauffer officials to
study the site's geology and signing a cooperative agreement with the
DEP. But EPA project manager John Blanchard won't rule out a return to
the same ``pile and cap'' plan. The burden is on the EPA to persuade
everyone that the next proposed cleanup will protect the environment
and human health.
Call it a temporary victory for residents such as Mary Mosley (who
has been fighting Stauffer pollution for 22 years), politicians
Bilirakis (who supported the EPA Ombudsman's intervention) and State
Senator Jack Latvala (who pressured the DEP to get involved) and county
health department official Mike Flanery (who questioned the plan's
attention to drinking water safety).
We now know there is no substitute for vigilance in the Superfund
process.
______
[From the Tampa Tribune, August 31, 2000]
Finally a Logical Move by EPA
(Tampa Tribune Editorial)
The decision this week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to formally withdraw its plan for cleaning up the Stauffer Chemical
site near Tarpon Springs may not qualify as a true miracle, but it is
darn close.
After years of insensitivity and downright stubbornness, the
country's chief environmental regulatory agency finally pulled the
official consent decree that allows Stauffer Management to leave an
estimated 300,000 cubic yards of hazardous soil onsite. The shelved
plan consists of rounding up an estimated 300,000 cubic yards of
hazardous soil, putting it in a mound, sealing it, and then injecting
it with cement.
After prodding from persistent resident activists, EPA decided
additional tests are needed, including studies to determine the risk of
sinkholes and whether drinking water supplies would be protected. EPA
officials don't deserve much praise for this decision, because these
most important studies should have been undertaken long ago--certainly
before the so-called mound-and-cap method was chosen. As activist Mary
Mosley told a reporter: ``It's a victory for the community. We knew
that you can't fit a remedy without testing for the most obvious.''
But caution and continued persistence is needed in the communities
surrounding the hazardous waste site, which is on the EPA's Superfund
list as one of the Nation's most contaminated. Some EPA officials were
quick to point out Monday the proposed mount-and-cap cleanup method has
not been totally ``scrapped.'' Such comments are disheartening, because
they do not reflect an open mind--one reason many in the community are
distrustful of EPA officials. EPA officials must keep an open mind
during this review and study period.
The EPA is charged with protecting the environment and health of
residents, and it has a duty to require Stauffer Management to
undertake a cleanup method that will accomplish that without any
doubt--no matter the cost to the company. As U.S. Representative Mike
Bilirakis, R-Palm Harbor, said in a statement: ``We must all remain
actively involved in this process to secure a cleanup of the Stauffer
site consistent with the public health and safety.''